Bond back in the Black Caps

I know he's a little past his sell by date, but it looks like the ICL might release him.

Tuffey will also get released.

Would you like to see bond back?

Do you think he will come back?

I would have said no before the India one-dayers/tests but now I think we lack that genuine pace that all decent sides have. He isn't as quick as he used to be but if he's still good enough then that's all that matters.

he has to be... had some good domestic form!

What evidence is there neil that he is past his use by date? Of course we would take him back, there isnt an international team in the world that wouldnt seriously consider playing a fit Shane Bond, let alone a team without a genuine fast bowler (ie us) and he is fit so.......

pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease btw


edit: I have just about 0 interest in Milkshake returning unless we have injuries, although his domestic form has been ok too I dont think he will ever get over *that* over

Bond has been the best domestic bowler this season hasn't he? ...or was that just in the 2020 comp?

Would definitely have him back for the ODI squad initially.

He's gone well I know that much, he tends to go for 50 odd in domestic ODI's but also invariably takes 3/4 wickets and occasionally/on top form he blasts out the top order and effectively wins games. He is fit and his X factor is bowling vicious later inswinging 145 kmhr thunderbolts, he lets nobody down in the field and is the best of our lower order fast bowlers with the bat. He is also very much a big game player, no bowler in world cricket has caused Australia as much grief as he has

neil is lying / out his mind /trolling to be even be suggesting his selection is debatable

O'Brien's blogging abilities will probably keep Bond out of the side, imo

we need him bad....we also need some more quickies coming through development...clearly our medium paced bowlers can't scare the opposition and genuinely cause a threat, otherwise we would have bowled out India yesterday....

I'm not getting my hopes up about this, but if it does happen I will most likely do a little sex wee in my pants.

Would even take Tuffey back, he has been killing it in the State Champs and seems a far more mature player these days.

Haere mai IMO...

lol gummi. has anybody actually read his blogs? Are they all they are cracked up to be

ok McGooch you are prob right.... Tuffey could be given another shot. Some players just seriously need to grow up to hit their poptential and maybe that is Darrells thing. I sure miss us actually taking wickets in the 1st couple of overs of ODI's thats for sure

Rethinking my post Gillepse is also at least as good as Bond with the bat, buts its kinda odd how all of our fast-medium men are terrible in the field....except Bond

his blogs read like a fucking Mills & Boon novel. Bond is way better than Gillespie with the willow. Gillespie fluked one good innings (in Queenstown last year I think... There may be more but SFA TBH

Anyway, back on topic... didn't Bond say not so long ago he'd never play for NZ again??

I don't want Bond back.

His ODI bowling average is under 20. It won't stay that way.

In 20 years, nobody will remember the 5 or 6 ODIs he might win for us. They will remember the guy with the average below 20. (More people remember averages than remember results)

I disagree.

There have been great bowlers with averages of 30+

Cricket is as much a batting game as a bowlers game if not more so, hence to say when batters dominate
and rack up big runs, which they do, averages will often blow out, balanced then by the same guy next gamne who gets 5 for 23.

As an impact bowler, Bond is second to none for New Zealand. I'd love to see him back, or at least given a chance.

# Name them


# wot

Performance of spinners in the first 15 overs since 2002 (Minimum balls bowled = 300) Bowler Balls Bowled Runs Conceded Wickets Average Economy rate
Harbhajan Singh 786 562 23 24.43 4.29
Muttiah Muralitharan 492 320 12 26.66 3.90
Prosper Utseya 356 188 5 37.60 3.16
Abdur Razzak 870 605 14 43.21 4.17
Mohammad Rafique 420 294 6 49.00 4.20
Anil Kumble 330 289 5 57.80 5.25


SIR GARFIELD SOBERS AT 34.03

you wouldn't win a test match with sobers's bowling. Sure, he's great to have there too, but you wouldn't win a test match with him. Just like you wouldn't a test match with Kallis's bowling (who has 258 wickets @ 31)

true but isn't the point that we remember great bowlers for their number of wickets taken not which is also on par of their bowling average as the more wickets you take the lower your average will be...

for me to say great bowlers with averages of 30+ might have been too drastic but on the flip-side for Vadinho to say the best bowlers will be remembered for sub 20 averages goes back far in time....

Think about how many world-class bowlers of today are missing from this list:

1 George Lohmann England 1205 112 10.76
2 Sydney Barnes England 3106 189 16.43
3 Charlie Turner Australia 1670 101 16.53
4 Bobby Peel England 1715 101 16.98
5 Johnny Briggs England 2095 118 17.75
6 Johnny Wardle England 2080 102 20.39
7 Alan Davidson Australia 3819 186 20.53
8 Malcolm Marshall West Indies 7876 376 20.95
9 Joel Garner West Indies 5433 259 20.98
10 Curtly Ambrose West Indies 8501 405 20.99
11 Neil Adcock South Africa 2195 104 21.11
12 Jim Laker England 4101 193 21.25
13 Fred Trueman England 6625 307 21.58
14 Glenn McGrath Australia 12186 563 21.64
15 Hugh Trumble Australia 3072 141 21.79
16 Muttiah Muralitharan Sri Lanka 16924 765 22.12
17 Allan Donald South Africa 7344 330 22.25
18 Richard Hadlee New Zealand 9611 431 22.3
19 Bill O'Reilly Australia 3254 144 22.6
20 Imran Khan Pakistan 8258 362 22.81

well dale steyn obviously

but it's also more than just averages that are important. Strike rates come into it too when talking about great bowlers

That's kinda Vads's deal. He doesn't actually like modern sport, he lives in the glories of sporting history.

I think you're getting bowling averages confused with RPO. RPO= runs per over-the run saving efficiency of the bowler per over, taken on average-more important in one-day games.
The bowling average is the amount of runs that will be conceded before a wicket is taken. Thus if your average is 25, technically speaking on average you should take 4 wickets for every 100 runs the opposition racks up....

I know exactly what an average is?!

Strike Rate = number of balls per wicket.

Bowlers that obviously weren't as good as those bowlers on that list?

Modern day bowlers suck... they're too mechanistic. There are a few - Mendis, Muralitharan, Akram, Younis - who were creative (and before them guys like Marshall etc) - but the most part are metronomes.

Lohmann and Barnes both bowled medium/medium-fast cutters. Who does that today? And they did it with the SAME BALL (no new balls).

Which is why Sidney Barnes will always be remembered as the greatest ever.

sigh imo vadz, two words


Uncovered wickets



no wait ....two more



Bat technology


Theres probably others, but mate there is NFW bolwers from ancient eras are "better" than those today. You are simply being seduced by nostalgic old bugga cricket journos. imo

If that's the truth, then batsmen of that time must have been MUCH better than batsmen today?

You can't have it both ways

And actually runs per wicket in the 1920s and 1930s was pretty high even compared to today

Im not sure if your last comment makes snese but anyway, I wouldnt have a clue to compare/ math out the stats of the different eras, so Im just using common sense

The fact is in literally ALL sports the modern day athletes are fitter, faster, stronger, taller than pre 50's/whatever...this is due to the proliferation of professional sport spawning more full time athletes, sophisticated training methods, pro coaches and dieting ....and I suppose partly evolution.

So how on earth can cricket be different? Sure cricket has its skill based nuances but not to the degree you are alledging. How someone with a big brain like yours can honestly believe so is baffling to me

Thomson was clocked at 160 30 years ago

Nobody has got quicker in that time...

and batsmen who faced thomson and tyson said tyson was just as quick back in 54/55

some players faced both tyson and larwood... etc

it's pretty hard to compare the older game to the newer game but it seems batsmen are making a lot more runs these days and have more protective gear.

What kind of a cop is Bond anyway-it would be hard for him to be on the beat with a bung leg...
It would be hard holding down a job as say a cop anyway and then going off to training and focussing on your game like that..