Bond - finished off for good?

[Richard]

no the point is that you seemed to deny that bond ever bowled well outside of the seaming conditions and poor batting lineups,when he quite clearly hasnt,and that too without watching that series....

No, I never did anything of the sort - I presume he bowled well in West Indies, I presume the conditions didn't offer much to seamers there, given that Scott Styris scored a century and half-century in the same match.
However, he didn't bowl especially well in Sri Lanka, otherwise he'd have got a decent average. No-one can bowl penetratively and get a poor average, unless they've had lots of catches dropped off wicket-taking balls.

it is true if you would only be able to take another persons viewpoint instead of sticking to what you believe is true when its quite clearly false and has been shown on several occasions on the cricket field

No, it hasn't been shown as false - if it had, I would not be stupid enough to carry-on arguing that it is true.
There have been instances that contravene it, but because there have been far more instances that back it up, the contradictions are irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

Richard is too full of Harmison to notice any other pace bowler.

I thought Richard was more anti-Harmison than pro?

Correct Tim.

Indeed a bizarre comment by Mr. Scarlet.
Even if I was kidding myself the way plenty of England fans are that Harmison is suddenly an all-time great after 6 good Test-matches, it wouldn't stop me giving Bond some credit if he'd earned it.
My point is, though, he hasn't - it's assumed he's given far more compelling evidence of his Test credentials than he actually has.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I never did anything of the sort - I presume he bowled well in West Indies, I presume the conditions didn't offer much to seamers there, given that Scott Styris scored a century and half-century in the same match.
However, he didn't bowl especially well in Sri Lanka, otherwise he'd have got a decent average.

no if you watched that series you will see that he only really bowled badly in one inning and thats not very bad at all given the conditions

No-one can bowl penetratively and get a poor average, unless they've had lots of catches dropped off wicket-taking balls.

and not many people can be all that penetrative in those conditions....

 

[Will Scarlet]

My apologies Richard. I must have been reading another thread prior to writing that. It was probably Marc. He tends to rattle on about Harmison being the world's greatest pace bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Erm, I'd like you to show me where I've said that, because I sure as hell don't remember ever saying that.

 

[Richard]

no if you watched that series you will see that he only really bowled badly in one inning and thats not very bad at all given the conditions

and not many people can be all that penetrative in those conditions....

Donald, Chaminda, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, to name some recent examples.
Yes, they're still very few but the point is some people have tried suggesting Bond is as good as them.
My point is there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that.

 

[Nate]

you never said it, but you were thinkin it, or else you wouldnt of asked

 

[tooextracool]

Donald, Chaminda, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, to name some recent examples.
Yes, they're still very few but the point is some people have tried suggesting Bond is as good as them.
My point is there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that.

ive never suggested anything of the sort...my point was simply that bond bowled better in SL than what you were suggesting and i dont see any reason why he couldnt have improved to bowl as well as the bowlers on that list have been.

 

[Richard]

you never said it, but you were thinkin it, or else you wouldnt of asked

I was, now, was I?
So how can you know that, then? Are you a thought-reader by words off the keyboard?
Or are you making assumptions?
Somehow I think the latter is infinately the more likely.

 

[Richard]

ive never suggested anything of the sort...my point was simply that bond bowled better in SL than what you were suggesting and i dont see any reason why he couldnt have improved to bowl as well as the bowlers on that list have been.

Maybe he could. But some people (note - I have not said including you) have suggested he is already as good as them.
I think they are all likely to have performed better in Sri Lanka than he did.
So even if you think he didn't bowl as poorly as I'm suggesting, it's not relevant here.

 

[Nate]

then why did you ask him? just a friendly chat with a guy who you are arguing with?

 

[Richard]

Well, yes, obviously.
I respect Mr. Halsey rather more than I respect the ideas of some on this board!

 

[anzac]

granted that Bond's stats to date do not rate him as being as something exceptional, yet this is the basis for my earlier comment regarding stats as a sole indicator...........

IMO it is a very tough call to rate a bowler by his stats based upon single series in what have been different / difficult conditions to both what he has been used to in his domestic comp, and for his type of bowling...............

for me the question of relevance is how quickly did he learn & adapt to those conditions during the matches in question, and more so how did he bowl in the subsequent matches (& esp tours) under those same conditions.........

as has been indicated in previous posts Bond's figures tend to suggest he has struggled under these conditions, but has adapted fairly well by the end of the match / tour..........

considering his lack of int experience any comparisson to other int bowlers should be made 'head to head' if possible at the same stage of their int careers & experience in similar conditions..............a rookie is less likely to impress than someone who has been there & done that b4..........

IMO there is no point in comparing his performance in SL to Vaas, as Vaas bowls on those tracks more than most - if anything because of this his 'out bowling' of Vaas is meritorious because of his unfamiliarity to those conditions, as opposed to putting it down to Vass having a bad day at the office.........esp as Vaas has much more int experience & should still be able to out perform most seam bowlers in his own back yard...........

I'm not trying to sugest that Bond IS as good as the likes of Vaas, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald & Co, but I DID think he had the potential to be rated with them on the potential shown (taking his late entry into int cricket into consideration), primarily based upon his pace, accuracey, ability to swing the ball, and the suggestion that he was / is a quick learner & adapts well..........

 

[Richard]

IMO there is no point in comparing his performance in SL to Vaas, as Vaas bowls on those tracks more than most - if anything because of this his 'out bowling' of Vaas is meritorious because of his unfamiliarity to those conditions, as opposed to putting it down to Vass having a bad day at the office.........esp as Vaas has much more int experience & should still be able to out perform most seam bowlers in his own back yard...........

Thing is, history shows Chaminda has always been ridiculously inconsistent - one series he'll average 16, the next 150.
Whether or not he should be exploiting conditions (and IMO his good performances suggest to me that he should do well 9 Test-matches out of 10, rather than 4 or 5), the fact is he doesn't all the time and bowling better than him when he's bowling poorly isn't much of an achievement.