Brett Lee vs Shane Bond?

[drainpipe32]

A valid comparison IMO. Both their countries fastest bowlers. Both the attack leaders at some point

And now after ten years for Lee, and eight for Bond it seems both their test careers have come to an end. Lee was lucky enough to play 76 games and take over 300 test wickets, while Bond played just 18 and took 87 wickets while averaging 22.09.

In the limited overs game they were both unplayable at their best. But unfortunate persistent injuries to Bond meant his career never took off. Both also capable with the bat.

Who is the better bowler?

I remember the WC Super Sixes game in 2003. Bond killed us with six wickets and we were doomed, but then Binga took five to win us the game. Great stuff!

 

[TumTum]

I'm going to say Brett Lee, because he had a longer career, while Bond has had injuries.

But I have no idea if they both had the same length of career.

 

[CG123]

No comparison IMO.

I know people are just going to play the 'he is always injured' card, but Bond is one of the greatest fast bowlers of the modern era, and he has ripped apart the best batting line-up in the world numerous, which Lee can't do... as he's in it.

77 ODI's, 138 wickets at just 20.87, and an E/R of only 4.28, he's just a class above Lee.

A better comparison IMO, would be Bond vs Steyn.

Shane Bond ALL THE WAY!!!

 

[drainpipe32]

I'm going to say Brett Lee, because he had a longer career, while Bond has had injuries.

But I have no idea if they both had the same length of career.

Yeah, that's the flaw in this, and I suppose the reason to compare :S

 

[Dare]

Lee all the way, the injuries are just starting to hit him after having a successful career. For a guy who bowls 90+ all the time he has lasted a long time and I cant say the same thing about Bond. The difference is almost 50 tests and there is no way that they can be compared. If you pick Lee for a 3-5 test series it is a safe bet that he would last the series while there is always a chance that Bond would get injured, like he did in the Pakistan series.

Bond has/had great potential and could have been something special but his body wouldn't allow him to play the game for a long time.

BTW Bond averaged 87??

 

[drainpipe32]

My mistake. It's my one track mind!

 

[Cricketdude]

87 wickets.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Lee because he has been able to bowl beautifully at incredible speeds for such a long time. Bond is amazing but a fast bowler has to be good with his fitness too. Bond may have been very unlucky to have gone through the injuries but he was a sight to see in full swing.

 

[nz0003]

And it looks like both of their Test Careers are over.

I'd take Bond, just because he is a much better Test bowler.

 

[CG123]

It depends really what you are comparing, Bond is the better player, quite easily IMO.
But if you are selecting someone for a five match test world XI series or the ashes, you would probably have to take Lee, as Bond wouldn't last that long.

 

[Dare]

I'd take Bond, just because he is a much better Test bowler.

You sure his stats would have been as good if he had played 50+ tests?

 

[irottev]

Shane Bond. The only reason anyone should want Lee instead of Bond is the # of matches issue. Still if Bond is 100% fit and Lee is 100% fit give me Bond any day.

You sure his stats would have been as good if he had played 50+ tests?

Well if we compare Lee after 18 matches with Bond's career (18 matches)

Bond: 87 wickets @ 22.09 S/R of 38.7
Lee: 74 wickets @ 24.82 S/R of 45.0

They're both excellent records but Bond has quite an edge.

I definitely think Bond's average would still be below 25 and SR below 40. It would probably come up gradually as he'd have the odd off day but it'd still be top draw. But anyway, all that is all theory because it never happened.

Yet again, don't see the need for a comparison. New Zealand don't often produce really fast bowlers. Having a guy as good as Bond is all that matters. Who cares.

 

[pcfan123]

Lee simply because part of the "test" of a Test match is fitness.

 

[Dare]

People are bringing up this if thing. Take it for what it is. If only that one black South African bowler didn't have that bone condition he would have had a great career the way he started of in his 1st test.

 

[TumTum]

Well Bond hasn't bowled on flat pitches much like Lee has. That would definitely have an effect on his incredible stats.