Would Shane Bond Make the all time ODI World XI?

[kilroy]

Bond is way better than Lee.

*That should set some more aussie arses on fire*

 

[TheParraboy]

Bond is way better than Lee.

at getting injured all the time, i agree

 

[kilroy]

Bond is way better than Lee.

*That should set some more aussie arses on fire*

at getting injured all the time, i agree

1

 

[JJ]

Not sure he would to be honest, he'd be a chance but S.F Barnes and Dennis Lillie are the two standout quicks of all time, Warne the standout spinner and Sobers one of the all-rounders, that leaves one all-rounder and guys like Imran Khan would have to be close. ./quote]

I'm a huge Lillee fan, but not sure I can agree - Hadlee is the equal of Lillee, better in many regards - and in a similar era Marshall is another.

Lillee's not even unquestionably the best Australian quick ever - Lindwall, McGrath and the hugely under-rated Davidson definitely compete

As for Barnes - a standout, but in the same era Lohmann's numbers look even better

 

[8Ball]

Hadlee was a good player. He'd probably just miss the all time test XI though, but his claims would be truly well founded, unlike Bond for the ODI team.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

HD whilst i don't know why you keep coming up with the Indian telemarketer comebacks, i certainly agree with the emotion/motive behind them. Kilroy are you on here just to stir or do you have anything valuable to add?

 

[lockyno1]

Not sure he would to be honest, he'd be a chance but S.F Barnes and Dennis Lillie are the two standout quicks of all time, Warne the standout spinner and Sobers one of the all-rounders, that leaves one all-rounder and guys like Imran Khan would have to be close. ./quote]

I'm a huge Lillee fan, but not sure I can agree - Hadlee is the equal of Lillee, better in many regards - and in a similar era Marshall is another.

Lillee's not even unquestionably the best Australian quick ever - Lindwall, McGrath and the hugely under-rated Davidson definitely compete

As for Barnes - a standout, but in the same era Lohmann's numbers look even better

Lilliee is the best quick in the last 50 years, he'll be the first quick picked, he had it all, agression, swing, seam, and controversy. He'd be the first picked. Barnes as I said no-one has seen him but on stats alone he should be there, comparatively he was 2-3 times better than anyone else. I'll trust Richie's judgement on him becuase no-one has seen him. Marshall would be one I'd pick ahead of Hadlee, Fred Trueman would be another to be honest.

 

[JJ]

Lilliee is the best quick in the last 50 years, he'll be the first quick picked, he had it all, agression, swing, seam, and controversy. He'd be the first picked. Barnes as I said no-one has seen him but on stats alone he should be there, comparatively he was 2-3 times better than anyone else. I'll trust Richie's judgement on him becuase no-one has seen him. Marshall would be one I'd pick ahead of Hadlee, Fred Trueman would be another to be honest.

Lohmann's stats are better than Barnes'

Hadleee and Marshall both had aggression, swing, seam and controversy - both have marginally better records than Lillee

 

[lockyno1]

Not if you include Lilliee's 90 odd World Series wickets and they were the HARDEST wickets to get, Lillee had it all, he'd be the first bowler picked make no mistake. Barnes was a phenomonen, and to be honest I have only read bits and pieces on him and Lohmann so I am not sure whether either of us are in a position to judge either. I am happy to go with Richie on that one. If I were picking the side Trueman and Lillie would be my quicks with Marshall, Hadlee, and a few others behind including harold Larwood.

 

[simmo1]

Lilliee is the best quick in the last 50 years, he'll be the first quick picked, he had it all, agression, swing, seam, and controversy. He'd be the first picked. Barnes as I said no-one has seen him but on stats alone he should be there, comparatively he was 2-3 times better than anyone else. I'll trust Richie's judgement on him becuase no-one has seen him. Marshall would be one I'd pick ahead of Hadlee, Fred Trueman would be another to be honest.

Benaud also picked Gilchrist, would you trust his judgement there?

Although, I agree, I'd have Lillee and Marshall ahead of Hadlee. Probably nearly have Ambrose and Akram too.

 

[lockyno1]

Benaud also picked Gilchrist, would you trust his judgement there?

Although, I agree, I'd have Lillee and Marshall ahead of Hadlee. Probably nearly have Ambrose and Akram too.

Yes I would, Gilchrist has the best stats of any keeper, 2nd most dismissals (the most when he retired) and averaged nearly 50 with the bat. He'd be the keeper in my side.

 

[hineyrulz]

Locky making some sense :shock: Barnes from all reports was an absolute genius, aparently Best Bowler Trumper ever faced.

 

[simmo1]

Yes I would, Gilchrist has the best stats of any keeper, 2nd most dismissals (the most when he retired) and averaged nearly 50 with the bat. He'd be the keeper in my side.

Sangakkara and Flower both averaged 50 and are probably better glovemen. And none of those three even come close to best wicketkeepers of all time.

You cannot use stats to show how good a keeper is. Even byes conceded can sometimes have more to do with bowling, and the pitch, than the quality of keeping.

 

[lockyno1]

Sangakkara and Flower both averaged 50 and are probably better glovemen. And none of those three even come close to best wicketkeepers of all time.

I knew someone would say Flower, no doubt he is good but he did not keep his whole career, plus he always batted twice. As for Sanga, I am not counting him as he is still currently playing. I'd always have a guy that can win a game in a session at 7 though if they were equal and I'd say they are about that.

 

[lockyno1]

Locky making some sense :shock: Barnes from all reports was an absolute genius, aparently Best Bowler Trumper ever faced.

Yep and to be honest, that is one of the reasons I have picked him.

 

[simmo1]

I knew someone would say Flower, no doubt he is good but he did not keep his whole career, plus he always batted twice.

What difference does that make? Batting twice makes no difference to his average, and if anything shows he had to score more of his runs in the 3rd/4th innings when it is much harder to bat.

As for Sanga, I am not counting him as he is still currently playing. I'd always have a guy that can win a game in a session at 7 though if they were equal and I'd say they are about that.

But Benaud selected Gilchrist while he was still playing, and apparently you trust his judgement, so why can't you apply the same reasoning for Sangakkara?

 

[Twizzle]

Lille, Marshall, Hadlee, Akram

geez, how do you split them ?

 

[simmo1]

Lille, Marshall, Hadlee, Akram

geez, how do you split them ?

Its difficult, but if I was picking a team it would be Lillee, Marshall, Akram, Warne and Sobers as the bowling line up.

 

[edabomb]

Sangakkara and Flower both averaged 50 and are probably better glovemen. And none of those three even come close to best wicketkeepers of all time.

You cannot use stats to show how good a keeper is. Even byes conceded can sometimes have more to do with bowling, and the pitch, than the quality of keeping.

I remember when I was a kid Adam Parore set the record for most test runs scored by the opposition without letting a bye through. I also believe that had plenty to do with our opening bowling attack of DeGroen and Owen not being able to dismiss a side for less than 500 during that era :lol:

 

[lockyno1]

What difference does that make? Batting twice makes no difference to his average, and if anything shows he had to score more of his runs in the 3rd/4th innings when it is much harder to bat.



But Benaud selected Gilchrist while he was still playing, and apparently you trust his judgement, so why can't you apply the same reasoning for Sangakkara?

For Flower it is more the fact he did not keep his whole career. Gilchrist rarely even got a hit against the minnows as well. Sangakara is at the start of his career, Gilchrist was at the end or near enough to make a fair judgement