Brett Lee vs Shane Bond?

[irottev]

It's not like Lee moves the ball anyway. Bond has bowled in difficult conditions. One thing Bond definitely has over Lee is his ability to swing the ball. I think Lee has swung it more in his last year or so he played tests but Bond has always had the ability to swing the ball both ways. Lee's edge is that he has more pace (more consistently in 150s) but less control.

The other thing aiding Lee is having Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie bowling at the other end (or following them). Bond had no notable opening bowlers so there wasn't as much pressure building at the other end.

Speaking of Jason Gillespie he's better than both of these players.

 

[TumTum]

The other thing aiding Lee is having Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie bowling at the other end. Bond had no notable opening bowlers so there wasn't as much pressure building at the other end.

You could argue another case with that, the other bowlers took all the easy pickings and left Lee with nothing easy.

 

[Cricketdude]

New zealand is one of the most bowler friendly wickets in the world.

 

[CG123]

No TumTum, if you have great bowlers bowling at the other end, your stats are going to improve. It's a proven fact mate.

 

[Dare]

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

Just reinforces my point that Bonds average would probably go up as the amount of tests he played increased. Lee went from the numbers you posted to 30.8 and 53.3.

I definitely think Bond's average would still be below 25 and SR below 40.

I think his average would be what you said but the strike rate would go up as he played around the world and in the subcontinent. Probably somewhere from 45-50.


And don't get me wrong I am not taking anything away from Bond, he was a great test match bowler and it sucks that he wasn't able to have a good test career.


One thing I do have to mention is that Bond has 13 wickets against Zimbabwe and 20 against the West Indies and Lee has 64 against the West Indies.

 

[-D-S-B-]

Still if Bond is 100% fit and Lee is 100% fit give me Bond any day.

Same here. Hes had a lot of injuries so his career is obviously shorter, so its quite hard to compare the 2 on their careers.
I just think tat bond is one hell of a bowler to be able to bowl 155kph at 34 years old after so many injuries.

 

[irottev]

I just hate these threads. They take away from one of the players and really there's no right answer for this one. Both are probably equally as good as each have their pros and cons. They're both exceptional bowlers and hopefully we see in the futures other bowlers with their skill. With the whole T20 movement and less tests, etc we may see pace bowling decline.

Give me Shane Bond to open and Lee as first change with someone like McGrath the other opener for team of the decade. Warne probably has to be the spinner too. Give me Murili too. 5 Bowlers lol. This fivetet would get 20 wickets on any deck.

 

[Dare]

With the whole T20 movement and less tests, etc we may see pace bowling decline.

Na I think that there will always be a demand for pace bowlers of their quality. I mean who wouldn't want a Lee or Bond on their team.

 

[TumTum]

It's a proven fact mate.

Show me it then :laugh

 

[sami ullah khan]

Same here. Hes had a lot of injuries so his career is obviously shorter, so its quite hard to compare the 2 on their careers.
I just think tat bond is one hell of a bowler to be able to bowl 155kph at 34 years old after so many injuries.

Did he bowl 155 KPH during Pakistan New Zealand series . I did not see him touch 150 to be honest. But I might have missed a fiery spell.

 

[CG123]

Show me it then :laugh

I've got it written down, but I can't be bothered to type it up. :sarcasm

 

[irottev]

Did he bowl 155 KPH during Pakistan New Zealand series . I did not see him touch 150 to be honest. But I might have missed a fiery spell.

According the the speed guns he hit it a handful of times. Speed guns can be a little off but he was definitely clocked at 155

 

[CG123]

Well the poll questions is, 'Who is the better bowler?'...
IMO Bond is easily the better bowler.

If I had to select a bowler for the ashes, I would take Lee, as Bond has never played more than four test matches in a year.

 

[McLOVIN]

those 3rd "funny" options these days gets on my nerves!

 

[Howsie]

IMO Bond's one of the best fast bowlers I've ever seen bowl in one day international cricket, take it as bias if you want but he was just that good. His pace, his control, his movement, he was just you're perfect fast bowler. From 2002-07 he averaged 19 with the ball and took 120 odd wickets, even more impressive was his record against Australia which stood at something ridiculous like 34 wickets at 13.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Lee's record though, it's pretty much just as good considering the amount of games he's played. 324 wickets at 23 is just amazing.

But if I had to pick one of them for my team in their prime I'd take Bond.

Lee > Bond in test cricket however, Bond's just not played enough test cricket to be judge properly imo and Brett Lee although inconsistant at times of his career was very good for 3-4 years, very good.