If you actually read properly, you'd notice the "if" there. There are indeed circumstances under which Lee cannot effectively attack (plenty of them) and under such circumstances he is rendered impotent.
?
If you actually read properly, you'd notice the "if" there. There are indeed circumstances under which Lee cannot effectively attack (plenty of them) and under such circumstances he is rendered impotent.
Never once has there been a suggestion from me or anyone else that Lee can never be an attacking bowler. Just that "being an attacking bowler" doesn't mean you can take wickets under any circumstances.
Which has what relevance to what exactly?That K.I.S.S. exactly.
There is no if about the fact that there are circumstances, plenty of them, where Lee has been unable to attack. He has not taken 300 wickets in every Test he's played in. He's taken 300 wickets because he's played lots and lots of Test cricket, and has had two very short but very, very good spells.
How old are you? Keep It Simple Stupid = K.I.S.S.
And there are plenty of other circumstances where many a bowler couldn't attack
What the f*** are you on about? The man took 300 test and ODI wickets. Don't try to play down the achievement
That's of relevance why precisely?
As opposed to keep it simplistic stupid, which someone is doing a pretty good job of here.Keep It Simple Stupid = K.I.S.S.
Hahaha, err, no, actually, I'm talking perfect sense, as per usual. Quite why it seems so difficult to see that I don't know, but the inability is in the eye of the beholder.And there are plenty of other circumstances where many a bowler couldn't attack
Take Johnson, for instance, in the Windies last year. He was utter rubbish. You're talking b.s.
Right, let's get this straight - Brett Lee has for most of his career been an extremely poor bowler in Test cricket, though he has had two very brief spells where he's been superlative. At most times, he has struggled to attack with any great efficiency and has had no hope of defending remotely efficiently.What the f*** are you on about? The man took 300 test and ODI wickets. Don't try to play down the achievement
There's obviously some great skill and talent there to take 310 (I can't believe I just had to say that. We're talking about B.Lee here not some small time Siddle or Hilfenhaus)
I'm just looking at Brett Lee's averages by year. You might find this interesting- there's a definite period of something in between extremely poor and superlative in the 2005/06 period. Starting with the first match of the 2005 Ashes, and ending before the start of the home summer in 2007- widely considered the beginning of his second excellent period- Lee took 88 wickets at an average of 29, Bangladesh excluded. That's a big period- well over a quarter of his career wickets- in which Lee was neither superlative nor atrocious, where he was instead fairly good. In truth, it's more of an inconsistent mixture of the two, but i still thought it was worth mentioning.
Wam wid ya boy, wa i tell about your personally ideologies that you alone believe shotta??
He didn't in the first three Tests - in those he got pretty much the figures he deserved. Then in the last two he was gifted plenty of wickets with nothing bowling. It wasn't just inaccurate deliveries - it was utter nothing bowling.
I'd say it's happened just the right amount. There's been plenty of times he's bowled much better and not got wickets. Why would you even bother holding it against him when he got wickets when bowling badly?
Wickets through good bowling merits praise. Wickets through nothing bowling does not merit any praise. It's not really very complicated.FFS! Why are you acting like no-one else takes wickets with rubbish bowling?
We've seen Johnson take wickets with some of the dumbest deliveries ever. At the end of the day, a wicket is a wicket. It doesn't say next to it "but it was a nothing delivery"
I can't think of very many times in Lee's career where he's bowled well and returned average figures. Not many at all. So thus, on occasions where he's been flattered by his figures - as he eminently was in those last couple of Tests of 2006/07 - I don't tend to take too kindly to it.
And I have to say that you are wrong, because you have no idea what you're talking about, knowing as you do barely the first thing about me. No offence.
Try reading properly. No-one has suggested Lee has taken every single wicket in his career via nothing bowling.
