Would Shane Bond Make the all time ODI World XI?

[JJ]

Agreed with hiney... Garner, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim, Lee, McGrath... Pollock, Donald/Ntini, Saqlain...

Garner Ambrose, Wasim... then Bond imo - easily better than the others on your list - injuries aside

 

[JJ]

what about Lillee?

Lillee <<<<<< Bond, Garner in ODIs

 

[TheParraboy]

LOL bond better than waqar? ...

fmd ... kiwis

whats next?

bruce edgar better than gordon greenidge? :lol:

 

[typicalfan]

Garner Ambrose, Wasim... then Bond imo - easily better than the others on your list - injuries aside

hahaha no. I would pick and clone them before considering Bond.

Lillee is on another planet compared to Bond

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

LOL bond better than waqar? ...

fmd ... kiwis

lol has nothing to do with being a Kiwi mate

Waqar is nowhere near it when it comes to all-time ODI teams for mine...weight of wickets sure, but his RPO is poor, and RPO is the most important stat for ODI bowlers.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

hahaha no. I would pick and clone them before considering Bond.

Lillee is on another planet compared to Bond

:?

On what basis is Lillee on another planet as an ODI bowler to someone who took 125 wickets at 19

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Lillee played less ODIs than Bond and took less wickets

 

[typicalfan]

Lillee played in an era when ODI's were less frequent and less important.

You cant just compare averages from the two eras and expect everything else to be a level playing field.

because of Lillee's overall record and ability people would pick him regardless of his exposure to odi's

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Lillee played in an era when ODI's were less frequent and less important.

You cant just compare averages from the two eras and expect everything else to be a level playing field.

because of Lillee's overall record and ability people would pick him regardless of his exposure to odi's

Stupid people, maybe

Anyone with half a clue knows you compare ODIs with ODIs when talking about ODIs (funny that)

Test performances have nothing to do with it.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Anyway...even if doing a straight Lillee v Bond comparison, test and ODI, the only big difference (and it's a HUGE difference) is longevity....Bond just didn't play enough, especially in tests. All we can say is, had he been able to stretch out what he did in his career over more matches, he would've been comparable with Lillee, Waqar, Hadlee, etc.

 

[typicalfan]

Stupid people, maybe

Anyone with half a clue knows you compare ODIs with ODIs when talking about ODIs (funny that)

Test performances have nothing to do with it.

but anyone would realise when Lillee played odi's they were a gimmick, now they are a staple of international cricket.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

but anyone would realise when Lillee played odi's they were a gimmick, now they are a staple of international cricket.

Strange logic

Lillee hardly played any ODIs and when he did they were a gimmick, therefore Lillee is a better ODI bowler than Bond

 

[JJ]

Lillee is on another planet compared to Bond

With some of the comments old Dennis has made, I tend to agree...

But as an odi bowler, there's no comparison, just as there's no comparison between Bond and Hadlee... Bond was just an utterly amazing odi performer, with an utterly fragile body

Anyways, MV has bitchslapped you silly so the debate is over

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

lol has nothing to do with being a Kiwi mate

Waqar is nowhere near it when it comes to all-time ODI teams for mine...weight of wickets sure, but his RPO is poor, and RPO is the most important stat for ODI bowlers.

waqar has an rpo of 4.6 and bond 4.2 lol dickhead ...

 

[JJ]

waqar has an rpo of 4.6 and bond 4.2 lol dickhead ...

:lol: so, Bond's is better... Do you have a point?

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

it's 0.4 better ... not 1,2 or 3 better

 

[JJ]

it's 0.4 better ... not 1,2 or 3 better

Well Waqar was a great bowler - you wouldn't expect Bond to be that much better

But for the record

Waqar 4.7 RPO, SR 30.5, avg 23.8
Bond 4.2 RPO, SR 27.5, avg 19.3

HE shades him everywhere, except longevity

 

[8Ball]

:? The responses in this thread are comical. He's played 67 matches. One of the key features an all time great should have is longevity.

I guess Mike Hussey would be a shoe-in for the all time test side. How do you kiwis feel about that?

 

[JJ]

:? The responses in this thread are comical. He's played 67 matches. One of the key features an all time great should have is longevity.

I guess Mike Hussey would be a shoe-in for the all time test side. How do you kiwis feel about that?

Who said longevity is key?

There are plenty of players that would be ahead of Hussey, no matter what your criteria are

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Well Waqar was a great bowler - you wouldn't expect Bond to be that much better

But for the record

Waqar 4.7 RPO, SR 30.5, avg 23.8
Bond 4.2 RPO, SR 27.5, avg 19.3

HE shades him everywhere, except longevity

waqar played 200 more matches and has roughly identical statistics which makes waqar younis' stats more impressive than shane bond's ...