Shane Bond

[Dick Rockett]

No matter if it were undeserved!

Absolutely - although NZ deserved to win the Perth test, the Aussies had the better of the rain affected Brisbane and Hobart tests. We only got close in Brisbane because of a sporting declaration by Steve Waugh.

I think 0-0 was a fair result, with the Aussies the slightly better team.

 

[Dick Rockett]

there should not be any 2 Test series...........too many drawn 2 Test series from no results / rain affected matches can drive the public away and also give an inflated points rating..........

Exactly!! NZ certainly didn't deserve to lose the recent series against Pakistan. If there's been a third test I reckon we could have redressed the balance.

 

[Choora]

If I recall correctly he bowled brilliantly against the Aussies in that series. Just because you don't take wickets doesn't necessary mean you've bowled badly. .

If you don't take wkts and do ave 96+, then it might not mean that you bowled badly, but its enough to tell one as to whether the bowler is the best in the world or not!

 

[Mingster]

Bond has already stated that he has not lost any pace during his re-modelled action.

What you have said was a pile of crap.

And 135-140 isnt medium-fast, still faster than all our bowlers ATM.

 

[Richard]

Keep going, and one day you may find a second person to join you in this crazy theory, but I very much doubt it.

Glenn McGrath is one of the all time greats, and who knows how many wicket's he's created for his team-mates?

Ahh, that old one.
"Wickets at the other end" can be perceived only, not that they are needed with an average of 22.
And please explain how judging a bowler on what he bowls, rather than how he's played, is crazy, something you've never satisfactarily managed.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: UPDATE ON BOND.

there goes one of our best strike bowlers.

140 kph in swinging yorker may be dangerous,but a 154 kph in-swingin' yorker is more deadly then a tomahawk missile.

If he was only a "good" strike-bowler because of an unsustainable action, then it doesn't make him good.

 

[Richard]

I credit Bond v M Waugh as being the death knell for Waugh's Test career!!!

Blame would be better than credit.
I think the beginning of the end was that awful shot he played at Astle in The First Test, as he ended-up with some runs at The WACA.

 

[Richard]

If I recall correctly he bowled brilliantly against the Aussies in that series. Just because you don't take wickets doesn't necessary mean you've bowled badly. He caused the AUssies all sorts of problems in the two games he played in Australia.

And equally (in fact far more significantly) just because you've got wickets against your name doesn't mean you've bowled well.
You have bowled well only if you've created chances by bowling good deliveries.
Play-and-misses and dropped catches off deliveries that had nothing special is NOT deserving wickets.

 

[Richard]

Bond has already stated that he has not lost any pace during his re-modelled action.

What you have said was a pile of crap.

And 135-140 isnt medium-fast, still faster than all our bowlers ATM.

No, 135-40 isn't medium-fast (it's fast-medium).
And unless Bond has seen himself timed he is in no position to state that he hasn't lost any pace. Because bowlers are even worse at guessing speeds than batsmen.

 

[marc71178]

Because bowlers are even worse at guessing speeds than batsmen.

I think a bowler would be better placed to tell how quick he is bowling relative to previous efforts than any bystander is.

 

[anzac]

Re: Re: Re: UPDATE ON BOND.

If he was only a "good" strike-bowler because of an unsustainable action, then it doesn't make him good.

nope - wrong..........if his action is getting the results then so far as the results are concerned it's all good....

however what it does mean is that he may have a limited shelf life in which to achieve those results............

 

[anzac]

Blame would be better than credit.
I think the beginning of the end was that awful shot he played at Astle in The First Test, as he ended-up with some runs at The WACA.

blame / credit - either way IMO it spelt the end of the career of one of my fav batsmen.........

Waugh may have got some runs but looked very shakey when Bond was at the crease - the Aussie batsmen had a fair amount of luck on their side that 2nd innings.......

if memory serves didn't the opposition in the subsequent series use the same type of bowling tactic to nail the coffin lid home - ie balls cutting in from outside off bowled just short of a length & getting up about chest high??????

 

[Mingster]

Richard, have you ever played the game of cricket?

 

[Richard]

Yep - since 1995, with two years off in 1997 and 1998.
Got hit in the face keeping wicket in my second proper game. Never kept before or since and never will again.
Proof enough for you?
And Neil will be able to offer more - on the 12th of February (provided he is able to attend) I will be able to rejoin the Exeter Cricket Club nets, something I was sadly unable to do a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: UPDATE ON BOND.

nope - wrong..........if his action is getting the results then so far as the results are concerned it's all good....

however what it does mean is that he may have a limited shelf life in which to achieve those results............

Yeah, fair enough.
My qualms are with the "he was ruined by injury" when the results could not have been achieved without injury being inevitable.

 

[Richard]

I think a bowler would be better placed to tell how quick he is bowling relative to previous efforts than any bystander is.

Better placed than any bystander - but bystanders are the worst judges of all.
The only judge who can be accurate is a speed-gun.
Anyone else can (and very regularly does) misjudge speed often.

 

[marc71178]

Better placed than any bystander - but bystanders are the worst judges of all.

Right, so how can you say a bowler is worse at judging speed than a batsman then?

Surely the batsman is more of a bystander than the bloke who actually delivers the ball?

The only judge who can be accurate is a speed-gun.

If there were a standard official one.

 

[Richard]

Any speed-gun is going to be more accurate than batsman, bowler or uninvolved bystander.
Even the excuses they used in the '70s and 1996 were better than batsmen and bowlers.