Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[GIMH]

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.

What are you talking about Rich? Not liking Twenty20 is all well and good but I can't get my head around your comments. How is anyone bothered if someone is good or not? Er, because the better the players the more likely their team are to win. Just like in ODIs & Tests, just like in Basketball, Lacrosse, Hockey, Beach Volleyball. In competitive team sports, the best teams tend to be comprised of good players. Twenty20 Cricket is no different.

It not being a game for individuals is incorrect as well. Things are just weighted differently, that's all. In fact, one individual piece of brilliance is more likely to have an effect on the result than in other forms of cricket. If Pietersen scores a century on Sunday, chances are England will win.

As for 'bowlers have no chance of bowling economically' - says who? I get that one of the things that puts you off the format is the fact that what consitutes a disaster in an ODI is an achievement in Twenty20, but it's all relative. At the end of the day, an ODI bowler with a career economy of 4.0 would be marvelled at - if he got the same econ in Tests, that would be poor. Twenty20 is just the same - think of 6.0 as the equivalent of 4.5. A great bowler will go for less than 24 runs in their 4 overs, probably with a couple of wickets thrown in.

As for them not having a chance of taking a bagful, well that maybe so, a 4 fer is indeed an achievement in T20. But I don't see how this means it doesn't matter how good or bad anyone is? 5fers are pretty rare in ODIs as well, all things considered.

The cricketing world has moved on from many of its Twenty20 cliches over the past couple of years. It is accepted now that wickets really do matter - see England yesterday. It is accepted that if your team concedes 120, 130, then you should go on and win, as such a bowler knows that if they go for a run a ball they've bowled well. And a batsman won't get away with hanging around like they do in an ODI as every over matters. Twenty20 isn't the hit and giggle that it was thought to be a few years back, it is a legitimate form of cricket. If you don't like it that's fine but you can't continue to ignore it if you want your arguments to have any sort of legitimacy.

 

[Smith]

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?

He bowled pretty good last over. But the preceding overs were ****e.

 

[Smith]

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.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[Smith]

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.

Yeah, but those are one of cases. Anyway npne of the bowlers u listed are the best T20 bowler in their sides. I am not saying Broad is hopeless. He is noway the best T20 bolwler in Old Blighty

 

[GIMH]

He bowled pretty good last over. But the preceding overs were ****e.

Any counter to the rest of my post, ie that you're just looking at stats and not performances?

 

[Smith]

Any counter to the rest of my post, ie that you're just looking at stats and not performances?

Performances also. Though stats do play their ro;e/ Seldom can u excuse a bowler smacjed for at 9 per over.

 

[Manee]

Precam, is that you?

 

[Golaxi]

.

are you mad! brett lees your best bowler!

i guaruntee you hes the only one that scares the england batsmen. will be the quickest bowler of the series. did you ever see what shoab akhtar done to england?

 

[aussie]

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.

Richard is on the mark with this point though. T20s has i've argued before, isn't cricket, since their is no balance between bat & ball & average players are made to look good.


But overall he's wrong to generalize T20 as a an "Ultimate slog-fest". Since no doubt, tactics are needed to be successful in this format as a batting & bowling unit.

 

[Matt79]

Lee should be at the bottom of the pecking order out of the tour squad IMO. He doesn't have the work into him to think he'd improve on his pretty poor record in England. A few overs on a couple of T20 matches isn't enough. Needs to working his tail off in the nets and in the few tour games to get his mojo going.

If Lee or Clark aren't fully fit, we're much better taking McDonald to compliment Johnson and Siddle.

 

[TT Boy]

Richard is on the mark with this point though. T20s has i've argued before, isn't cricket, since their is no balance between bat & ball & average players are made to look good.

But overall he's wrong to generalize T20 as a an "Ultimate slog-fest". Since no doubt, tactics are needed to be successful in this format as a batting & bowling unit.

There is no balance between bat & ball when test matches are held in Pakistan (and recent test series in the West Indies comes to mind ).

And what average players are made to look good? The best quicks in this format are Steyn, Gul and Malinga. The best batsman is Haydos and the spinners, Mendis and Vettori. No mugs there...

 

[aussie]

There is no balance between bat & ball when test matches are held in Pakistan (and recent test series in the West Indies comes to mind ).

T20 is no balance. 90% of the time bowlers are on the defensive, especially when batsmen decide to slog - bowlers can do nothing but hope the batsman gets himself out.

And what average players are made to look good?

Guys like Gayle, Yuvraj, McCullum, Dwayne Smith, Sehwag, Wright, Gibbs etc. Who for contrasting reasons etc in test matches who have technical and mental deficiences - are able to mask that in 20 overs of slogging.

The best quicks in this format are Steyn, Gul and Malinga. The best batsman is Haydos and the spinners, Mendis and Vettori. No mugs there...

No doubt top batsmen and bowlers do well in this format. But the looking at the bowlers, they dont exactly get batsmen out due to any fantastic delivery etc - its basically due to batsmen making mistakes.

The best bowling combinations in T20 is the ones that work best in containing the batsmen.

 

[Furball]

Richard is on the mark with this point though. T20s has i've argued before, isn't cricket, since their is no balance between bat & ball & average players are made to look good.


But overall he's wrong to generalize T20 as a an "Ultimate slog-fest". Since no doubt, tactics are needed to be successful in this format as a batting & bowling unit.

That comment is just wrong.

The different forms of the game require different skill sets; there's no reason why an average (or even poor) player in the FC/Test form of the game can't be an excellent T20 player and vice versa. I could equally argue that Tests make average T20 players like Strauss look good. Such a view of T20 is born out of snobbery, nothing else.

The true greats have complete skill sets and are great across all forms of the game. However, there's been plenty of players who in the pre T20 days were great at one form and not at the other form. It does not make them average players at all.

 

[Richard]

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

I don't. The precise point is my relative ignorance is based on and a result of being completely baffled by it.

 

[Richard]

What are you talking about Rich? Not liking Twenty20 is all well and good but I can't get my head around your comments. How is anyone bothered if someone is good or not? Er, because the better the players the more likely their team are to win. Just like in ODIs & Tests, just like in Basketball, Lacrosse, Hockey, Beach Volleyball. In competitive team sports, the best teams tend to be comprised of good players. Twenty20 Cricket is no different.

It not being a game for individuals is incorrect as well. Things are just weighted differently, that's all. In fact, one individual piece of brilliance is more likely to have an effect on the result than in other forms of cricket. If Pietersen scores a century on Sunday, chances are England will win.

As for 'bowlers have no chance of bowling economically' - says who? I get that one of the things that puts you off the format is the fact that what consitutes a disaster in an ODI is an achievement in Twenty20, but it's all relative. At the end of the day, an ODI bowler with a career economy of 4.0 would be marvelled at - if he got the same econ in Tests, that would be poor. Twenty20 is just the same - think of 6.0 as the equivalent of 4.5. A great bowler will go for less than 24 runs in their 4 overs, probably with a couple of wickets thrown in.

As for them not having a chance of taking a bagful, well that maybe so, a 4 fer is indeed an achievement in T20. But I don't see how this means it doesn't matter how good or bad anyone is? 5fers are pretty rare in ODIs as well, all things considered.

The cricketing world has moved on from many of its Twenty20 cliches over the past couple of years. It is accepted now that wickets really do matter - see England yesterday. It is accepted that if your team concedes 120, 130, then you should go on and win, as such a bowler knows that if they go for a run a ball they've bowled well. And a batsman won't get away with hanging around like they do in an ODI as every over matters. Twenty20 isn't the hit and giggle that it was thought to be a few years back, it is a legitimate form of cricket. If you don't like it that's fine but you can't continue to ignore it if you want your arguments to have any sort of legitimacy.

The difference between 3-an-over (the target-below economy-rate for a Test bowler) and 4-an-over (the target-below for ODI one) is small. That between 4-an-over and 7-an-over (the Twenty20 one) is massive. Equally, in Twenty20 a 20-ball 40 is a brilliant score; in ODIs it's an OK one but not particularly good, while in Tests it's (almost certainly) a plain irresponsible one.

I can't see how anyone can't see that Twenty20 is vastly different to ODIs, where ODIs are - relatively - only slightly different to Tests. The difference between 20 and 50 overs is vast, collossal, compared to the difference between 50 and 450 overs. "Economical" means a fairly similar thing in Tests and ODIs; thus, the fact that it means something totally different in Twenty20 means, AFAIC, that it's realistically impossible to be economical in Twenty20. "Good score" is pretty similar in Tests and ODIs; it's completely different in Twenty20.

Individual excellence is minimised in Twenty20, where it's given full expression in both Tests and ODIs. This is, in my book, irrefutable. It's why I fail to understand why anyone is bothered about arguing who's the better Twenty20 bowler between two teams. Sure, if you really care about your team's success (as I don't) you'd want to pick the best of those available to you, but who's best between two different teams seems to me to be a complete irrelevance.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't. The precise point is my relative ignorance is based on and a result of being completely baffled by it.

I don't think you realise how ridiculous your point was though, individuals can have as big an impact on a T20 as they can on any other form of cricket. I watch it far more than you do, so you're going to have to take my word for it. All your post really amounted to was "but the numbers next to their name aren't as big!"

 

[King Pietersen]

From today's cricket alone:

Umar Gul: 3 overs, 0 maidens, 5 wickets for 6
Wayne Parnell: 4 overs, 0 maidens, 4 wickets for 13

Yep you're right Richard. No chance of bowling economically in T20 cricket, and there's very little chance of getting a bagful....

 

[TT Boy]

T20 is no balance. 90% of the time bowlers are on the defensive, especially when batsmen decide to slog - bowlers can do nothing but hope the batsman gets himself out.

Guys like Gayle, Yuvraj, McCullum, Dwayne Smith, Sehwag, Wright, Gibbs etc. Who for contrasting reasons etc in test matches who have technical and mental deficiences - are able to mask that in 20 overs of slogging.

No doubt top batsmen and bowlers do well in this format. But the looking at the bowlers, they dont exactly get batsmen out due to any fantastic delivery etc - its basically due to batsmen making mistakes.

The best bowling combinations in T20 is the ones that work best in containing the batsmen.

Sehwag's test average is? And Gibbs in pomp was a fantastic player in all formats of the game. Gayle's record is also one wouldn't sniff out and I'm not sure why you are mentioning Luke Wright, his record internationally is poor. And for the record, Dwayne Smith averages 9 in 20/20 cricket for the West Indies with the bat. That is some masking given he averages over 24 in test cricket...

Don't need to address the bowling part of your statement after the performances of Gul and Parnell today but I wonder if you actually watched those games...

 

[aussie]

Sehwag's test average is?

Up until his century @ Perth. Sehwag was still seen very much a FTB. His 317 vs SA & 201 vs SRI showed that maybe a new steel has been added to his batting. But i still reckon top attacks would still fail him.

And Gibbs in pomp was a fantastic player in all formats of the game.

Yea, but we talking about right now. He lost his test place & his ODI place up until the other day was in question due to his technical problems. But given Gibbsy was always a free-scoring player, he can mask his problems in the T20 format quite well.

Gayle's record is also one wouldn't sniff out

Average test player, top ODI player of course. As i said after his innings vs AUS, it wasn't that different to the innings he played in the CT Final 06 or the malaysia tri-series opener. In T20 you can't stop a player like him when he's on the go. As was the case in those 2 ODI matches though, the bowlers at least have a chance to set attacking fields a try to get him out, instead of just bowling & hoping he plays a false shot in a T20.

and I'm not sure why you are mentioning Luke Wright, his record internationally is poor. And for the record, Dwayne Smith averages 9 in 20/20 cricket for the West Indies with the bat. That is some masking given he averages over 24 in test cricket...

The fact that Luke Wright EVEN HAS A ROLE in T20 shows how bad the format is. Dwayne Smith looked superb in the IPL this year.

Don't need to address the bowling part of your statement after the performances of Gul and Parnell today but I wonder if you actually watched those games...

Bowling in T20S is basically an extended death bowling period. Thats why the likes of Steyn, Malinga & Gul have proven to be the best to date, since in ODI they bowl well in the last 10 overs.

As i said earlier, the bowlers dont get batsmen out due to fantasitc deliveries, but rather but preventing them from scoring, they frustrate them into mistakes. As we say today with Gul & Parnell.

 

[Uppercut]

Up until his century @ Perth. Sehwag was still seen very much a FTB. His 317 vs SA & 201 vs SRI showed that maybe a new steel has been added to his batting. But i still reckon top attacks would still fail him.

Seriously, what? Sri Lanka and South Africa aren't top attacks? You say some strange things, aussie...