Best cricketer right now.

[Dick Rockett]

I'd agree with that, it's a shame out of the 3 really quick bowlers(Lee, Akthar and Bond) the most inneffective one is the only one that stays fit.

This may seem like a dumb question, but which one do you mean?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Lee.

 

[sirjeremy11]

This may seem like a dumb question, but which one do you mean?

Lee I'm guessing. Lee is very effective in ODI's, his test record is less impressive, but he would make it into a lot of teams in world cricket, apart from maybe the Zimbabwe team. The selectors might not pick him. For some reason.

 

[aussie]

My top 3:

Flintoff
Ponting
Warne

 

[Dick Rockett]

Lee I'm guessing. Lee is very effective in ODI's, his test record is less impressive, but he would make it into a lot of teams in world cricket, apart from maybe the Zimbabwe team. The selectors might not pick him. For some reason.

I'm very surprised to see Lee's recent test stats are quite ordinary. I've spent most of the last year living in Melbourne and as such, have seen a lot of Lee. I reckon he's been bowling brilliantly. I guess much like Dan Vettori, the stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Ow, my pancreas.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, my ovaries.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I'm very surprised to see Lee's recent test stats are quite ordinary. I've spent most of the last year living in Melbourne and as such, have seen a lot of Lee. I reckon he's been bowling brilliantly. I guess much like Dan Vettori, the stats don't tell the whole story.

Lee has certainly tightened up his act a wee bit. It was truly scary that he could not get into the Aussie test team when they were here last year.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, my ovaries.

My brain hurts!

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I've been using the net for well over 10 years and have no idea what that particular shorthand stands for. Richard seems to be the sort of guy that values fully formed and constructed sentences - there's nothing wrong with that

It's no 'particular shorthand', it's merely an extended 'LOL'. You know, extended laugh. Yeah. Brain good.

 

[Dick Rockett]

It's no 'particular shorthand', it's merely an extended 'LOL'. You know, extended laugh. Yeah. Brain good.

Sweet *makes mental note*

 

[Richard]

It's no 'particular shorthand', it's merely an extended 'LOL'. You know, extended laugh.

You know what "LOL" is actually an abbreviation for?

 

[Richard]

Lee I'm guessing. Lee is very effective in ODI's, his test record is less impressive, but he would make it into a lot of teams in world cricket, apart from maybe the Zimbabwe team. The selectors might not pick him. For some reason.

I'd be astonished if Lee got into any of the South Africa, England or Pakistan teams, and probably not the India one, either, now.

 

[Goughy]

I'd be astonished if Lee got into any of the South Africa, England or Pakistan teams, and probably not the India one, either, now.

I can't see how he would fail to,make the teams mentioned above.

Whilst he is far from perfect he has enough going for him to get into all 4 of the above teams with ease.

If you called them up and said you had a 150+ outswing bowler, who was athletic, had a good attitude and could bat a bit they would take him bfore you had chance to put the phone down.

 

[Richard]

If he actually started taking a decent number of wickets, maybe.

 

[Goughy]

If he actually started taking a decent number of wickets, maybe.

He was the 6th highest wicket taker in 2005 and has only played 2 matches in '06.

Be fair to him. Of the teams you named only England with Hoggard had a guy take more wickets in '05 than Lee and Hoggard played in 2 more tests.

 

[Richard]

Please, don't start talking number-of-wickets. Anyone can take wickets if they bowl. I could take 50 Test wickets if I bowled enough overs (ie about 3000 or so).
It's strike-rate, not number of wickets, that counts.
I'd bet Lee bowled more overs than most in 2005.

 

[Jono]

So you criticise him for not taking a number of wickets, and then when someone says he did you say "please don't start talking number-of-wickets".

You fascinate me.

 

[Goughy]

Please, don't start talking number-of-wickets.

You brought up number of wickets and I responded. Are you trying to antagonise?

 

[Ikki]

Please, don't start talking number-of-wickets. Anyone can take wickets if they bowl. I could take 50 Test wickets if I bowled enough overs (ie about 3000 or so).
It's strike-rate, not number of wickets, that counts.
I'd bet Lee bowled more overs than most in 2005.

Oh so Warne is king of spinners . He's got number of wickets and strike-rate. Sorry to keep popping up in this fashion, it's just amazing how some people here can contradict themselves so often. As for Lee...wouldn't get into any of those teams you mentioned? You SURE Richard?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You know what "LOL" is actually an abbreviation for?

No, not at all. In fact, I don't even speak English.