Brett Lee's Test Career

[Jono]

Someone do:

Big Show vs Glenn Maxwell
The People's Champ vs Steve Smith

Jeez, what is it with Australian cricketers and Wrestling nicknames

The Wildman Marc Mero vs. Shaun Tait

 

[OverratedSanity]

Everything there is true, except you forgot that he won the medal he won is now known as the AB de Villiers Medal.

Oh yes apologies.

 

[Athlai]

Given he was already in his early thirties it was probably a bit late for that tbh.

Na you're full of it. First time he had a chance to truly lead the attack. If he had a 4 or so year run ala Harris, Australia would've never lost the #1 ranking.

 

[Pratters]

Or instead of Bichel, there's Kasprowicz who ended up being part of an (arguably) more successful attack.

Think it's fair to raise the idea that Lee was being kept out of the side when bowling at some of his best during 2004 and early 2005, after his shocker against India. Regained fitness and was looking as good as ever, but the attack was working well without him so he became a perennial 12th man.

In Asia and England would prefer Kasporwicz. At home and South Africa, would go for Lee. Would make for the better attack on bouncier wickets with Lee.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Na you're full of it. First time he had a chance to truly lead the attack. If he had a 4 or so year run ala Harris, Australia would've never lost the #1 ranking.

We were too good to be kept down tbh

 

[Pratters]

The Wildman Marc Mero vs. Shaun Tait

Marc Merlo surely as he had Sable.

 

[BigBrother]

Absolutely loved watching him play! Don't think he is rated unfairly though. He played in a team where it was easier to maintain a good strike rate.

There isn't any logical basis behind this statement btw.

 

[Flem274*]

He was a good bowler, and stepped up to become a world class one.

I think a lot of the raised eyebrows over Lee's average stem from some of us fans subconsciously assuming 150+ bowlers can be split into three groups - Marshalls', Bonds' and Samis'. Sometimes we forget 150+ bowlers can be middle of the road too.

Oh and Pratters, Shoiab and Lee won't be forgotten in 30 years. One was arguably the most talented bowler in history and the other played in the best team of all time. Gough might be because he's just another good English bowler in an often average English side.

 

[Red]

There isn't any logical basis behind this statement btw.

Yes there is.

 

[BigBrother]

Yes there is.

Nope, you can easily play devil's advocate and argue for the exact opposite. He would bowl several spells in between and not get the wickets behind his name at the end of the day because the other bowlers in the team would have already taken them as they were that good.

People need to realize posting some random drivel you have no way of proving is not going to make things a fact.

 

[Red]

Nope, you can easily play devil's advocate and argue for the exact opposite. He would bowl several spells in between and not get the wickets behind his name at the end of the day because the other bowlers in the team would have already taken them as they were that good.

People need to realize posting some random drivel you have no way of proving is not going to make things a fact.

The logical basis is that if someone who bowls 155 clicks plays in a team with misers like McGrath, Warne and Gillespie, it's likely that the opposition batsman are gonna need to try to attack Lee, meaning he might go for runs, but maintain a really good strike rate while doing so.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

While Lee had extreme pace, he never really moved the ball enough. This predictability let batsmen attack him more. Good bowler yes but not a great.

 

[Tec15]

Lee was lucky to have the bowlers around him that he did. Only really looked threatening in the beginning and end (2007-8) of his career. Most top order batsmen had his measure otherwise.

 

[morgieb]

Lee was lucky to have the bowlers around him that he did. Only really looked threatening in the beginning and end (2007-8) of his career. Most top order batsmen had his measure otherwise.

On the contrary, one could argue that he would've bowled a lot smarter if forced to lead an attack from Day 1.

 

[Furball]

So you're saying that he bowled like a dumb **** for the vast majority of his Test career and that's a positive?

 

[morgieb]

So you're saying that he bowled like a dumb **** for the vast majority of his Test career and that's a positive?

Not my point.

It isn't a positive naturally that he bowled like a dumb ****. I just disagree that he got lucky to have McGrath/Warne/Gillespie around him....particularly given his average with them playing wasn't flash anyway.

 

[BigBrother]

The logical basis is that if someone who bowls 155 clicks plays in a team with misers like McGrath, Warne and Gillespie, it's likely that the opposition batsman are gonna need to try to attack Lee, meaning he might go for runs, but maintain a really good strike rate while doing so.

Attacking someone doesn't necessarily grantee them wickets.

A good recent example would be Umesh Yadav in the Australia series. Got pounded and never picked up that many rewards at the end. But on the other hand Mohammed Shami who also got somewhat similar treatment had that bit of luxury pick up some late in the innings ones when Australia were trying to move the game along. Because he bowled somewhat better in comparison. It's logical to assume that a bowler who plays in a team with gun bolwers won't have the luxury to pick up that many wickets by the end as they would already be taken. Despite going for runs in your other spells.

There are more chances of you going for runs than picking up wickets when you don't bowl enough and that applies to every bowler. No bowler is that good that they just clean up the batting order in their first couple of spells, at least in the great majority of instances anyways. Usually it takes some bowling to get large quantity of wickets. I'd have assumed that much was pretty self-explanatory.

There is no way you can possibly tell if his strike rate would be better or worse by bowling more but picking up a lot more wickets. In what you are describing his economy rate would be a lot better in the opposite situation anyways so it doesn't really matter to his average if it actually was worse.

 

[cnerd123]

Attacking someone doesn't necessarily grantee them wickets.

A good recent example would be Umesh Yadav in the Australia series. Got pounded and never picked up that many rewards at the end. But on the other hand Mohammed Shami who also got somewhat similar treatment had that bit of luxury pick up some late in the innings ones when Australia were trying to move the game along. Because he bowled somewhat better in comparison. It's logical to assume that a bowler who plays in a team with gun bolwers won't have the luxury to pick up that many wickets by the end as they would already be taken. Despite going for runs in your other spells.

There are more chances of you going for runs than picking up wickets when you don't bowl enough and that applies to every bowler. No bowler is that good that they just clean up the batting order in their first couple of spells, at least in the great majority of instances anyways. Usually it takes some bowling to get large quantity of wickets. I'd have assumed that much was pretty self-explanatory.

There is no way you can possibly tell if his strike rate would be better or worse by bowling more but picking up a lot more wickets. In what you are describing his economy rate would be a lot better in the opposite situation anyways so it doesn't really matter to his average if it actually was worse.

Uggh so much wrong in this argument.

Yadav bowling with Indian bowlers for support != Lee bowling with McWarne and another fantastic bowler for support.

You do not become more potent the more spells you bowl. That is not an established fact of any sort. It's not even logical. A fast bowler isn't less effective in his first spell with a newer ball than he would be returning for his 4th spell with a 70 over old ball.

I don't even understand your last paragraph.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lee just suffered from the same malady anyone with a bit of pace has, being quick is as much a role to play as the raw speed. It's not as if he didn't have the capability to bowl dangerous back-of-a-length stuff, he really did. But what I remember seeing so often in his ODI spells especially was near perfect hostile bowling for the first over or two when he was bowling just a shade within himself. Like, every ball a cracker. But then he'd warm into it and slip into the two-lengths super pace stuff and the oppo would capitalise. Lee also followed that up with some some godawful second spells too where, if he hadn't taken poles early, he'd basically try to bowl even more aggressively and get pumped. Controlled aggression is what separates him from McG and the others.

 

[BigBrother]

Uggh so much wrong in this argument.

Yadav bowling with Indian bowlers for support != Lee bowling with McWarne and another fantastic bowler for support.

You do not become more potent the more spells you bowl. That is not an established fact of any sort. It's not even logical. A fast bowler isn't less effective in his first spell with a newer ball than he would be returning for his 4th spell with a 70 over old ball.

I don't even understand your last paragraph.

That's the key word there, understanding. Should have said that instead of making me read through all that.

I'm interested in hearing how Yadav bowling with Mcgrath, Warne, Gillispie would make him any less crap and gives his horrendous bowling anymore wickets by you line of thinking. When anything you could say he wouldn't have gotten less wickets with batsmen not around to throw them away like they did.

I don't even know what to say with the third paragraph. Which imaginary bowler are you thinking of that's gotten all their wickets in their first spells? Yeah you are more fresh when you come to bowl, no ****, but that doesn't mean you bowl you best in your first spell. That's just great insult to all bowlers who come back better after assessing conditions and learning from their mistakes early on. There is also this thing called reverse swing bowlers can do nowadays with the older ball if you didn't know.

I didn't say bowlers were better or worse during any part of their spells but that it usually takes time to take large quantity of wickets. Don't know how that's so hard to understand.