If someone gets wickets constantly over a career with short, wide crap deliveries, then they have indeed not bowled remotely well and merely been ridiculously fortunate.
I'll play down what I want to play down, because Lee has really not achieved anything of great note. He's a very moderate Test bowler - for much of his career he's been out-and-out poor, and occasionally sensational.
Sometimes, yes- over a whole career it's harder to make a case against him. It's a subtle mix of pace, movement, bounce, how difficult the bowler's action is to pick up, their cricketing nous, and a lot of other things that determines how likely a bowler is to take wickets. How many wickets they get is generally a more reliable indicator of how good they are at taking wickets than what we can decipher from watching on TV.
Nope- but then they'd be a 40-averaging bowler. No more, no less. Whereas Brett Lee was a 29-averaging bowler in the period i pinpointed, when you insist he was much worse than this.
*yawns*
You have a Twilight avatar. STRU.*yawns*
Some other guy has a Twilight avatar as well. Go attack his.
Haha, right on it.
I'll grant you, Brad Williams was bad, but even he bowled the odd decent ball.
Basically he was nothing special?
I've said my piece on Williams before now. Very fortunate to bowl in the dew against NZ in the TVS Cup, against Zimbabwe in the VB Series and against an India that was finally running-out of steam in said same tourno.
