NZ All Time XI
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@chris-b said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 You fucking defeatist!
Lillee is going to be steaming in at Little Kane, with his fucking headband - and with a minimum of fuss Kane will just guide him away through backward point to the boundary.
Out comes Bradman - on comes Jack Cowie. Only met one another once and Jack fucked him up!
I know.....but when Border, S Waugh, Hussey and Clark are competing for the same spot in an all time XI you know the BCs are in for a pounding.....
Again, defeatist!
Hadlee would be very pleased to see any of them, and used to go quite well against two of them. Bond to take off Clarke's head, or Boult to york Hussey. Easy.
-
Openers: 1-2
C.S. Dempster, G.M.Turner
Dempster may not have played for a long time but what he accomplished on uncovered wickets, rear foot no ball drag bowlers and the attacks of the time is quite astounding for the limiterd opportunities he had.
There is a question albeit it very shadowy over Turner's fortitude against top notch attacks - even that he was NZ's first truly professional cricketer, there is an elemnet of doubt over the timing of his availability for NZ, was it selective on his part or was it purely that the administration of the time and he could not agree on terms.Middle order 3-6
Kane, Crowe then two of
Donnelly, Sutcliffe, Roscoe Sutcliffe would probably get my pick at 6 because after '53, he was never the same against real pace. Again Donnelly batted on matting, uncovered wickets and against some of the better pre-war attacks.
Frankly we're actually in a good position middle order wise - I'd be happy with any combination of the five.Wicket-keeper
Baz doesn't get a look in for a wicket -keeper as his best test batting was done after he had relinquished the gloves.
For me, Watling has the best combination of glove-work behind the stumps to Fast, medium pace(look at his work when he stands up to medium pacers for an example) and sufficient body of work keeping to a variety of decent spinners (Vettori was never a chore to keep to because he never really ripped it much) but Watling has actually kept well on turners to spinners that give it a decent rip both leggies and offies. And I'd always feel comfortable about having him come in at 7 as a batsman he plays for the situation and the team as well as being prepared to really graft and bat for partnerships.Bowlers;
Hadlee and Bond, Boult. the problem being who takes the new ball and who is going to bowl 25-30 overs in a day of the three and still be a threat from their 15th over onwards (assuming not much more than 5 over spells to maintain sharpness)
4th Bowler:
Vettori, (someone whose record at test level is a product of his longevity - I don't think he was able to win a match against a really high end batting lineup to be honest)
Cairns, C? Not my pick as a fourth seamer and he doesn't get in ahead of the three previous.
Wagner: I actually rate this guy as a great foil to the mainstays - he'll bowl all day, give you 100% and he actually gets wickets pretty consistently. For me he would complement the pace attack especially if we look at older style playing conditions and grounds before the boundaries came in,.Just my personal thoughts. Also I have erred on the side of team chemistry when it came down to choices between players.
-
@synicbast I like that team. Have no problem with a rotating 3 prong attack. The thinking on Watling is sound except with the all star batting lineup you could arguably pick a keeper solely on keeping ability and I would be tempted to go for Smithy.
Nash is also an option for fourth bowler. Doesn’t get as many mentions in all time lists as perhaps he should. Similar aggressive style that doesn’t give the batsman a rest when not facing the top three.Edit: have been time wasting and looking at stats and tbh Watling is too good to ignore. If you look at the 40 top bowler/keeper combos in test records Watling appears 3 times with Southee, Boult and Wagner. Smith and Hadlee also on the list as are BMac and Martin.
Parore and Cairns just miss out at 41.
Although you would hope the bats 1>6 would do the job, Watling is so superior to the other keepers he can’t be ignored as a safety or even to move up the order if needed. -
@synicbast said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Openers: 1-2
C.S. Dempster, G.M.Turner
Dempster may not have played for a long time but what he accomplished on uncovered wickets, rear foot no ball drag bowlers and the attacks of the time is quite astounding for the limiterd opportunities he had.
There is a question albeit it very shadowy over Turner's fortitude against top notch attacks - even that he was NZ's first truly professional cricketer, there is an elemnet of doubt over the timing of his availability for NZ, was it selective on his part or was it purely that the administration of the time and he could not agree on terms.Middle order 3-6
Kane, Crowe then two of
Donnelly, Sutcliffe, Roscoe Sutcliffe would probably get my pick at 6 because after '53, he was never the same against real pace. Again Donnelly batted on matting, uncovered wickets and against some of the better pre-war attacks.
Frankly we're actually in a good position middle order wise - I'd be happy with any combination of the five.Wicket-keeper
Baz doesn't get a look in for a wicket -keeper as his best test batting was done after he had relinquished the gloves.
For me, Watling has the best combination of glove-work behind the stumps to Fast, medium pace(look at his work when he stands up to medium pacers for an example) and sufficient body of work keeping to a variety of decent spinners (Vettori was never a chore to keep to because he never really ripped it much) but Watling has actually kept well on turners to spinners that give it a decent rip both leggies and offies. And I'd always feel comfortable about having him come in at 7 as a batsman he plays for the situation and the team as well as being prepared to really graft and bat for partnerships.Bowlers;
Hadlee and Bond, Boult. the problem being who takes the new ball and who is going to bowl 25-30 overs in a day of the three and still be a threat from their 15th over onwards (assuming not much more than 5 over spells to maintain sharpness)
4th Bowler:
Vettori, (someone whose record at test level is a product of his longevity - I don't think he was able to win a match against a really high end batting lineup to be honest)
Cairns, C? Not my pick as a fourth seamer and he doesn't get in ahead of the three previous.
Wagner: I actually rate this guy as a great foil to the mainstays - he'll bowl all day, give you 100% and he actually gets wickets pretty consistently. For me he would complement the pace attack especially if we look at older style playing conditions and grounds before the boundaries came in,.Just my personal thoughts. Also I have erred on the side of team chemistry when it came down to choices between players.
I confess to not knowing much about NZ cricket that goes more than 20 years back... except of course for Hadlee.. but no place for / mention of Fleming in that team?
-
Fleming was only an average test player by the standards of his time. A poor man's Gower is probably the closest analogy I could give. He was bloody amazing to watch when he was on song but his batting was all too short lived in terms of significant innings. He was very fallible (more so technically than most left handers) outside his off stump and had a distressing tendency to play wafts across his front leg as well as get strangled down the leg side, mainly because the aspect of his technique that made him look so graceful was also a flaw - he stood far too upright and never played the ball below his eyes.
From an aesthetic view, I really liked his batting, but KW has him beat and that's hard to do for a RH vs a LH. Fleming lacked substance and was just not in the same ballpark as the other's mentioned in my original post.
I was lucky enough to have some coaches in my formative years who played alongside or saw Donnelly and Dempster at their peak, and in the absence of decent video coverage i'll always go with the technical analysis of their play that I was given verbally.
Prior to the advent of KW and Rosscoe, my middle order was without question, Jones at 3, Crowe at 4, Donnelly at 5 and Sutcliffe at 6
-
@synicbast said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Fleming was only an average test player by the standards of his time. A poor man's Gower is probably the closest analogy I could give. He was bloody amazing to watch when he was on song but his batting was all too short lived in terms of significant innings. He was very fallible (more so technically than most left handers) outside his off stump and had a distressing tendency to play wafts across his front leg as well as get strangled down the leg side, mainly because the aspect of his technique that made him look so graceful was also a flaw - he stood far too upright and never played the ball below his eyes.
From an aesthetic view, I really liked his batting, but KW has him beat and that's hard to do for a RH vs a LH. Fleming lacked substance and was just not in the same ballpark as the other's mentioned in my original post.
I was lucky enough to have some coaches in my formative years who played alongside or saw Donnelly and Dempster at their peak, and in the absence of decent video coverage i'll always go with the technical analysis of their play that I was given verbally.
Prior to the advent of KW and Rosscoe, my middle order was without question, Jones at 3, Crowe at 4, Donnelly at 5 and Sutcliffe at 6
Jones and Crowe were a great combo. Shame Andrew Howard doesn't get a look in but no way does he justify it when you consider the abilities of others.
Fleming deserves at least a mention as much for his captaincy as well as his batting in my opinion.
-
@synicbast said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Openers: 1-2
C.S. Dempster, G.M.Turner
Dempster may not have played for a long time but what he accomplished on uncovered wickets, rear foot no ball drag bowlers and the attacks of the time is quite astounding for the limiterd opportunities he had.
There is a question albeit it very shadowy over Turner's fortitude against top notch attacks - even that he was NZ's first truly professional cricketer, there is an elemnet of doubt over the timing of his availability for NZ, was it selective on his part or was it purely that the administration of the time and he could not agree on terms.Middle order 3-6
Kane, Crowe then two of
Donnelly, Sutcliffe, Roscoe Sutcliffe would probably get my pick at 6 because after '53, he was never the same against real pace. Again Donnelly batted on matting, uncovered wickets and against some of the better pre-war attacks.
Frankly we're actually in a good position middle order wise - I'd be happy with any combination of the five.Wicket-keeper
Baz doesn't get a look in for a wicket -keeper as his best test batting was done after he had relinquished the gloves.
For me, Watling has the best combination of glove-work behind the stumps to Fast, medium pace(look at his work when he stands up to medium pacers for an example) and sufficient body of work keeping to a variety of decent spinners (Vettori was never a chore to keep to because he never really ripped it much) but Watling has actually kept well on turners to spinners that give it a decent rip both leggies and offies. And I'd always feel comfortable about having him come in at 7 as a batsman he plays for the situation and the team as well as being prepared to really graft and bat for partnerships.Bowlers;
Hadlee and Bond, Boult. the problem being who takes the new ball and who is going to bowl 25-30 overs in a day of the three and still be a threat from their 15th over onwards (assuming not much more than 5 over spells to maintain sharpness)
4th Bowler:
Vettori, (someone whose record at test level is a product of his longevity - I don't think he was able to win a match against a really high end batting lineup to be honest)
Cairns, C? Not my pick as a fourth seamer and he doesn't get in ahead of the three previous.
Wagner: I actually rate this guy as a great foil to the mainstays - he'll bowl all day, give you 100% and he actually gets wickets pretty consistently. For me he would complement the pace attack especially if we look at older style playing conditions and grounds before the boundaries came in,.Just my personal thoughts. Also I have erred on the side of team chemistry when it came down to choices between players.
Although my team differed from yours I pretty much had the same debate in my head and came up with a variation on a theme. I didn't pick Donnelly because his test experience was just too limited . However I am easily able to be swayed because the articles I've read about him suggest he was as classy a bat as we have ever had.
I was tempted to go with an all seam attack as Vettori really isn't much cop but the problem with all the contenders is they are attacking bowlers. However depending on the wicket I would love to have Cowie and Bond opening with Paddles and Boult rotating. Of the contenders I think Sir Richard is best suited to taking an older ball. Unlike The Baron's arse I think Bond has done enough to walk into an all time BC side.
Cairns and Vettori were the two I had least confidence in and I nominated Baz because he was the best batsman and this is a black caps side ..... However would have no issue with Watling or Smith. On reflection I would probably pick Reid ahead of Cairns for the reasons noted. Plus he carried the NZ side and had a comparable career to Cairns who had the luxury of playing in alongside much better teammates.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Jones and Crowe were a great combo. Shame Andrew Howard doesn't get a look in but no way does he justify it when you consider the abilities of others.
Fleming deserves at least a mention as much for his captaincy as well as his batting in my opinion.
I don't see how you can justify non-selection of AH Jones for his batting and yet select Fleming in his place. I would hazard that Jones' production of substantive scores in comparison to innings is higher by far. Fleming would only just scrape in the top 10 middle order Batsman for NZ, I rate Congdon and Reid the younger higher than him and would almost rate the older Reid as his equal. To my mind, Fleming's laissez-faire concentration lapses lost us more tests than his batting won for us. He just stands out because around the time his career was in full flow (which isn't saying that much) NZ was a pretty mediocre team at test level and he was the best of a not particularly inspiring bunch nor did he really do anything against top notch attacks other than a couple of outlier innings that actually proved the rule.
As regards Fleming's captaincy, Crowe offers more as a captain who can actually churn out runs against top quality attacks as well as being arguably a better capatin in terms of incisive decision making and focus. I think Crowe had the gravitas and sang-froid to captain in tests far more so than Fleming.
-
@synicbast said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Jones and Crowe were a great combo. Shame Andrew Howard doesn't get a look in but no way does he justify it when you consider the abilities of others.
Fleming deserves at least a mention as much for his captaincy as well as his batting in my opinion.
I don't see how you can justify non-selection of AH Jones for his batting and yet select Fleming in his place. I would hazard that Jones' production of substantive scores in comparison to innings is higher by far. Fleming would only just scrape in the top 10 middle order Batsman for NZ, I rate Congdon and Reid the younger higher than him and would almost rate the older Reid as his equal. To my mind, Fleming's laissez-faire concentration lapses lost us more tests than his batting won for us. He just stands out because around the time his career was in full flow (which isn't saying that much) NZ was a pretty mediocre team at test level and he was the best of a not particularly inspiring bunch nor did he really do anything against top notch attacks other than a couple of outlier innings that actually proved the rule.
As regards Fleming's captaincy, Crowe offers more as a captain who can actually churn out runs against top quality attacks as well as being arguably a better capatin in terms of incisive decision making and focus. I think Crowe had the gravitas and sang-froid to captain in tests far more so than Fleming.
Fair call to all of the above. Standing corrected.
Yes, in hindsight Fleming did stand out compared to many of his contemporaries ( maybe not saying much) but the reason I mentioned him was because I do remember anyone and everyone going on about what a brilliant and revolutionary captain he was.
-
@synicbast Good to see John F Reid mentioned. He often gets forgotten in these debates but his stats are very good by NZ standards.
It's a pity his career was so short.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Fair call to all of the above. Standing corrected.
Yes, in hindsight Fleming did stand out compared to many of his contemporaries ( maybe not saying much) but the reason I mentioned him was because I do remember anyone and everyone going on about what a brilliant and revolutionary captain he was.
Fleming certainly had his moments, - he showed up the limited captaincy of Steve Waugh a couple of times in terms of managing resources and it can be argued he was the reason Graeme Smith of SA developed so fast as a player and captain after he schooled him early on. But he really wasn't as innovative as he was a resource manager. He did get a lot out of what talent he had available, but his tactical innovation pales by comparison to that of Marty Crowe.
When you think that T20 developed with a lot of inspiration from Cricket max which was itself developed out of Crowe's success with the 92 WC, and that the Two W's rate MCrowe as the only Batsman to intellectually create an actual technical solution to facing reverse swing at 145kmh plus - I just cannot see wanyone coming close to his thinking about the game and then being able to put his ideas into practice as a cogent and effective methodology.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
But Bond was indisputably better when he did play. Fact.
-
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
But Bond was indisputably better when he did play. Fact.
No, not fact. Opinion. But I understand you cannot tell the difference.
Going by your logic, Somerville is now one of our best ever spinners. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
But Bond was indisputably better when he did play. Fact.
No, not fact. Opinion. But I understand you cannot tell the difference.
Going by your logic, Somerville is now one of our best ever spinners.If he has truly world class stats after 18 tests then yes he is. As it is Vettori is cos of immense longevity, an ok average and cos he was also a good batsman.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@mn5 said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
Boult is the superior choice over Bond.
Longevity vs utter brilliance....I disagree. Bonds career was just long enough to be included.
Boult wins on both counts.
No. Fucken. Way.
I'm no mathetician but 87 wickets in 18 tests beats 222 in 57. You are talking out of your arse. Bond also averaged better than that Hadlee guy....
I wouldnt trust Bond to thrive on surfaces all around the world and perform in series after series to get his team to the top. I may be talking out of my arse, but that just shows my ass knows about cricket than your whole body.
Oh of course silly me....it was just helpful conditions that had shit batsmen like Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist etc playing and missing and then getting out.
You're right. Bond was shit, just really, really lucky to get so many wickets so quickly and with an exceptional average in both forms of he game.
@MN5
And did he do it series after series on varying surfaces in differing conditions? No.
Attack straw men as much as you like, but you are living in a fantasy world where Bond played more than 18 tests.
newsflash he didnt, and he didnt prove himself in varying conditions over a decent period of time.
Could he have, maybe, maybe not.No one is disputing longevity it's the fact you made some bullshit claim that Boult is better. I'm not denying he's good but I still reckon Bond did enough in 18 tests to make a team ahead of him.
Bullshit claim? Longevity matters because it shows you have been tested all around the world, in all sorts of conditions. Bond didnt do that. Boult has, they both are class acts , but Boult has proven he is a class act around the world in all sorts of conditions.
You have done nothing to counter my point at all, because you cannot. Beyond saying it doesnt matter, which is actually a 'bullshit claim.'
But Bond was indisputably better when he did play. Fact.
No, not fact. Opinion. But I understand you cannot tell the difference.
Going by your logic, Somerville is now one of our best ever spinners.He might have you there..... As when Bond was playing Boult would have been in early high school?
But in all seriousness they would both make the team wouldn't they? Paddles, Bond and Boult would be an incredible line up
