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:
@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
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that. -
@hooroo 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:
@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
Good point. My counter point being that Boult is indisputably better when he played. Fact.
-
In our imaginary team, are we picking at the peak of their powers or on any random day at any time in their career? Vettori was a totally different bowler before his back problems forced him to become a steadier,canny bowler. He had turn and dip and all of that good left arm spin stuff - just watch footage from the tour of England in 1999. His back issues were when he was fairly young so he is remembered for his later style (still an amazing test record of averaging over 40 with the bat at 8).
Boult is arguably not the bowler he was before his back problems - likewise the Bond of early 2000s was not the same as the Bond of later years.
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Cricket - NZ vs Pakistan:
@hooroo 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:
@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
Good point. My counter point being that Boult is indisputably better when he played. Fact.
I agree that Bond didn't play enough test cricket to be considered.
I think what complicates it is that he did play a good amount of ODI cricket and would walk in as first choice for an all time ODI selection (100 plus ODI wickets). Having seen him carve up in that format makes it feel more okay to call him up to the test side when the likes of Donnelly and Dempster feel like they need asterisks.
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
Cool, 18 tests is more than one though.
-
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
Cool, 18 tests is more than one though.
So now longevity counts? Make your mind up.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
Cool, 18 tests is more than one though.
So now longevity counts? Make your mind up.
Well in Vettoris case it does cos relatively speaking he isn't a patch on Hadlee or Bond.
-
@mn5 said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@baron-silas-greenback said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@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:
@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.
18 tests? You just pick that number because that is how many Bond played.. how convenient.
But no. You can just cherry pick when longevity matters, but dont expect others to not call you on it.
Bond didnt perform consistently around the world. 18 tests is not enough to do that.We're not a country who produce genuine world beaters.
Some people pick Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their all time SA teams for example despite less test cricket than Bond....
Bond was world class when he did play. Stats back this up. If you choose not to agree then that ain't my fault.
Somerville was also world class when he played..... stats back that up as well....
Doesnt make Somerville world class.
Cool, 18 tests is more than one though.
So now longevity counts? Make your mind up.
Well in Vettoris case it does cos relatively speaking he isn't a patch on Hadlee or Bond.
Well Hadlee anyway... Bond is more Somerville than Vettori.
Although OSmerville is less brittle than Bond....
-
18 tests is a small sample but hell unless you pick only modern players you will have a small sample size.
Playing against multiple opposition and all around the world is likewise a limiting factor.
Do you ignore the greatness of Bradman because he played almost all his test cricket against one opponent or Jack Hobbs because he only played against Oz Windies (twice) and SA? Of course not. Longevity and variety of conditions and opposition are important considerations but not IMO the sole arbiters of greatness.
Virtual uppercut to any pistonwristedgibbon who points out Hobbs and Bradman don't qualify for NZ
-
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ All Time Test XI:
18 tests is a small sample but hell unless you pick only modern players you will have a small sample size.
The accepted metric among cricket statisticians is to consider a minimum of 20 innings batted or 20 innings bowled. This removes the outliers like Redmond but also recognises that the frequency of test matches now compared to yesteryear is much different.
-
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
-
@hooroo said in NZ All Time Test XI:
@donsteppa said in NZ All Time Test XI:
A big argument just to decide which of the two gets the new ball with Hadlee.
I'm increasingly thinking I wouldn't play a spinner in the all time NZ XI - unless we're playing in the subcontinent. I'd probably go with 6 batsmen, Watling/Smith for keeping, and Hadlee, Boult, Bond, plus Jack Cowie.
Cowie perhaps swapped out for Collinge if playing against Boycott, or swapped out for Nash if playing at Lords.
I reckon an all time NZ XI would go pretty well against their counterparts. None of this defeatist stuff. It reminds me of the line Lee Grant used to take when Oz rugby was doing well. Other nations might have the depth to pick eight amazing all time teams, but they can only play one of them at the top.
Our third XI might get smashed by their opposites, but NZ has produced a few all time greats.
Gee, I have McCullum Captain and Keeper. I truly think he is the reason we are what we are today (along with Hesson of course)
I agree too that we wouldn't need a spinner
I haven't put a lot of thought into the captaincy, but @SynicBast makes some good points about Crowe.
For keeping it's probably a close call between Watling, Smith, and McCullum, depending on the preferred balance, views on keeping/keeper-batsmen I guess.
Thinking of the Aaron Hopa thread and 'what might have been' - another candidate for keeper might have been Ken Wadsworth, but sadly we'll never fully know. Hadlee spoke very highly of him, which is a good sign.
