Who would you rather face?

[Turbinator]

Just out of curiosity, who'd you rather face:

Shoaib Akhtar (without drugs)
or
Shand Bond (without injuries)
or
Brett Lee

 

[PhoenixFire]

Akhtar because Lee might bowl a beamer.

 

[adharcric]

Shane Bond. I can handle pace and swing on off or middle stump, but I'm very uncomfortable against short deliveries at my head.

 

[Turbinator]

I myself would pick Bond, because I know he's not injured NOW, but by the time he completes his run-up he will be.

 

[nightprowler10]

Shane Bond. I can handle pace and swing on off or middle stump, but I'm very uncomfortable against short deliveries at my head.

Ditto.

 

[silentstriker]

Shane Bond. My life will not be in danger.

 

[open365]

Brett Lee, he's crap.

 

[nightprowler10]

Brett Lee, he's crap.

It won't really matter when he knocks you in your casket with his beamer.

EDIT: 1000 up, and it only took me 2 years.

 

[Perm]

Shane Bond. He is probably a better bowler than both of these guys when he is not injured but he also doesn't bowl many bouncers.

 

[age_master]

Brett Lee, he's crap.

250 ODI wickets at 22.36, i wish i was that crap...

I would rather face Akhtar, i reakon hes the least consistent of the three.

 

[adharcric]

250 ODI wickets at 22.36, i wish i was that crap...

I would rather face Akhtar, i reakon hes the least consistent of the three.

That's a bad thing because he'll be all over the place at 90+ mph.

 

[Matt79]

For avoiding injury - Bond.

For scoring runs (as if! ) - Lee. Probably bowls more bad balls than either Akhtar and Bond when those two are firing, although he's more consistently at his best than those two.

 

[C_C]

I wouldnt care.
When i played cricket, i encountered some really fast ones (over 90mph) but i am pretty short, so i duck everything above chest height and full stuff i just play instinctively...works better..for reasons unknown to me, when it comes to sports, my instinctive side does a lot better than my analytical/planning side though the former rarely comes into play fully.

 

[shortpitched713]

I myself would pick Bond, because I know he's not injured NOW, but by the time he completes his run-up he will be.

I'd go with Lee though. While all these bowlers have the capability to be dangerous (in a wicket taking sense), Lee more often has the tendency to be distinctly ordinary.

Not that it would really matter, as I'd probably crap my pants before I could score any runs.

 

[adharcric]

I wouldnt care.
When i played cricket, i encountered some really fast ones (over 90mph) but i am pretty short, so i duck everything above chest height and full stuff i just play instinctively...works better..for reasons unknown to me, when it comes to sports, my instinctive side does a lot better than my analytical/planning side though the former rarely comes into play fully.

Who were these 90+ mph guys? I would've thought there aren't too many in the world that can do that considering we have less than 10 in international cricket who can pull it off.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If I faced Bond fully fit, I'm sure I wouldn't be facing him for long. The way he swings both the new and old ball is devastating, especially considering the pace at which he does it. Lee can swing the new ball superbly on his day, but I don't consider him as great a threat as Bond with the old ball.

I think Akhtar's biggest threats are the yorker and his slower ball. On the other hand, I think Bond has far more tools to dismiss you with, considering especially that he has a superb yorker.

 

[silentstriker]

I myself would pick Bond, because I know he's not injured NOW, but by the time he completes his run-up he will be.

Thats cold.

 

[Dravid]

Shane Bond, basically because I can play swing pretty well. Not too strong on my hook/pull shot and can't really play a bouncer from Lee, and I would prefer not to face steroid users.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Shane Bond, basically because I can play swing pretty well. Not too strong on my hook/pull shot and can't really play a bouncer from Lee, and I would prefer not to face steroid users.

Highly doubtful that you've ever faced a swing bowler as quick or as high quality as Bond though. I think a lot of people here are equating very ordinary swing with what Bond can produce.

Considering that Akhtar and Lee rely mostly on pace and Bond can be just about as quick as well as swing the ball more than either...

It's really baffling that people here would prefer to face quick bowling that's swinging than quick bowling that isn't.

 

[adharcric]

Shane Bond, basically because I can play swing pretty well. Not too strong on my hook/pull shot and can't really play a bouncer from Lee, and I would prefer not to face steroid users.

You bat just like me.