Best cricketer right now.

[Swervy]

Ever compared his test record to Andy Caddick's?

it wasnt something I would ever be tempted to do in the past..but I just did it...remarkable similar for large parts of both careers...appart from the fact that shape of Corks career curve (for want of a better term) goes downwards, and Andy 'Is it the second innings yet' Caddick got better as time went on...

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Caddick was purely a strike bowler, and if things weren't going his way would be quite happy to live down at Cow thinking about his next rendering job. His Domness, even if things went wrong (he lost his swing sometimes, well, quite a lot of the time) was always up for a scrap and could bowl bouncer after bouncer, restricting the scoring rate, and just generally making a nuisance of himself.

Plus he could bat.

 

[Richard]

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

Not for Tests.

 

[Richard]

Is that a first?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Not something I've ever seen before!!!!!!
Uncharacteristically aggressive on your part!!!!!

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

Lee is not a better bowler than those two - those 2 just aren't better than Lee.
Bowlers who've played 2 Tests, as you say, really aren't comparable.
But if I had to say who I thought would make more of their career - give me Patel every time.
I've said "how many times have we said about young bowlers and they fade away?" more times than you'll ever say it. Usually get the "don't be such a curmadgeon" (rarely exact words) treatment when I do...

 

[Richard]

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.

They didn't?
Australia have picked chumps aplenty - tec will tell you that any time - but because they also have quality aplenty they can get away with it.
Other teams can't.
Lee is far from a proven quality bowler.

 

[Richard]

What point? What proof?

What am I doing even responding?

Bowling that many overs he was always likely to get a reasonable number of wickets.

 

[Richard]

it wasnt something I would ever be tempted to do in the past..but I just did it...remarkable similar for large parts of both careers...appart from the fact that shape of Corks career curve (for want of a better term) goes downwards, and Andy 'Is it the second innings yet' Caddick got better as time went on...

Actually, Cork still had his moments post-Lord's-1996.
Caddick actually went downhill later - after Lord's 2001, he was pretty average. Sadly, doesn't look like he'll get another chance.

 

[marc71178]

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.

So which English bowler would he replace, and why?

 

[marc71178]

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

Maybe the E/R and fact that it was a series against the weak opposition that dragged it that low.

He had an SR of 57.3 in the Ashes, but that was overshadowed by the E/R that meant he averaged over 41

 

[marc71178]

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...

If you're going to inform someone of something, you really should make sure you know what you're talking about.

Mind you, the number of times you "assure" us of something that is wrong makes this just another case amongst many.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Except when the chumps face a strong side that is...

 

[Goughy]

So which English bowler would he replace, and why?

Im aware that people will disagree with this post and I dont want to have a pointless arguement so I will state my case an leave it at that. If you disagree, thats fine. Its a hypothetical arguement with no 'correct' answers anyway.

Well ignoring Flintoff, I would be happy to rotate him in for any of the other 3. Why? The England bowlers hunt as a pack. Each offer a different challenge whilst performing as a unit. I beleive Lee would add far more to that unit than would be lost. He compliments Hoggard, put him with Harmison an you suddenly have 2 genuine quicks for the 1st time in donkeys years and with Jones they would be constantly at the batsman.

IMO, If he was English he would be the 1st bowler on the sheet as I think he would make the unit stronger and make all the other bowlers and therefore the pack more dangerous.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Swapping Hoggard for Lee is absurd I'm sorry.

 

[Goughy]

Swapping Hoggard for Lee is absurd I'm sorry.

Absurd is a bit harsh but I do understand your POV

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

For all those who didn't seem to notice, I was being sarcastic. For a thorough explanation, I rarely actually use 'lol', 'rofl' etc as I find them rather annoying, BUT, the rare times that I do use them I usually do stupid things with them such as 'loooool' or 'lmaooooo', for no justifyable reason other than I feel like it.

Okay, I hope that clears up the controversy.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

What the hell? So, you claim his strike rate isn't good enough, and that he only took so many wickets because he bowled more overs than anyone else, and when I point out that his strike rate was 50 (which is world class) and that he bowled less overs than most of the players who took a comparable number of wickets, you say point proven?

Well, how could I possibly argue with that? Good job.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Maybe the E/R and fact that it was a series against the weak opposition that dragged it that low.

He had an SR of 57.3 in the Ashes, but that was overshadowed by the E/R that meant he averaged over 41

What's your point? Richard said that the number of wickets Lee took didn't matter, because it was strike rate that was relevant, and I pointed out that his strike rate was superb. Obviously his economy rate wasn't, but that doesn't really have anything to do with how many wickets he took, does it?

 

[Ikki]

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?

I guess, LOL. Sarcasm on Sarcasm...the best .

 

[Ikki]

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

It's for the fact that when Warne is compared to his closest rival the balance sways and so do the important variables.

 

[Ikki]

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...

It's actually " Laugh Out Loud".