Just out of curiosity - as I've only followed NZ cricket for about eight years, Aussie/SA for about four and world cricket for not long at all - what is it that makes test matches so much more important than ODI's? I mean, I know they're different games, but I've also noticed that when people talk about cricket, they automatically think it's all about test matches - or at the least, they think that they're superior on some level. As if performing well in an ODI didn't mean anything amazing unless you could pull it through to test matches. I, personally, enjoy ODI's a lot more than test matches (although I suppose they are made for entertainment). I do like following test matches, but ODI's just have that certain fun appeal to them. The spirit in the crowd of a day-nighter in a good ground is something special to behold, and I haven't even attended a match yet! It shines through the screen. It just seems much more... fun. Laid back. Happy. Okay, maybe I'm a little weird.
But yeah, take Bond as the inspiration for this. I think he's one of the best bowlers in the world, arguably the best of his kind. However, other people think he's nothing amazing until he shows the same talent in a test match. Do test matches really require that much more talent? I think that if someone can be better than the most of the world at what he does in an ODI, then he is a truely great batter, bowler, captain, wicket keeper, fielder, all rounder, whatever.
Enlighten me, oh wise ones.