Brett Lee vs Shane Bond: who is the better bowler?

[angryangy]

Bond was always the more potent, but it depends how you factor the effects of his bowling action. The injuries he got killed his chances of being more effective.

 

[Howsie]

The injuries he got killed his chances of being more effective

What do you mean by that?

Do you think he could of been quicker, or that his action caused his injuries.

 

[jazz]

Bond was quick around 2003 and 2007 world cups, he was bowling at 150 kph. Since his injuries his had to cut his pace back but he still easily is New Zealand’s fastest bowler

As I said before Lee is a better bowler due to the fact his been very fit. Also for me Lee's career excelled during the 2005 ashes him and Warne where the only Aussie bowlers that troubled England

But in their prime Bond was the better bowler simply down to his death bowling and giving few runs away. If Lee was a good death bowler and cut out his no balls they both would of been equal. In terms of being a strike bowler and taking wickets they are both dangerous and equally the same.

As for Bonds return people should not get too excited or expect too much of him. His best years have gone and I don’t see him getting 6-7 wickets against Australia. Just having him back would be a major boost to the New Zealand side and to their young bowlers coming through.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Bond Bond Bond Bond. Shane Bond in a heartbeat, any day of the week, any week of the year. The man has to be one of the finest, if not the finest, fast bowler I have seen in my lifetime. There have been better bowlers, for sure, but if Bond had had a full career he'd be one of the all-time greats. Lee probably won't be an all-time great, and at his prime he has devastating, but Bond in his prime trumps everything.

 

[jazz]

Bond Bond Bond Bond. Shane Bond in a heartbeat, any day of the week, any week of the year. The man has to be one of the finest, if not the finest, fast bowler I have seen in my lifetime. There have been better bowlers, for sure, but if Bond had had a full career he'd be one of the all-time greats. Lee probably won't be an all-time great, and at his prime he has devastating, but Bond in his prime trumps everything.

I disagree as a New Zealand fan I obviously think Bond is one of the great New Zealand Bowlers to have played for New Zealand but to call him the finest and a great in the world is wrong.

I would agree with you if Bond never got injured and was always involved in the New Zealand team but that isn?t the case as he plays for 1-2 years and then gets injured for 2-3 years.

Look at Simon Jones he was a great bowler for England in Ashes 2005 but he is similar to Bond as his always been plagued by injury and if he wasn?t injured he would surely be a top bowler for England.

It?s sad that some cricketers with potential to be best/greats in the world are hampered by ongoing injuries but that?s life.

 

[King Cricket]

Ooops, that's is Test average isn't it.

Yeah, it is. But in the tests it will not be fair to compare Bond and Lee and say who's better on the basis of just averages. As Bond has played just 17 tests in his entire career, whereas Lee has played 70+. Your form, average and everything is bound to drop after you've played cricket for such a long time.

 

[age of the fall]

When Fit- Bond by a landslide


However I'd probably give it to Lee overall because he could stay fit while Bond couldn't.

 

[irottev]

Considering Lee has been playing and Bond hasn't it's Lee by default. Going back to when Bond was last playing, Bond was a better bowler. Hopefully when Bond returns he'll still be better.

 

[aussie1st]

I have always seen Bond as the more dangerous of the two. His ability to swing the ball both ways at 140km/h+ was one of the hardest things to face. I remember him doing this in the Champions trophy against us, it was crazy how much movement he got both ways. His yorker I would rate better than Lee. Lee in his prime got good outswing with the white ball and did trouble batters at times but not as much as Bond. Probably the only time he did was during his debut season.

 

[icyman]

Bond,Shane Bond !

Sheer pace and a class action which was never suspected.


Can we have a poll for this ?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I would agree with you if Bond never got injured and was always involved in the New Zealand team but that isn’t the case as he plays for 1-2 years and then gets injured for 2-3 years.

Yup, I'm not saying that he is a great, but could have been a great. He isn't. As their career stands, Lee deserves more respect.

But I always felt, whenever I watched Bond, that he was just plain awesome. Same feeling I get when I watch Steyn or Johnson now. But Lee never did that for me.

To be fair, Lee played when he was raw, then hit his prime, and is kinda over it. Bond only played when in his prime. So Bond might not have fared as well after a few more years on the track, but we don't know that.\

Therefore, Bond > Lee. Easily.

 

[karnog]

I'm a bit of a Bond fan. The biggest issue with Bond was his fitness. With Lee he looked at times like an albino West Indian pace bowler that often fished with Andy Roberts and taught Walsh how to bounce a batsman where at other times he seemed the doppleganger of Saj Mahmood or haggard Harmison's lost love child. Compare those 18 months with the past year or so. I don't recall many bowlers running through the Aussie batting line up the way Bond did. Bond was the better bowler. Bond was unfortunately unfit and you can blame part of it with the fact NZ more often than not needed him.

 

[Aditya]

Brett lee better as bond has not played international cricket from a while so we can't tell but in icl also bond was not bowling good line but lee also was in good form last few months so they both are good but as brett lee playing international and bowling good he is better

 

[King Pietersen]

but Bond in his prime trumps everything.

Can't say I agree with that. Shoaib Akhtar at his prime was far more dangerous than Shane Bond. Think you rate Bond a tad too highly.

 

[King Cricket]

Why don't we have a poll on this issue?