Best cricketer right now.

[andyc]

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

He does have a point... I've never seen anyone say LOOOL before.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

He does have a point... I've never seen anyone say LOOOL before.

Que?

 

[silentstriker]

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

Lee could just stroll into the Indian dressing room one and he'd automatically be our main bowler. I'd trade all three of our pacers for Lee, and we'd still come out ahead.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Lee's strike rate in 2005 was 50.94. What on earth is wrong with that?

By the way, here's the overs bowled for the top 10 wicket takers in 2005...

Warne - 722.4 (96 wickets)
Flintoff - 532.2 (68 wickets)
McGrath - 524.0 (62 wickets)
Hoggard - 408.5 (58 wickets)
Muralitharan - 341.3 (52 wickets)
Kaneria - 477.1 (49 wickets)
Lee - 416.0 (49 wickets)
Ntini - 378.1 (47 wickets)
Harmison - 473.1 (46 wickets)
Kumble - 412.4 (41 wickets)

So of those 10, only four bowled less overs than Lee, and two of those four took less wickets. Got any other theories?

 

[Ikki]

Lee's strike rate in 2005 was 50.94. What on earth is wrong with that?

By the way, here's the overs bowled for the top 10 wicket takers in 2005...

Warne - 722.4 (96 wickets)
Flintoff - 532.2 (68 wickets)
McGrath - 524.0 (62 wickets)
Hoggard - 408.5 (58 wickets)
Muralitharan - 341.3 (52 wickets)
Kaneria - 477.1 (49 wickets)
Lee - 416.0 (49 wickets)
Ntini - 378.1 (47 wickets)
Harmison - 473.1 (46 wickets)
Kumble - 412.4 (41 wickets)

So of those 10, only four bowled less overs than Lee, and two of those four took less wickets. Got any other theories?

When Lee bowls he looks good. This is a cunning trick to evade the batsman's concentration. It also gives Lee a large female crowd support, something most cricketers do not benefit from. Lee is too good looking for cricket...so...it's a No-Go.

 

[silentstriker]

When Lee bowls he looks good. This is a cunning trick to evade the batsman's concentration. It also gives Lee a large female crowd support, something most cricketers do not benefit from. Lee is too good looking for cricket...so...it's a No-Go.

Ummmm...so the real reason for Lee's success is that he gives the batsman homosexual fantasies?


That's classic. You mind if I use that in my sig?

 

[Richard]

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.

For me it's pretty clear what I mean by "taking a decent number of wickets".
I mean taking them without conceding lots of runs per take.

 

[Richard]

Oh so Warne is king of spinners . He's got number of wickets and strike-rate.

Err, yes, obviously he has, he's a very good bowler.
What in the blazes has that got to do with anything?

Sorry to keep popping up in this fashion, it's just amazing how some people here can contradict themselves so often.

Really? I see no contradiction, I've already pointed-out why.

As for Lee...wouldn't get into any of those teams you mentioned? You SURE Richard?

Not sure, obviously - but if I was selecting them, he sure as wouldn't.

 

[Richard]

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

Then let me inform you...
It stands for "lots of laughs" - developed in the text\chatroom\forum mania of the late 1990s.
You seem to speak (or rather type) pretty good English to me...

 

[Richard]

Lee could just stroll into the Indian dressing room one and he'd automatically be our main bowler. I'd trade all three of our pacers for Lee, and we'd still come out ahead.

You seriously think Lee is better than Patel and Sreesanth?
Because one thing for sure - I'd say if Sreesanth and Patel continue the way they've started, only a complete fool would trade them (both 21 or 22 aren't they) in for a 30-year-old who, even if he were to become a World-class act, would have a couple of years at best left in him.
I also think, while Pathan is clearly a pretty useless bowler, you don't really need him or Lee with Kumble and Harbhajan around.

 

[Richard]

Lee's strike rate in 2005 was 50.94. What on earth is wrong with that?

By the way, here's the overs bowled for the top 10 wicket takers in 2005...

Warne - 722.4 (96 wickets)
Flintoff - 532.2 (68 wickets)
McGrath - 524.0 (62 wickets)
Hoggard - 408.5 (58 wickets)
Muralitharan - 341.3 (52 wickets)
Kaneria - 477.1 (49 wickets)
Lee - 416.0 (49 wickets)
Ntini - 378.1 (47 wickets)
Harmison - 473.1 (46 wickets)
Kumble - 412.4 (41 wickets)

So of those 10, only four bowled less overs than Lee, and two of those four took less wickets. Got any other theories?

Lee bowled the 5th-most overs in 2005.
Point proven.

 

[Swervy]

Not sure, obviously - but if I was selecting them, he sure as wouldn't.

but Mark Ealham would be a dead cert!!!!????

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I though it was "Laugh out loud" actually.

 

[Goughy]

Then let me inform you...
It stands for "lots of laughs" - developed in the text\chatroom\forum mania of the late 1990s.

Actually more commonly used for Laugh Out Loud
but whatever..

 

[Swervy]

You seriously think Lee is better than Patel and Sreesanth?

How can you tell that....jeez, even Dominic Cork looked good for his first couple of tests, but no-one could really have compared him to any player who has played 50 tests and said he is better at test level...not even you richard!!!!...and look what happened to Cork (Showpony )

Munaf and Sreenath certainly have great potential, but how many times have we said about young bowlers and they fade away.

So yeah, of course lee is a better test bowler than those two, he has experience of playing around the world..and that isnt dissing Munaf and Sree, its just common sense really

 

[Goughy]

You seriously think Lee is better than Patel and Sreesanth?

Yes, one a proven bowler with many international wickets and the others the opposite.

Lee is a quality bowler who still has the ability to win many games in the future for Australia. Who I may remind you are the best team in the world and didn't get there by picking chumps.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

How can you tell that....jeez, even Dominic Cork looked good for his first couple of tests, but no-one could really have compared him to any player who has played 50 tests and said he is better at test level...not even you richard!!!!...and look what happened to Cork (Showpony )

Munaf and Sreenath certainly have great potential, but how many times have we said about young bowlers and they fade away.

So yeah, of course lee is a better test bowler than those two, he has experience of playing around the world..and that isnt dissing Munaf and Sree, its just common sense really

Cork is a legend. Now stop it.

 

[Goughy]

Lee bowled the 5th-most overs in 2005.
Point proven.

What point? What proof?

What am I doing even responding?

 

[open365]

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

Laugh out loud?

 

[luckyeddie]

How can you tell that....jeez, even Dominic Cork looked good for his first couple of tests, but no-one could really have compared him to any player who has played 50 tests and said he is better at test level...not even you richard!!!!...and look what happened to Cork (Showpony )

Ever compared his test record to Andy Caddick's?