@no-quarter said in NZ All Time Test XI:

Also, I love that we've had this exact discussion and these exact same arguments nearly every year but nobody gives a fuck and everyone just piles in. This is what makes the Fern great. Awesome thread lads.

I appreciate that @MN5 always volunteers to be the guy to get everything wrong in these threads. That is a job that is harder than it looks.

@crucial said in Brexit:

@rembrandt said in Brexit:

No deal all the way for me (from the safety of Australia with my UK pension transferred to NZ and my UK bank accounts emptied). Bring on the chaos!

Things will work out, it will hurt for a while and will take time and it means the UK is going to actually have to treat papa Trump with due respect. The alternative in my mind is a much scarier prospect, the end of democracy in Britain.

End of democracy? What bollocks.
As for the “hurt for a while” situation, yep it will certainly be a while and how does bowing to papa Trump provide the sovereignty the people wanted? He’s hardly Mr free trade and will have all the negotiating power over a desperate GB.
I’m not that averse to Brexit if that is what people want, just think it is really stupid to go about it in the way it has happened and the way some dreamers seem to think will be fine.
What on earth was wrong with telling Europe that when we are ready we will trigger article 50 instead of setting a timetable that put all the power with them?

Trump actually is a massively in favour of free trade. You have proof otherwise? Because all the trade fights he has kicked off are because free trade is not being allowed.

I think the UK has been weak, they should have made it clear to the EU that if they dont negotiate n good faith, it will hurt both sides. May was pathetic, and the EU are cunts. It is going to end badly no matter what now.

@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....

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.'