KEY POINTS:
Cricketer Shane Bond will have many critics if, as seems the case, he has signed with the rebel Indian Cricket League and played his last game for New Zealand. Accusations of disloyalty will ring particularly loud because his return has been modest for a fast bowler of such outstanding talent. Injury has been a constant blight, and followers of the game were always looking to the next series as the one when Bond, at his majestic best, would inspire the Black Caps team to a stunning victory. A series against England, starting next month, was to be just such an occasion.
That long-running frustration should not, however, blind anyone to the realities of Bond's situation. For an injury-prone 32-year-old with a young family, this is a sensible step. The reported $1 million that he will collect for playing for three seasons in the rebel league offers far more security than anything on offer elsewhere. Twenty20 cricket will also take far less toll on his fragile body than the grind of five-day tests. Previous suggestions that he might restrict himself to one-day cricket can only have been hardened by his failure to see out the two-test series in South Africa late last year.
It cannot, however, have been an easy decision for Bond. He, more than anyone, must be frustrated that his talent has remained largely unfulfilled. His record of 79 wickets in just 17 tests, at an average of 22.39 each, and 125 one-day wickets at 19.32, many against Australia and often in brilliant fashion, bears testimony to his potential. He will also be aware that his performance in India will be of no consequence, as is usually the case with rebel ventures. The first season of Twenty20 matches, including New Zealanders Chris Cairns, Hamish Marshall, Nathan Astle, Daryl Tuffey, Craig McMillan and Chris Harris, has passed virtually without mention. If, however, Bond had propelled the Black Caps to victory over England, his performance would have been the subject of enduring acclaim.
So far, the rebel league has featured only players in the twilight of their careers. The signing of Bond and Brian Lara does not alter that. But cricket's administrators are aware that may not always be the case given the money underpinning the game in India. The response has been twofold: an Indian Premier League to rival the rebel initiative, and encouragement for national selectors to overlook players who have signed for the breakaway league. The first has been a reasonable success, allowing the likes of Stephen Fleming and Jacob Oram to fatten their wallets, even if with fewer dollars than the rebel league offers, without stepping outside the mainstream.
The second, however, is problematic. A player such as Bond, who is contracted to New Zealand Cricket until April, could take legal action for restraint of trade if he is not selected for the series against England. The governing body has attempted to finesse the issue by saying he is considered "ineligible for selection", rather than banned. That would not carry much weight in a court of law. Bond is, however, unlikely to take such action. He can easily bide his time before collecting his bounty from the breakaway league. Such may not be the case with a younger, fully fit player if the Indian Cricket League came calling. Therein lies a problem for the game.
All supporters would have liked to see Bond bow out of sanctioned cricket in a blaze of glory against England. But efforts to persuade him to forsake the rebels and join the Indian Premier League appear to have failed. He has, it seems, opted for the league offering the most money. Given his circumstances, that is realistic. For supporters, there will be only the memory of a talent that burned brightly, albeit briefly. But what a talent it was.
