Best cricketer right now.

[Richard]

"Had it not been for dropped catches, plumb LBWs not given out and his habit of overstepping, Brett Lee would have had outstanding figures yesterday."

Quite true.
One thing, of course - overstepping is entirely his fault and while it's still lucky for the batsman, it categorically isn't unlucky for the bowler.

 

[Richard]

these days Harmiosn, it would be a clear like for like swap

Err, what? The two, while having the rubbish factor in common for most of their careers, are clearly nothing of a like-for-like. Totally different bowlers.

 

[Richard]

I really don't wish to get into that either. I just see every thread filled with the same lavish generalisations and inane opinions. Then once those are proved wrong, one seems to jump on another topic and battle that leaving a gaping hole in each argument. I'm just pointing out you're doing it again here .

Err, no I'm not, because I've never ventured into the Warne-Murali thing.

 

[Richard]

Good one. Usually when I say taking wickets, I mean taking wickets. I'd say most people are the same. If I meant "getting a good average", I'd probably say something like that.

Anyway, what about the strike rate thing? When it was mentioned that Lee was high up on the wicket taking lists in 2005, you said it didn't matter because "strike rate is the important thing". I guess strike rate isn't so important now that it's clear Lee had a good one?

You're not wrong I didn't realise it was as good as it was. Still, I'd back that it was good on some occasions (ie against West Indies) and poor on others.
As far as saying "he's got X wickets in the year, he must be brilliant", strike-rates ARE the important thing. It's overs, not years, taken to get wickets which are the relevant factor.
Still, if you get them at a poor average, a good strike-rate isn't that much of a saving-grace. I'd have done better to mention average (which was poor) rather than strike-rate without actually looking at what the figure was.

 

[Richard]

Now who's Mr Grumpy/Uppity/whatfrickinever?

You've tried to compare me to Mr. Uppity more than once.

 

[Richard]

"Taking wickets" means exactly that, and you know it.

I can certainly respect your assertion that Lee isn't very good, even if I disagree with you. But if you're going to make a statement like that, at least try and back it up with some sound reasoning. In the case of this debate, you've been found to be pretty loose with the facts. Just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Anyway, I'd agree with your point that Lee's test stats leave a lot to be desired, but from what I've seen of him over the current season (and that's a fair bit), I'd say he's been in great form. This thread is about the best player at the moment, so I can totally understand why someone here would mention him.

Take a look at the next post up bar one, pal...

 

[Ikki]

Err, no I'm not, because I've never ventured into the Warne-Murali thing.

Who said anything about that? I'm talking generally in all arguments you venture into. That just happened to be a side-point.

 

[chris.hinton]

Flintoff is the best Cricketer at the moment followed by Warne and Ponting

 

[Richard]

Who said anything about that? I'm talking generally in all arguments you venture into. That just happened to be a side-point.

You've shown nothing as to me showing "the same lavish generalisations and inane opinions. Then once those are proved wrong, one seems to jump on another topic and battle that leaving a gaping hole in each argument" or, indeed, doing such in this thread.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You're not wrong I didn't realise it was as good as it was. Still, I'd back that it was good on some occasions (ie against West Indies) and poor on others.
As far as saying "he's got X wickets in the year, he must be brilliant", strike-rates ARE the important thing. It's overs, not years, taken to get wickets which are the relevant factor.
Still, if you get them at a poor average, a good strike-rate isn't that much of a saving-grace. I'd have done better to mention average (which was poor) rather than strike-rate without actually looking at what the figure was.

Yeah, Lee didn't have a particularly great 2005, although I don't think it was as crap as people make out either. Basically he had an up and down Ashes where he was occasionally very good (Lords, day 3 at Edgbaston, day 5 at Old Trafford etc) and occasionally extremely poor (day 1 at Edgbaston, and he fell to bits on the final day at The Oval as well). It's a bit simplistic to say his Ashes was rubbish because he averaged 40, because going into the last test his average for the series was 32 or so, which is about par in a fairly high scoring series, certainly not shocking. It declined badly when Pieteresen belted him, but it's worth keeping in mind that Lee could have had Pietersen out a few times earlier in that day. I don't actually disagree with your criticism of him in the year as a whole, but it's pretty dumb to make a series of complaints and just move on to something new when someone contradicts you, and it doesn't make people very inclined to hear your opinions.

On the subject of Lee generally, after the Ashes he had a poor Super Series and with Australia dismantling their team he sought some help from a few people, mainly Mark Taylor, and made a big deal about reviewing his approach to bowling in test cricket, concentrating more on line and length and so on. Since then he's taken 42 wickets @ 24.19 in 8 tests, with an economy rate of 3.17 and a strike rate of 45.86. Not dominant or anything, but solid figures against some decent opposition all-round. More importantly, he's actually deserved the wickets and bowled extremely well for them, and if anything been a little unlucky, particularly in the MCG and SCG tests against south Africa. He's turned a pretty big corner I think, and if he keeps it up (which obviously he might not), he'll be a class bowler in the future.

 

[Ikki]

You've shown nothing as to me showing "the same lavish generalisations and inane opinions. Then once those are proved wrong, one seems to jump on another topic and battle that leaving a gaping hole in each argument" or, indeed, doing such in this thread.

I'll break it down for you mate...

Why do you think 90% of what you post is debated so fiercely? You're telling me you're so right most of the time? I've read a lot of your posts buddy, and some things have made me laugh and smack my forehead. I don't wish to be insulting with you mate, but you really go off the deep end. I'll stop badgering you also . Peace

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Lee didn't have a particularly great 2005, although I don't think it was as crap as people make out either. Basically he had an up and down Ashes where he was occasionally very good (Lords, day 3 at Edgbaston, day 5 at Old Trafford etc) and occasionally extremely poor (day 1 at Edgbaston, and he fell to bits on the final day at The Oval as well). It's a bit simplistic to say his Ashes was rubbish because he averaged 40, because going into the last test his average for the series was 32 or so, which is about par in a fairly high scoring series, certainly not shocking. It declined badly when Pieteresen belted him, but it's worth keeping in mind that Lee could have had Pietersen out a few times earlier in that day. I don't actually disagree with your criticism of him in the year as a whole, but it's pretty dumb to make a series of complaints and just move on to something new when someone contradicts you, and it doesn't make people very inclined to hear your opinions.

I find that Lee bowled generally pretty crap in the whole last 4 Tests (and I don't think bowling well at Lord's was especially difficult, it says a lot that only McGrath on Thursday afternoon bowled especially well all game). If you say that after 4 his average was 32, you can also say that in 2, 3, 4 and 5 it was nearly 50. And I think it was a fair indication - on the rare occasions he got good figures, I don't really think he deserved them too much (Edgbaston second-innings it was the typical Trescothick-nudge dismissal, the removal of a night*watchman and the Vaughan missing of a straight ball; Old Trafford first-innings it was a very fine slower-ball followed by poor strokes; and Trent Bridge second-innings it was 2 execrable strokes and a very fine indipper).

On the subject of Lee generally, after the Ashes he had a poor Super Series and with Australia dismantling their team he sought some help from a few people, mainly Mark Taylor, and made a big deal about reviewing his approach to bowling in test cricket, concentrating more on line and length and so on. Since then he's taken 42 wickets @ 24.19 in 8 tests, with an economy rate of 3.17 and a strike rate of 45.86. Not dominant or anything, but solid figures against some decent opposition all-round. More importantly, he's actually deserved the wickets and bowled extremely well for them, and if anything been a little unlucky, particularly in the MCG and SCG tests against south Africa. He's turned a pretty big corner I think, and if he keeps it up (which obviously he might not), he'll be a class bowler in the future.

The thing about this is, he's sought (and got, and put into place) advice from plenty of people before now, and it's come to nothing. I can't see how this turnaround can be credited to anything but coincidence. Certainly the "I'm more into bowling line and length now" one has been heard at least twice before, firstly when Ponting assumed the ODI captaincy.
I don't take it too seriously, and frankly I hope he doesn't continue to get the decent figures he's been getting since The 'Gabba second-innings. I'd be disappointed if someone who was so poor for so long suddenly became the finished article.

 

[Richard]

I'll break it down for you mate...

Why do you think 90% of what you post is debated so fiercely? You're telling me you're so right most of the time? I've read a lot of your posts buddy, and some things have made me laugh and smack my forehead. I don't wish to be insulting with you mate, but you really go off the deep end. I'll stop badgering you also . Peace

Is it really likely I'd write anything if I didn't think it was right?
If you "laugh and smack your forehead" that's up to you - but really, that's a bit pointless from where I'm sitting. Why not actually reply, and suggest why you find it so uproarious?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I find that Lee bowled generally pretty crap in the whole last 4 Tests (and I don't think bowling well at Lord's was especially difficult, it says a lot that only McGrath on Thursday afternoon bowled especially well all game). If you say that after 4 his average was 32, you can also say that in 2, 3, 4 and 5 it was nearly 50. And I think it was a fair indication - on the rare occasions he got good figures, I don't really think he deserved them too much (Edgbaston second-innings it was the typical Trescothick-nudge dismissal, the removal of a night*watchman and the Vaughan missing of a straight ball; Old Trafford first-innings it was a very fine slower-ball followed by poor strokes; and Trent Bridge second-innings it was 2 execrable strokes and a very fine indipper).

Frankly, if you manage one wicket with a great ball and a couple with average ones in a single spell you've done pretty damn well, and I doubt even you would disagree with that. Lee was majorly up and down in the Ashes, and the poor periods outweighed the good ones, certainly.

The thing about this is, he's sought (and got, and put into place) advice from plenty of people before now, and it's come to nothing. I can't see how this turnaround can be credited to anything but coincidence. Certainly the "I'm more into bowling line and length now" one has been heard at least twice before, firstly when Ponting assumed the ODI captaincy.
I don't take it too seriously, and frankly I hope he doesn't continue to get the decent figures he's been getting since The 'Gabba second-innings. I'd be disappointed if someone who was so poor for so long suddenly became the finished article.

The line and length thing was actually in ODIs when Ponting took over. Anyway, I think the Taylor thing wasn't so much a case of a major re-work, but a re-focusing of his energy. The improvement in Lee as a bowler came during his break from test cricket, and it was immediately visible in the way he bowled in the 04/05 VB Series, where he was much more accurate than his usual self, and had improved his bowling action since his last set of injuries significantly. The problem he had during the Ashes was more of a strategic one, and all he required to turn his improvement into consistent performances was a bit of a nudge in the right direction and some game time at the top level. The Taylor thing just became the turning point.

Anyway, why on earth would you hope he doesn't succeed? If he's bowling well, doesn't he deserve his success? Frankly, I think it's a joy to watch a quality fast bowler at the peak of his powers, and that's exactly what Lee has been lately. The opening spell he bowled in the Boxing Day test was simply breathtaking, and I'll remember it for a long time. I'd much rather watch that than have him bowl one or two good balls an over and a pile of crap the rest of it.

 

[Richard]

Frankly, if you manage one wicket with a great ball and a couple with average ones in a single spell you've done pretty damn well, and I doubt even you would disagree with that. Lee was majorly up and down in the Ashes, and the poor periods outweighed the good ones, certainly.

It depends, for me, on what comes first.
In any case, he didn't bowl a single wicket-taking ball at Edgbaston.
I've said time and again that I don't mind 4-fors where there's only 1 wicket-taking ball; what I dislike is seeing someone get a 4-for while bowling a heap of crap, as Lee did at Edgbaston in the second-innings.
Lee bowled well in very occasional patches in The Ashes. I'd question whether he'd have bowled the Flintoff ball if Bell hadn't Hooked him straight to square-leg beforehand at Trent Bridge, though.

The line and length thing was actually in ODIs when Ponting took over.

That's what I just said...

Anyway, I think the Taylor thing wasn't so much a case of a major re-work, but a re-focusing of his energy. The improvement in Lee as a bowler came during his break from test cricket, and it was immediately visible in the way he bowled in the 04/05 VB Series, where he was much more accurate than his usual self, and had improved his bowling action since his last set of injuries significantly. The problem he had during the Ashes was more of a strategic one, and all he required to turn his improvement into consistent performances was a bit of a nudge in the right direction and some game time at the top level. The Taylor thing just became the turning point.

Anyway, why on earth would you hope he doesn't succeed? If he's bowling well, doesn't he deserve his success? Frankly, I think it's a joy to watch a quality fast bowler at the peak of his powers, and that's exactly what Lee has been lately. The opening spell he bowled in the Boxing Day test was simply breathtaking, and I'll remember it for a long time. I'd much rather watch that than have him bowl one or two good balls an over and a pile of crap the rest of it.

Yes, maybe I'll mellow-out a bit IF he's still bowling well in a couple of years - but it's somewhat disappointing for an Englishman (you wouldn't understand it - Australia have been successful for such a long time) to see an Aussie who's looked utterly dreadful for ages become a decent player when you had high hopes of seeing a period, probably not that long, of English dominance. Admittedly, Lee is 30 and probably has only a year or two left of being that good.

 

[Dick Rockett]

You've tried to compare me to Mr. Uppity more than once.

Strange that, when you consider that I've never heard of him.

Take a look at the next post up bar one, pal...

Haha, not quite. You didn't admit you were wrong, you told the other guy he wasn't.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, maybe I'll mellow-out a bit IF he's still bowling well in a couple of years - but it's somewhat disappointing for an Englishman (you wouldn't understand it - Australia have been successful for such a long time) to see an Aussie who's looked utterly dreadful for ages become a decent player when you had high hopes of seeing a period, probably not that long, of English dominance. Admittedly, Lee is 30 and probably has only a year or two left of being that good.

If your motivation for not wanting Lee to succeed is based on being an England fan, I can understand that, but that wasn't my assumption at first as you rarely seem that motivated to have England win. Lee's 29 actually, and I'd say given the fact that he is a supremely fit cricketer (in fact I'd say he's close to the fittest guy in the sport, all things considered) he's got at least 2 or 3 years at the top level pace wise before the inevitable decline. Then there's the question of whether he'll become a Lillee or a Donald in terms of losing his pace, of course.

Either way, Lee's a guy I've admired for a long time because of his attitude towards the game and his obvious talent and dedication, so I'm very happy to see him succeed. He's pretty well liked in England anyway, so far as I'm aware.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If your motivation for not wanting Lee to succeed is based on being an England fan, I can understand that, but that wasn't my assumption at first as you rarely seem that motivated to have England win. Lee's 29 actually, and I'd say given the fact that he is a supremely fit cricketer (in fact I'd say he's close to the fittest guy in the sport, all things considered) he's got at least 2 or 3 years at the top level pace wise before the inevitable decline. Then there's the question of whether he'll become a Lillee or a Donald in terms of losing his pace, of course.

Either way, Lee's a guy I've admired for a long time because of his attitude towards the game and his obvious talent and dedication, so I'm very happy to see him succeed. He's pretty well liked in England anyway, so far as I'm aware.

I think so. Certainly did himself no end of good in the popularity stakes last (English) summer. Bowled & batted his heart out (seems perverse now to think some posters on here doubted his bottle until very recently) and played the game in the right way.

Of course his celebs suck, but what're you gonna do?!?

 

[PY]

Watched some of his hitting in the Ashes and it was fabulous stuff. All eye!

I'm not sure about liking him (he is, after all, Australian ) but I have an awful lot of respect for the way he plays his cricket as FDO mentioned. Incredible fitness, great outfielder with top arm and bowls at ridiculous pace as well with the ability to sometimes blow teams away.

Seems pretty good-natured too with his beaming smile about the field.

 

[Richard]

Strange that, when you consider that I've never heard of him.

It doesn't matter - the comparison wasn't similaic, it was metaphoric.
You said something about me that's said in the story of Mr. Uppity. You don't need to have seen the video to say what you said.

Haha, not quite. You didn't admit you were wrong, you told the other guy he wasn't.

They're one and the same.
Clearly I had not consulted Lee's strike-rate in the year 2005, and suggested it was something it was not.