Would Shane Bond Make the all time ODI World XI?

[8Ball]

Dale Steyn would be another example:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/47492.html

Twenty-five tests, with stats quite clearly better than anyone else's, but he wouldn't figure in anyone's test XI for the last 30 years.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

67 isn't enough. That's the equivalent of about 20 test matches to put it into perspective.

Really?

I know 67 ODIs is the equivalent of 20 tests in terms of how many tests and ODIs are actually played, but I don't think that's really the point. The point is that the guy has to have played enough so that you know that his achievements weren't a fluke. imo Bond very nearly did enough to remove any doubt. Once again...I wouldn't have him in my team, but I would consider him.

By the same token, Joel Garner played 98 ODIs, and I reckon that's enough to get him in the all-time XI...yet by your calculations that's only 30 odd tests

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Dale Steyn would be another example:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/47492.html

Twenty-five tests, with stats quite clearly better than anyone else's, but he wouldn't figure in anyone's test XI for the last 30 years.

As with Akhtar....if he was averaging 19 (it's a big difference between 22 and 19 imo) and he retired now, I think he'd come in to calculations

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Plus, while Steyn's whipping boys have been gun-shy NZ, Bond beat up on Australia...big difference

 

[8Ball]

Really?

I know 67 ODIs is the equivalent of 20 tests in terms of how many tests and ODIs are actually played, but I don't think that's really the point. The point is that the guy has to have played enough so that you know that his achievements weren't a fluke. imo Bond very nearly did enough to remove any doubt. Once again...I wouldn't have him in my team, but I would consider him.

By the same token, Joel Garner played 98 ODIs, and I reckon that's enough to get him in the all-time XI...yet by your calculations that's only 30 odd tests

Obviously, its a rough estimate. Garner played in an era when ODIs were played far less frequently.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Obviously, its a rough estimate. Garner played in an era when ODIs were played far less frequently.

That's beside the point

The only reason "total games played" should come in to consideration, at least imo, is if you feel that someone didn't play enough for you to get a totally accurate idea of how good they were.

It doesn't matter how many games their contemporaries played. If the ICC decided tomorrow that there was going to be an ODI every day, and blokes were ending their careers with 5,000 ODIs under their belts, I wouldn't discount Sachin Tendulkar's achievements because he "didn't play enough".

 

[8Ball]

The only reason "total games played" should come in to consideration, at least imo, is if you feel that someone didn't play enough for you to get a totally accurate idea of how good they were.

Its easy to be good when you play a career in stops and starts. Most players have low periods where their stats worsen. Bond is yet to have that. Garner played his 98 ODIs over 10 years, played most of the matches available, and performed over that period. You couldn't ask anymore of him.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Pistol]

I think James Bond has a better chance of making the side than Shane

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Its easy to be good when you play a career in stops and starts.

Not necessarily...not even normally imo

Repeated serious injuries don't usually improve performance

Most players have low periods where their stats worsen. Bond is yet to have that.

"Yet to"...he's retired to the ICL mate

He had 67 matches without a low period, stretched over 5 years...not a huge sample but not all that small either...showed he could perform as an inexperienced 26 year old, and as an injury-blighted 31 year old who'd lost some of his pace.

Garner played his 98 ODIs over 10 years, played most of the matches available, and performed over that period. You couldn't ask anymore of him.

Well then..Bond played 67 matches over 5 years. He averaged about 13 games a year to Garner's 10. You could say that Garner's ODI career was stops and starts as well.

 

[hineyrulz]

I still can't believe this thread is going, Would Bond's figures still be as good if had played 167 matches????? 267???? If he had of been able to he would arguebly be the first bowler picked.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Would Bond's figures still be as good if had played 167 matches????? 267????

Maybe, who knows?

That's pretty much the point, imo he achieved enough to put him in the mix of great ODI bowlers, but obviously you can't be sure of what he would've done with more games

 

[Twizzle]

unfortunately stats guru wont tell you that Bond bowled about half of his overs on green kiwi pitches which are not suited to batting and Waqar bowled half his overs on flat Pakistan wickets that predominantly favour the batsmen

another instance where the stats worshipers can be lead astray

 

[hineyrulz]

unfortunately stats guru wont tell you that Bond bowled about half of his overs on green kiwi pitches which are not suited to batting and Waqar bowled half his overs on flat Pakistan wickets that predominantly favour the batsmen

another instance where the stats worshipers can be lead astray

True, Akram had over 500 wickets, so half of them would have been on the sub continent. A remarkable achievement.

 

[typicalfan]

unfortunately stats guru wont tell you that Bond bowled about half of his overs on green kiwi pitches which are not suited to batting and Waqar bowled half his overs on flat Pakistan wickets that predominantly favour the batsmen

another instance where the stats worshipers can be lead astray

Waqar was a fantastic bowler. And a great example.

Waqar after 69 games averaged 18.93 with a economy rate of 4.1

 

[typicalfan]

Wasim Akram in New Zealand averaged 15.45 and had an economy rate of 3.42

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

unfortunately stats guru wont tell you that Bond bowled about half of his overs on green kiwi pitches which are not suited to batting and Waqar bowled half his overs on flat Pakistan wickets that predominantly favour the batsmen

another instance where the stats worshipers can be lead astray

Actually Twiz, statsguru does give you all the information on where the games were played and you can break it down into the various categories etc

If you were being honest with yourself you would know Bond had fantastic success in Australia, and in the World Cups in South Africa and the West Indies.

Also to say ODI pitches in NZ in recent years have been green and not conducive to batting is a ridiculous generalisation. Do you remember the Chappell-Hadlee series in 2005-06 and 2006-07, where 8 of the 12 innings saw scores over 300???? Short boundaries, six-hitting etc??

Waqar also played most of his cricket in the 90s, and run-scoring in general has been a lot easier around the world in the 2000s, when Bond was playing.

I don't need stats to analyse Bond's career, I saw just about every match he ever played. With Waqar, I was an avid follower of his career and he is one of my favourite bowlers of all time, but he was EXPENSIVE in ODIs and that is not ideal

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Wasim Akram in New Zealand averaged 15.45 and had an economy rate of 3.42

I know mate. I am a massive Waqar fan. iirc Pakistan toured New Zealand in 3 consecutive years- 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95. I got used to year after year of Wasim and Waqar destroying us. Actually, I think Waqar and Wasim had more success against us than anyone.

Waqar early in his career was amazing, as I said, but he also went off the boil a bit fairly early on.

 

[typicalfan]

but as my stats show he was more economical at the same point in his career than Bond

 

[Twizzle]

Actually Twiz, statsguru does give you all the information on where the games were played and you can break it down into the various categories etc

If you were being honest with yourself you would know Bond had fantastic success in Australia, and in the World Cups in South Africa and the West Indies.

Also to say ODI pitches in NZ in recent years have been green and not conducive to batting is a ridiculous generalisation. Do you remember the Chappell-Hadlee series in 2005-06 and 2006-07, where 8 of the 12 innings saw scores over 300???? Short boundaries, six-hitting etc??

Waqar also played most of his cricket in the 90s, and run-scoring in general has been a lot easier around the world in the 2000s, when Bond was playing.

I don't need stats to analyse Bond's career, I saw just about every match he ever played. With Waqar, I was an avid follower of his career and he is one of my favourite bowlers of all time, but he was EXPENSIVE in ODIs and that is not ideal

I am aware you can break it down, but no one did and people here were generalizing on this player v. the other player.

I think Bond was a very good bowler his record speaks for its self, and his style of bowling really suited ODI cricket. By that I mean he predominantly bowled in swinging delivers which tend to cramp or restrict the batsmen's ability to score quick.

Never saw him move to many away from the batsmen which limited him a bit for me.

Bowlers like Lillee and Paddles could move the ball either way at will and that separates them from bowlers like Bond imo, but I guess that whats made them classy test match bowlers and thats not the topic here.

 

[Twizzle]

And another thing I seem to recall Bond getting belted around abit in his last few ODI games here in Oz. game.

I've not checked his stats but I think it would be interesting to compare his results in Aust with his results in NZ.