Crucket

When the news emerged that Shane Bond would miss the 2nd and 3rd tests of the Pakistan series because of injury, he made a comment about considering his future. This seemed a pretty heavy thing to be thinking about when you had just a tiny abdominal tear. It was clear then that he was revisiting all the arguments that lead to his first retirement from test cricket after the South Africa tour of 2007. It seems this year’s injury reminded him why he made that decision in the first place.

There have been two contrasting reactions to Bond’s retirement. Short of a Length nominated Bond for retiree of the year with the following valediction:

Shane Bond: Shane has always been very special. He has a last name that reminds you of all those horrible chemistry classes which dwell on elastomers or something like that. He had the kind of pace and swing a national cricket board would kill for. It takes talent (and bad luck) to end up playing 18 tests over a career spanning eight years, yet to take 87 wickets at an average of 22 and strike rate of 39 in those tests. With all of that on his resume, it should come as no surprise that even in retirement Bond did something different. He retired twice in 2009! First from the ICL (who are themselves a nominee! you might say he’s a reference to the ICL in coding terms. Then again you might not…) and then from Test cricket. That makes Shane so unique that he’s almost a shoo-in to win the award.

Whereas Sportsfreak remarks:

So that’s it then. Farewell Shane Bond from test cricket. Like stardust sprinkled loosely, quite a few nice shiny bits, but no real long-term illumination. It is easier not to miss someone when you are used to missing them.

A true assessment of Shane Bond lies somewhere between the praise of the first and the harsh truth of the second. On the one hand, Shane Bond was an exceptional cricketer, with an almost unbelievable bowling average of 22.09 and a strike rate of 38.7. On the other hand, he missed many, many more tests than he played during the length of his career. But you can’t focus on one of these aspects without acknowledging the other.

With Shane Bond in the team, New Zealand won five tests for every test they lost. You simply have to be astounded by that figure. Not only was he individually outstanding, as per his individual stats, but he lifted the rest of the NZ bowling attack. If this was all you could see of Shane Bond’s record, you would have to have rated him as the best bowler in the world. However, over the length of his career, NZ actually lost more tests then they won; his impact on NZ’s record was greatly affected by his regular non-availability.

So when reflecting on Shane Bond’s retirement, it is not just the incredible talent that Short of a Length celebrates that we will miss, nor we will dwell solely on his perpetual absences, as Sportsfreak does. But rather we will rue what might have been. What we missed because of his absences. What his legacy might have been and where New Zealand cricket might now be if he had played in 3/4 of NZ’s tests during his career rather than 1/4.