Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Richard]

Precisely why he shouldn't be in contention for a Test spot right now.

Anyway, whilst his speed and match fitness are pretty good, the difference between Lee for most of his career and Lee in that golden run of his was his consistent line/length because he didn't move that ball *that* much in the 12 months. That there is the big missing ingredient right now, for mine.

Yeah, though Twenty20 economy-rates doesn't really neccessarily say all that much about how accurately you're bowling (you'd need to watch to see that, and I obviously haven't been) it's always about accuracy for Lee.

Good standard of accuracy = superb bowler; accuracy that's just slightly off good, even if not out-and-out poor = hopeless one.

 

[Smith]

What a ridiculous comment regarding Broad. Completely irrelevant, and incorrect as well. Broad had a mare in the field but hasn't bowled badly

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't bring in Broad just to bash him. But to make a point that despite being **** in T20s, Broad gets selected (and rightfully after his recent performances) in test cricket. The same should be the case with Lee.

 

[Uppercut]

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't bring in Broad just to bash him. But to make a point that despite being **** in T20s, Broad gets selected (and rightfully after his recent performances) in test cricket. The same should be the case with Lee.

What? Broad's the best T20 bowler England have.

 

[GIMH]

Frantic back-pedalling from Smith

 

[Smith]

What? Broad's the best T20 bowler England have.

Lol

 

[Smith]

Frantic back-pedalling from Smith

Hardly. I was just explaining two things

1. My position as to Broad
2. My post above which was wrongly interpreted.

 

[Manee]

What? Broad's the best T20 bowler England have.

Not sure that he's the best, but he is a very fine T20 bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

Not sure that he's the best, but he is a very fine T20 bowler.

Hmm. Probably only Flintoff is better, and even then we're guessing to an extent that he'll be good in T20s 'cause he hasn't performed in them in years.

 

[Manee]

Hmm. Probably only Flintoff is better, and even then we're guessing to an extent that he'll be good in T20s 'cause he hasn't performed in them in years.

Swann is probably a smidgen better.

 

[Uppercut]

Swann is probably a smidgen better.

Mmm hard to compare. Would prefer Broad because I'd be more comfortable with him bowling in powerplays and at the death.

 

[Manee]

Mmm hard to compare. Would prefer Broad because I'd be more comfortable with him bowling in powerplays and at the death.

I guess so, Broad is highly underrated in limited overs cricket for his versatility.

 

[Smith]

Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	Econ	Opp	Remarks
4	0	35	2	8.75	Pak	Poor
3	0	32	1	10.66	WI	Poor
4	0	31	1	7.75	WI	Mediocre
4	0	29	1	7.25	Zim	Average
3	0	23	0	7.66	Aus	Mediocre
4	0	37	3	9.25	SA	Poor
4	0	35	1	8.75	NZ	Poor
4	0	60	0	15	Ind	Extremely poor
4	0	25	1	6.25	NZ	Good
4	0	31	1	7.75	NZ	Mediocre
4	0	17	2	4.25	NZ	Excellent
3	0	26	1	8.66	WI	Mediocre
4	0	32	1	8	NL	Poor
3	0	17	3	5.66	Pak	Excellent
3	0	14	1	4.66	SA	Very good

Broad's innings by innings performance.

Good/Very Good/Excellent - 4
Mediocre - 5
Poor/Very poor - 6

 

[Manee]

Since the India game.

Good - 4
Mediocre - 2
Poor - 1

 

[Uppercut]

And 1/32 off 4 isn't really that poor either.

 

[Smith]

And 1/32 off 4 isn't really that poor either.

It is because if your allegedly best T20 bowler is going at 8, chances are that you end conceding more than 165-170 runs which is poor.

 

[Smith]

Since the India game.

Good - 4
Mediocre - 2
Poor - 1

Actually 2 poor (should've had put poor for the eco rate of 8.68 vs WI) and 2 mediocre vs 4 good. About 50-50. Acceptable, but no way the hall mark of a great T20 bowler.

 

[GIMH]

Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	Econ	Opp	Remarks
4	0	35	2	8.75	Pak	Poor
3	0	32	1	10.66	WI	Poor
4	0	31	1	7.75	WI	Mediocre
4	0	29	1	7.25	Zim	Average
3	0	23	0	7.66	Aus	Mediocre
4	0	37	3	9.25	SA	Poor
4	0	35	1	8.75	NZ	Poor
4	0	60	0	15	Ind	Extremely poor
4	0	25	1	6.25	NZ	Good
4	0	31	1	7.75	NZ	Mediocre
4	0	17	2	4.25	NZ	Excellent
3	0	26	1	8.66	WI	Mediocre
4	0	32	1	8	NL	Poor
3	0	17	3	5.66	Pak	Excellent
3	0	14	1	4.66	SA	Very good

Broad's innings by innings performance.

Good/Very Good/Excellent - 4
Mediocre - 5
Poor/Very poor - 6

LOL you've based your assessments solely off his figures!

I'd dispute the 'poor' assessment against Netherlands, for one. He bowled really, really well at the death, this is not to be mixed up with his shoddy fielding. Anyone can assess a player by looking at what figures they got in a particular match, but how many of those matches did you actually watch?

 

[Uppercut]

It is because if your allegedly best T20 bowler is going at 8, chances are that you end conceding more than 165-170 runs which is poor.

That's his worst bowling performance in nearly two years though! In contrast, Zaheer Khan's worst figures were 0/34 against Sri Lanka earlier this year, Ishant Sharma took 1/40 in the same game and Dale Steyn took 0/44 against Australia in March. If the absolute worst a bowler ever does is 1/32 then he's showing some pretty remarkable consistency.

 

[Richard]

I know this is borderline broken-record stuff, but it seriously does astound me that anyone can argue over how good a Twenty20 bowler someone is or isn't. Why does it matter? How is anyone honestly bothered whether someone's good or not?

Twenty20 isn't a game for individuals (which is one of many reasons I don't like it), because bowlers have next to no chance of bowling economically and precious little chance of taking a big bag; nor do batsmen have the chance to build substantial innings.

The only thing of remote interest is who wins, AFAICS.

 

[Uppercut]

I know this is borderline broken-record stuff, but it seriously does astound me that anyone can argue over how good a Twenty20 bowler someone is or isn't. Why does it matter? How is anyone honestly bothered whether someone's good or not?

Twenty20 isn't a game for individuals (which is one of many reasons I don't like it), because bowlers have next to no chance of bowling economically and precious little chance of taking a big bag; nor do batsmen have the chance to build substantial innings.

The only thing of remote interest is who wins, AFAICS.

You're wrong. Why do you think you know so much about something you never watch?