Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[aussie]

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

No thats not what i meant. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

Im saying after he scored that hundred @ Perth (an innings of maturity, unsual ATT). He build on that for the remainder of 2008 with the 317 & 201. But i still believe top bowling attacks would fail him.

Sehwag though given his style would always be a serious bat in T20. Like a Gayle if he gets going its game over..

 

[TT Boy]

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.


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.

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.

Wright has a role in the ODI side, opinions on that format? And Dwayne Smith had a few decent slogs in an Indian touranment and probably will smash a few county attacks in first class cricket, until he does it internationally again (he can't), don't worry.

As for Gibbs, not sure he can mask his problems that well. He doesn't have a great/good 20/20 average and struggles now with his foot work to get the spinners away. Plays the odd blinder but 20/20 cricket isn't masking his problems, he has a better average in ODI cricket during the last 12 months.

And Steyn isn't a very good death bowler. Does most of his damage in limited overs cricket with the new ball.

 

[TT Boy]

No thats not what i meant. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

Im saying after he scored that hundred @ Perth (an innings of maturity, unsual ATT). He build on that for the remainder of 2008 with the 317 & 201. But i still believe top bowling attacks would fail him.

Sehwag though given his style would always be a serious bat in T20. Like a Gayle if he gets going its game over..

But he isn't. He averages 20 with the bat and has made one 50.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Would have to disagree on the differences and similarities between the games. ODIs & Tests are as different as T20 & ODIs. ODIs share characteristics with both games, and I think that's why they are, in general (i.e. outside of cricket forums etc) falling in popularity, as they have some bits of one and some bits of others. In ODIs you have field restrictions, power plays, free hits and a limited time to score your runs, the same as in Twenty20. It's not like it's 13-a-side and there's a one hand and the whole team is out rule.

As for the rest, disagree hugely. As Will said, the numbers are different but individuals can and do still excel in Twenty20. The fact that England's only decent performance in recent times came when KP played well backs this up.

 

[NUFAN]

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.

So you feel that the following are typical scores:
T20 - 140
ODI - 200

I don't think 4 per over for an ODI is a realistic target these days. I'm thinking anything under 4.5 is very good these days.

ODI and T20 are so much more similar than Tests.

 

[GIMH]

I'd go as far to say under 5. If you restrict the other team to 250, you're usually in with a good chance of winning.

 

[NUFAN]

I'd go as far to say under 5. If you restrict the other team to 250, you're usually in with a good chance of winning.

Yeah I almost went to 5. But I figured that the good bowlers should be a little below 5 overall.

I haven't thought a bowler has done a good job too often if he's gone for 50 off 10.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lee should not be on Ashes tour - Lawson | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Have to agree with Henry here regarding Lee (maybe not with Bolly going over, though - another batsman, please). The decision to select Lee has 'bad karma' written all over it.

 

[aussie]

Wright has a role in the ODI side, opinions on that format?.

He hasn't played a ODI for ENG since last summer vs SA. So whatever misguided use the selectors may have felt he had in ODI - thanfully they have gone past that.

And Dwayne Smith had a few decent slogs in an Indian touranment and probably will smash a few county attacks in first class cricket, until he does it internationally again (he can't), don't worry.

Dwayne Smith would make alot of sense in the WI current team i feel. Replace him with Pollard as a lower-order slogger & he would definately be dangerous. Add his excellent fielding and canny bowling...perfect T20 player.

As for Gibbs, not sure he can mask his problems that well. He doesn't have a great/good 20/20 average and struggles now with his foot work to get the spinners away. Plays the odd blinder but 20/20 cricket isn't masking his problems, he has a better average in ODI cricket during the last 12 months.

All true. Has hasn't been super consistent, but his game suits T20s hands down. If he gets going, he can't be stopped.

And Steyn isn't a very good death bowler. Does most of his damage in limited overs cricket with the new ball.

In recent ODIs vs AUS Steyn was pretty good @ the death. His yorkers aint as lethal probably as Gul & Malinga....but his variations of pace, slower bouncer are quite deceptive.


But he isn't. He averages 20 with the bat and has made one 50.

Those stats prove much, you know that. if he was fit in the current T20 for India, no opposition would say because he is averaging low to date, he wont be serious threat.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Great point this

 

[aussie]

Lee should not be on Ashes tour - Lawson | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Have to agree with Henry here regarding Lee (maybe not with Bolly going over, though - another batsman, please). The decision to select Lee has 'bad karma' written all over it.

The pessimism towards Lee test prospects is clearly justified. But like Hayden, i seriously feel its being overplayed. I feel all this outside pressure from fans & media could play a bigger effect on his performances than we think.

Clark & him are in the same position, but i dont hear anyone down on Big Rupert. Why isn't anyone also saying, because Clark has been out for so long as well, his lack of pace - maybe he has lost some nip?. Thus maybe he could become a the 2009 Gillespie?.

 

[scorpiogal]

The pessimism towards Lee test prospects is clearly justified. But like Hayden, i seriously feel its being overplayed. I feel all this outside pressure from fans & media could play a bigger effect on his performances than we think.

Clark & him are in the same position, but i dont hear anyone down on Big Rupert. Why isn't anyone also saying, because Clark has been out for so long as well, his lack of pace - maybe he has lost some nip?. Thus maybe he could become a the 2009 Gillespie?.

Absolutely agree. Questions need to be asked as well about Clark. That said, Lawson comes off as a guy whinging about squad choices a little too late.

 

[Burgey]

The pessimism towards Lee test prospects is clearly justified. But like Hayden, i seriously feel its being overplayed. I feel all this outside pressure from fans & media could play a bigger effect on his performances than we think.

Clark & him are in the same position, but i dont hear anyone down on Big Rupert. Why isn't anyone also saying, because Clark has been out for so long as well, his lack of pace - maybe he has lost some nip?. Thus maybe he could become a the 2009 Gillespie?.

It's probably because Clark hasn't toured there before with little success, and because his style seems to be better suited to English conditions.
Quite right that he should have a question mark over him though - on the radio the other day he only tipped a 2-1 win to us.

 

[Matt79]

No real reason for Lawson not to be objective re Bollinger vs Lee - they're both NSW quicks.

With Clark, there's the extra layer that his style looks perfect for England, whereas Lee has been average there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Clark & him are in the same position, but i dont hear anyone down on Big Rupert. Why isn't anyone also saying, because Clark has been out for so long as well, his lack of pace - maybe he has lost some nip?. Thus maybe he could become a the 2009 Gillespie?.

Agree Clark shouldn't be a shoe-in for the team either but I think the reason we're seeing a lot more press on Lee is because he's a real chance of being in the starting XI at this stage whereas it's perceived that Clark isn't.

That and Clark has plenty of experience and success at FC level for Hampshire and MIddlesex whereas Lee has never played a county season and his Test results have been somewhat mixed to say the least.

 

[Top_Cat]

No real reason for Lawson not to be objective re Bollinger vs Lee - they're both NSW quicks.

Not what I was suggesting, tbh - I'm suggesting the squad is a batsman light.

With Clark, there's the extra layer that his style looks perfect for England

That and prior form in England. He doesn't just look the part, he's taken plenty of poles too.

 

[scorpiogal]

Not what I was suggesting, tbh - I'm suggesting the squad is a batsman light.



That and prior form in England. He doesn't just look the part, he's taken plenty of poles too.

Aaahh...but how do we know that Clark'll be match-fit in time for the Tests? As Lawson is suggesting that Lee isn't yet match-fit and he at least has 20/20 overs under his belt, little as that may be, it's still more than Clark.

 

[Burgey]

Clark's been back bowling for longer than Lee though, IIRC. He's been bowling up in Qld at the Academy for a while, and was sent to both SA and UAE, suggesting he's more than ready right now.

 

[scorpiogal]

Clark's been back bowling for longer than Lee though, IIRC. He's been bowling up in Qld at the Academy for a while, and was sent to both SA and UAE, suggesting he's more than ready right now.

But he hasn't played any competitive cricket yet....

 

[scorpiogal]

Dude...match-fitness. That's what I'm talking about. Playing competitve cricket and putting your body through the rigours.