Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[scorpiogal]

I think you're confusing 'troubled' shoulder with 'tasteless' shoulder;

eeww

 

[vic_orthdox]

Here we go

The article is dated April 25th. 3 weeks away from bowling which should be now.

Stand corrected. So he had his workload restricted, was forced to rest, no operations, there's just a bit of rehab...

Pretty much exactly the same as what Lee is coming back from ( : )which is the comparison that you were making.

 

[scorpiogal]

Oh Jesus! Someone was actually reading my posts!

 

[Manee]

It would actually be

1. Johnson - regular 150

2. Siddle - regular 145-150

3. Lee - very rare that he gets above 145

Tait is the quickest in the world but only for a few balls and not a test option

That is simply not true. I'm not too bothered but Johnson is not regularly over 150kph nor is Siddle regularly over 145kph.

 

[scorpiogal]

That is simply not true. I'm not too bothered but Johnson is not regularly over 150kph nor is Siddle regularly over 145kph.

Well you see, some folks think they can simply spit their opinions in people's faces and expect them to accept it as the gospel, forgetting that, hey, wait a sec, we all watch the matches and see these guys bowl!

 

[Uppercut]

That is simply not true. I'm not too bothered but Johnson is not regularly over 150kph nor is Siddle regularly over 145kph.

Aye, although Johnson's as fast as anyone playing international cricket at the moment. He's not regularly over 150kph because noone is (it's just an example of that strange habit people have of exaggerating everyone's average speeds). But in South Africa he banged the ball down pretty damn fast. The spell where he injured Smith and Kallis had everything at once- express pace, extravagant bounce, movement both ways, nagging accuracy and a very mean streak.

 

[Uppercut]

White ball, meaningless match = B Lee bowling quick

Let me know when he does it in a test match because that's what the others do

BTW, I dont wish him any harm but he's 4th choice at best and his record in England WHEN HE WAS AT HIS PEAK says he shouldnt even be that

Couple of things- i don't see why Lee should be below Stuey Clark in the pecking order considering he's taken more wickets in every series he's played since the last Ashes. And Brett Lee was absolutely not at his peak last time he visited England- his peak was about two and a half years later in the Australian summer of 07/08.

 

[Burgey]

Lee was in the paper today saying he's surprised at how fast he's bowling at this stage of his recovery. He said he thinks he's got a few more kms int eh bank, and he's already hitting approx 150 when he thought he'd be hitting 130-140 at this stage.

Personally, if he thinks at his age he's going to get back to hitting the mid-150s consistently, he's kidding himself. What's more, he dialled back his pace a bit in the past few years and was loads better, and got some useful swing at lower revs.

If he goes to England all excited about his pace, and worrying about that, then we're going to be back to 2001 imo.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Couple of things- i don't see why Lee should be below Stuey Clark in the pecking order considering he's taken more wickets in every series he's played since the last Ashes. And Brett Lee was absolutely not at his peak last time he visited England- his peak was about two and a half years later in the Australian summer of 07/08.

Yeah I agree, he was nowhere near his peak in the last Ashes series in England. He only started to perform consistently well once McGrath was gone.

 

[Burgey]

That's true, but if you had to choose one of them to bowl in tests in England this series, who would you choose? I'd take Clark, principally because Lee's form on two tours of England has been gash, and Clark's style of bowling, in particular his natural length, seems more suited to England than Lee.

Not a bad problem to have though .

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's true, but if you had to choose one of them to bowl in tests in England this series, who would you choose? I'd take Clark, principally because Lee's form on two tours of England has been gash, and Clark's style of bowling, in particular his natural length, seems more suited to England than Lee.

Not a bad problem to have though .

Yeah I'd choose Clark too, I was just too lazy to highlight which part of the post I was agreeing with. I'd back Clark to be more effective on the English wickets with his length and movement than Lee. And would also back his second and third spells to be better.

 

[Uppercut]

Tough call. I'd leave it until nearer the time to decide. Clark's a more defensive bowler too, so it depends on who else is in the side. If- god forbid- Mitchell Johnson was injured, I'd have Lee replacing him rather than Clark (there'd probably be space for both, but I'm being hypothetical).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Tough call. I'd leave it until nearer the time to decide. Clark's a more defensive bowler too, so it depends on who else is in the side. If- god forbid- Mitchell Johnson was injured, I'd have Lee replacing him rather than Clark (there'd probably be space for both, but I'm being hypothetical).

Well, he goes for less runs. I'd also say he's more likely to take a wicket given the areas he generally bowls. If Lee's bowling well then obviously he's going to be a danger. I'd just have more faith in Clark than Lee when they're both coming back from injury.

Given Clark's ability to pick up a wicket whenever he was brought on by Ponting up until his tour of India I don't think he's too defensive an option. If you replaced Johnson with Clark then you pick another bowler who has the ability to pick up important wickets. Assuming Clark bowls in a similar way to how he bowled prior to his injury.

 

[aussie]

Personally, if he thinks at his age he's going to get back to hitting the mid-150s consistently, he's kidding himself.

I don't know. Lee is arguably on of the fittest fast bowlers you are ever likely to see. I was honestly expecting his pace to be bearly hitting the 145 after his injury return & too see him bowling this sharply in the IPL is brilliant.

I think he can still maintain high pace for a least another year..

What's more, he dialled back his pace a bit in the past few years and was loads better, and got some useful swing at lower revs.

Did he really?. I'd say he added variation along with his high pace between WI 05 to IND WI 08.

If he goes to England all excited about his pace, and worrying about that, then we're going to be back to 2001 imo.

I don't Lee ATS would be making his pace a priority. He knows he has to work himself back into form @ test level especially. Him having his pace back is key.

 

[Richard]

Tough call. I'd leave it until nearer the time to decide. Clark's a more defensive bowler too, so it depends on who else is in the side. If- god forbid- Mitchell Johnson was injured, I'd have Lee replacing him rather than Clark (there'd probably be space for both, but I'm being hypothetical).

Well, he goes for less runs. I'd also say he's more likely to take a wicket given the areas he generally bowls. If Lee's bowling well then obviously he's going to be a danger. I'd just have more faith in Clark than Lee when they're both coming back from injury.

Given Clark's ability to pick up a wicket whenever he was brought on by Ponting up until his tour of India I don't think he's too defensive an option. If you replaced Johnson with Clark then you pick another bowler who has the ability to pick up important wickets. Assuming Clark bowls in a similar way to how he bowled prior to his injury.

Yeah I think "Clark's a better defensive option than Lee" is a more accurate way of putting it than "Clark's a more defensive option than Lee". Clark's techniques for attack and defence are intermingled; Lee's techniques for attack are the very anthesis of defence. That means Clark can do both or one (defence only) depending on various factors; Lee can essentially only do one (attack only).

Clark is simply a far better bowler than Lee. There's no question in my mind that I'd have Clark under all circumstances other than Lee bowling as he did in 2007/08 (which I think is very unlikely to be repeated, though you'd be a fool to rule it out).

 

[Burgey]

I don't know. Lee is arguably on of the fittest fast bowlers you are ever likely to see. I was honestly expecting his pace to be bearly hitting the 145 after his injury return & too see him bowling this sharply in the IPL is brilliant.

I think he can still maintain high pace for a least another year..






Did he really?. I'd say he added variation along with his high pace between WI 05 to IND WI 08.




I don't Lee ATS would be making his pace a priority. He knows he has to work himself back into form @ test level especially. Him having his pace back is key.

Hope you're right mate.

As an historical fact, it's unlikely all these guys will be fit, in form and available at the same time, but if you had Johnson, Siddle, Hilf, Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Watson (all rounder) all in or about a side at the same time and pushing each other for spots because they were all bowling well, it would be an insane amount of pace bowling depth.

As I said though, highly likely it won't hapeen with injuries, form etc.

 

[social]

Couple of things- i don't see why Lee should be below Stuey Clark in the pecking order considering he's taken more wickets in every series he's played since the last Ashes. And Brett Lee was absolutely not at his peak last time he visited England- his peak was about two and a half years later in the Australian summer of 07/08.

Firstly, Clark is far more suited to English conditions than Lee and his inclusion gives the attack more balance

Give me a tall, accurate, seam bowler over a guy that relies on pace every day of the week in England (and especially when you have other guys in the team who can act as the enforcer if required)

Secondly, skill-wise, Lee was pretty much at his peak in 2005 - he had been sensational for quite a long time in ODIs with high pace, accuracy and swing. What he didnt have until 2007 was any luck whatsoever.

Unfortunately, his bowling is generally less effective in English conditions because he:

a. is very low at the point of delivery so there's little bounce to be had in generally softer conditions;

b. generally doesnt seam it;

c. doesnt have a great change of pace; and

d. has rarely swung it.

Put all those things together and you have a bowler who'll have more bad days than good in that country

 

[aussie]

Firstly, Clark is far more suited to English conditions than Lee and his inclusion gives the attack more balance.

Give me a tall, accurate, seam bowler over a guy that relies on pace every day of the week in England (and especially when you have other guys in the team who can act as the enforcer if required).

If you are going to play 3 quicks & spinner well yea i'd agree. But hopefully over here, that option never occurs & 4 quicks of whatever combination (preferably Johnson/Lee/Siddle/Clark) play all 5 test.

Secondly, skill-wise, Lee was pretty much at his peak in 2005 - he had been sensational for quite a long time in ODIs with high pace, accuracy and swing. What he didnt have until 2007 was any luck whatsoever.

Disagree. Lee in ODI's in his career has always be superb, so that ODI form meant nothing. Before the Ashes his ODI form of 2004 couldn't get Kasper out of the side.

The 2005 series was a turning point in Lee's test match career if anything - since after that series up until WI 08, he clearly became more accurate.

Unfortunately, his bowling is generally less effective in English conditions because he:

a. is very low at the point of delivery so there's little bounce to be had in generally softer conditions;

b. generally doesnt seam it;

c. doesnt have a great change of pace; and

d. has rarely swung it.

Put all those things together and you have a bowler who'll have more bad days than good in that country

Lee in SA 07 in conditions very similar to England, was superb & did all of the things you suggested here.

So ATM, all binga needs is to do with his pace still solid is - stay fit, perform well in those two-warm up games & well see if he can get back to his form of WI 05 - WI 08.

 

[Uppercut]

Firstly, Clark is far more suited to English conditions than Lee and his inclusion gives the attack more balance

Give me a tall, accurate, seam bowler over a guy that relies on pace every day of the week in England (and especially when you have other guys in the team who can act as the enforcer if required)

Secondly, skill-wise, Lee was pretty much at his peak in 2005 - he had been sensational for quite a long time in ODIs with high pace, accuracy and swing. What he didnt have until 2007 was any luck whatsoever.

Unfortunately, his bowling is generally less effective in English conditions because he:

a. is very low at the point of delivery so there's little bounce to be had in generally softer conditions;

b. generally doesnt seam it;

c. doesnt have a great change of pace; and

d. has rarely swung it.

Put all those things together and you have a bowler who'll have more bad days than good in that country

I can only disagree, Brett Lee swings the ball regularly, seams it when conditions allow and has developed a good slower ball in the past couple of years (if you remember, he nailed Dravid with it for the first wicket of the Aus-India series of last December). A lack of bounce isn't a problem any more than it is for Dale Steyn.

If Brett Lee really did none of the things you say he doesn't do, he wouldn't have taken 310 test wickets @ 30.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I think "Clark's a better defensive option than Lee" is a more accurate way of putting it than "Clark's a more defensive option than Lee". Clark's techniques for attack and defence are intermingled; Lee's techniques for attack are the very anthesis of defence. That means Clark can do both or one (defence only) depending on various factors; Lee can essentially only do one (attack only).

Clark is simply a far better bowler than Lee. There's no question in my mind that I'd have Clark under all circumstances other than Lee bowling as he did in 2007/08 (which I think is very unlikely to be repeated, though you'd be a fool to rule it out).

Again, i can only disagree. Saying "Clark is a far better bowler than Lee" just doesn't explain why Lee's taken more wickets than him in every single series they've played together since the last Ashes. Even if you were to conclude that Clark is better than him anyway- not unreasonable- i still think your mind is holding Lee's previous incarnations against him to too great an extent.

As a sidenote, predicting greater future success for a bowler who has continually had lesser success for a period of two years is something you're intensely critical of selectors for doing.