Bond to bowl again next month

[shaka]

I really hope they dont rush Bond into the team straight away, he is so important for the success of the NZ team, they cannot really afford to injure him into retirement from the game.

His stats are pretty darn impressive with his best ODI bowling coming against the number 1 team in the world (aka Australia), his figures in the World cup against them was 6-23.

 

[Arjun]

Arjun..The current NZ bowlers aren't slow medium, they're just you're average medium fast bowlers which most batsmen see day in day out around club & domestic level.

NZ have 3 up & coming quicks...but they definately won't be ready for another 2 or 3 years at the least. But you might want to watch out for Richard Sherlock, Te Ahu Davis & Leighton Burtt in the future.

Butler has pace...he can get up to 145 km, which isn't that slow. He just has the bad habit of bowling 2 bad balls per over, much like Mohammad Sami does from time to time.

They're not very fast either. If a team plays 4 or 5 seamers, at least one or two of them should bowl at expres pace, to add attack power and a little variety to the bowling options.

 

[Macka]

He's troubled them in ODIs - he did not trouble them in Test-matches. I fail to see how it is so likely to help in the imminent Test-matches.
It's called a misleading average for a reason, too - after that terrible first 2 matches, he managed the extraordinary feat of doing well against Bangladesh, wowee, that means a lot. Also so amazing that he managed to do well in that home India series where any decent seamer would fancy their chances of averaging in the teens.
Bond's only notable achievement in his Test-career was to bowl well on some presumbably-not-especially-helpful wickets in West Indies - and that's offset for me by 2 poor series in Australia and Sri Lanka.

So if a bowler troubles a batsman in ODIs, he won't in tests matches? How does this work? A bowler can bowl more often in tests, but yet he won't trouble them? I really fail to see how you can say this. Is he more or less likely to be effective against the Aussies in tests when he has played well agaisnt them in ODIs? Has Gilchrist forgotten that in swinging yorker that ripped out leg stump? Do you think the Aussies will just take a little more time to look at him? Not many bowlers lately have been able to rip through the Aussie line up, it's not like the infamous NZ middle/top/lower-order clapses, it just doesn't happen to them often.

If he didn't do well against Bangladesh you would be on him in a second. It's a loss-loss situation when playing poor teams like them. You do well and everybody says "they're a poor team", you do badly and everyone says "he couldn't even perform against them". Again you bash him for doing well on seamer friendly wickets, if he hadn't you'd be into him even more.

I image if he had an average against the Aussies of 40 you would be into him stating he simply can't bowl well to them, and hence won't do so in the tests.

 

[Richard]

So if a bowler troubles a batsman in ODIs, he won't in tests matches? How does this work? A bowler can bowl more often in tests, but yet he won't trouble them? I really fail to see how you can say this. Is he more or less likely to be effective against the Aussies in tests when he has played well agaisnt them in ODIs? Has Gilchrist forgotten that in swinging yorker that ripped out leg stump? Do you think the Aussies will just take a little more time to look at him? Not many bowlers lately have been able to rip through the Aussie line up, it's not like the infamous NZ middle/top/lower-order clapses, it just doesn't happen to them often.

How does it work? Err, Test-matches and ODIs are different game-forms, possibly? And we've seen plenty of players who can play one form but not the other.
And in the Test-series Bond played against Australia he averaged 96.33, suggesting he didn't bowl all that well.

If he didn't do well against Bangladesh you would be on him in a second. It's a loss-loss situation when playing poor teams like them. You do well and everybody says "they're a poor team", you do badly and everyone says "he couldn't even perform against them".

Exactly, all the more reason that Bangladesh shouldn't be playing Test-cricket.
In fact, I don't actually criticise him for getting good figures against Bangladesh, I just say they shouldn't have any importance placed on them. So you remove them from the Test-match figures - not difficult.

Again you bash him for doing well on seamer friendly wickets, if he hadn't you'd be into him even more.

No, I don't bash him for doing well on seaming pitches, I just say it should be taken in context, and not be over-hyped, as it wasn't a particularly impressive achievement.

I image if he had an average against the Aussies of 40 you would be into him stating he simply can't bowl well to them, and hence won't do so in the tests.

Eh? He averages 96.33 against Australia. That means that, so far, he hasn't bowled well to them. It doesn't mean he won't in the future, but it does reflect what has happened so far.

 

[Macka]

No one said Bond bowled all that well against the Aussies in his first match. Can't play one form of the game? 43 wickets @ 24? Sounds ok to me.

You can't just remove stats from test match cricket. It's an average, nearly every bowler has the same chances against them.

You seem to be totally ignoring his success in ODIs against them. The Aussies are going to remmeber their last encounter with him, tests or ODIs.

 

[Richard]

No one said Bond bowled all that well against the Aussies in his first match. Can't play one form of the game? 43 wickets @ 24? Sounds ok to me.

You can't just remove stats from test match cricket. It's an average, nearly every bowler has the same chances against them.

Ohoh, yes, you can - that's what interpretation of averages is all about.

You seem to be totally ignoring his success in ODIs against them. The Aussies are going to remmeber their last encounter with him, tests or ODIs.

Not neccesarily - if they're sensible they'll concentrate on the last time they played against him in Test-cricket.

 

[Craig]

No, I've never seen Harmison bowl as badly as Nissanka at his worst! And I've seen Harmison bowl pretty poorly (VB Series games 7, 8 and 10).
You don't seriously think Nissanka has international potential, do you?

Haven't seen Nissanka bowl in well ages, so I can't comment.

I thought Dhilhara Fernando had/has potential as a fast bowler in the world of Test and ODI cricket.

Unfortunatly, injury proness, lack of confidence (ie no balls), and sometimes a lack of economy were his down falls.

But he's got pace, and lots of it, and a great slower ball.

 

[Macka]

You can break down anyone's stats. That's why they use an average. Funnily enough it shows an overall picture. Not just two matches.

It's human nature. I bet anything you ask the Aussies about Bond and they will remember him destroying the Aussie battnig line up in ODIs, they're not about to remember his test debut, because obviously, he isn't that bowler anymore.

The Aussies are going to remember the last instance of them facing Bond, not the first, whether it's tests or ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Well I daresay we'll see whether his ODIs have affected how they play him in Test-matches if he plays against them this winter.
The whole point of averages is that they are supposed to reflect performances in like circumstances.
Playing Bangladesh deserves to contribute to a First-Class average only, not a Test-match one. So therefore by knocking-out Bangladesh games you get a better average.

 

[Kent]

Richard - if any thread proves you perversely relish being contrary and the attention and punishment that often ensues, this one does!

You were woefully short of evidence the first time you had a go about Shane Bond not deserving the hype as a test bowling prospect, and even admitted it yourself I think. Craig made some in-joke about a time zone or something and you said "yes, my time was up."

Incredibly, it seems after a few short months you've dusted yourself off and want to resume a fight that only the more recent CW members will bother with.

 

[Richard]

Richard - if any thread proves you perversely relish being contrary and the attention and punishment that often ensues, this one does!

You were woefully short of evidence the first time you had a go about Shane Bond not deserving the hype as a test bowling prospect, and even admitted it yourself I think. Craig made some in-joke about a time zone or something and you said "yes, my time was up."

Don't remember that exactly, but I remember something along the lines of it.
I'm not woefully short of evidence, I have all I need - Bond's only 3 series which have really provided a true test have produced one success and two failures.
I've never said he's not a prospect, if he can bowl in Tests the way he has done in most ODIs he'll be a very, very big success. All I've ever said is that, at present, he's rather overrated.

Incredibly, it seems after a few short months you've dusted yourself off and want to resume a fight that only the more recent CW members will bother with.

I never abstained from the thing ITFP - I just tried to come-up with some possible reasons for Bond's Test-match non-success, and people told me "no, that's not the case".

 

[Kent]

Have you seen him swing the red ball yet?

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=6302&page=5&pp=15

 

[Richard]

Is what I was referring to.
No, of course I've not, I don't think he's bowled with one since I said that - but no matter, people have told me he can swing it and I believe them.

 

[Kent]

Let's face it - it's seeing things with our own eyes that has the most impact on our respect or fondness for players. If Bond retired tomorrow he'll probably have only helped NZ win one test they may otherwise not have, but he still showed glimpses of things that few other test bowlers were capable of. A genuinely quick bowler who cared about tactics, who could move the ball and didn't tank or showboat.

Do you rate a comet by how bright it was at one particular moment, or how long it stayed in the sky? Ultimately each person will make up their own mind whether it was worth the fuss or not.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I've never seen Harmison bowl as badly as Nissanka at his worst! And I've seen Harmison bowl pretty poorly (VB Series games 7, 8 and 10).
You don't seriously think Nissanka has international potential, do you?

no i dont, but i would never make such a bold claim as that, any bowler that practices hard enough will be capable of being accurate....nissanka isnt an exception.

 

[Richard]

Hmm... I don't think it would matter how much practice RAP Nissanka (or many other Sri Lankan\Indian seamers, for that matter) put in, I don't think it'd make them international standard.

 

[Richard]

Let's face it - it's seeing things with our own eyes that has the most impact on our respect or fondness for players. If Bond retired tomorrow he'll probably have only helped NZ win one test they may otherwise not have, but he still showed glimpses of things that few other test bowlers were capable of. A genuinely quick bowler who cared about tactics, who could move the ball and didn't tank or showboat.

Do you rate a comet by how bright it was at one particular moment, or how long it stayed in the sky? Ultimately each person will make up their own mind whether it was worth the fuss or not.

Yes, fair enough - let us all hope Bond recovers, returns to full fitness and shows us all for certain whether he really can turn that potential into performance.

 

[Craig]

Hmm... I don't think it would matter how much practice RAP Nissanka (or many other Sri Lankan\Indian seamers, for that matter) put in, I don't think it'd make them international standard.

But isn't that how you do improve by practice?

 

[Mister Wright]

But isn't that how you do improve by practice?

There is only so much practice you can do until you reach your maximum potential. Some are better than others - it is a fact of life. The only thing practicing effectively will do is enable you to reach your potential. No matter how much practice you do it is impossible to go beyond your potential, unless you use performance enhancing agents.

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm... I don't think it would matter how much practice RAP Nissanka (or many other Sri Lankan\Indian seamers, for that matter) put in, I don't think it'd make them international standard.

and i never said that nissanka was capable of being international standard, im simply arguing that anyone can, even if it only a matter of a few games, be accurate and i would certainly be careful about making a statement such as "If Nissanka ever has the control to carry-out a decent plan I'll eat my computer!".