Brett Lee in ODI's

[Scallywag]

Likewise, i am sure Lee is ecstatic that one white superiorist(Scally) thinks that he is the best thing since sliced bread.

Could you make that WHITE BREAD its much better than brown bread.

 

[Blaze]

Posters not interested in statistics go no further, if all you want to do is complain tell someone who cares.

If you remove games against bangledesh Lee has a better strike rate than Bond.

So?

 

[crickhowell]

Brett Lee has improved an incredible amount over such a short time, he now has the chance of becoming an all-time great and he would certainly be a in my aussie team to play the first test. The amount he has been swinging the ball and troubling the batsmen is impressive and the ashes is the perfect time to etch your name into history.

 

[Scallywag]

So?

Well I thought that you would be interested in this little known fact in case it comes up at a quizz night.

 

[Blaze]

Well I thought that you would be interested in this little known fact in case it comes up at a quizz night.

Have u tried removing stats against all the minnows including Zimbabwe?

 

[Scallywag]

Have u tried removing stats against all the minnows including Zimbabwe?

Using only the top eight test playing nations.

Bond 41 wickets strike rate 28.29

Lee 179 wickets strike rate 27.8

 

[Blaze]

Using only the top eight test playing nations.

Bond 41 wickets strike rate 28.29

Lee 179 wickets strike rate 27.8

Both exceptional.. I don't get how when you remove the minnows Lee's is actually lower than before. He obviously doesn't like playing minnows.

 

[age_master]

indeed maybe he is able to focus better against the better oponents

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lee is a good ODI bowler, but i would take the likes of Waqar, Wasim,McGrath,Garner,Ambrose, Murali etc. long before i take Lee.

Wasim, McGrath, Murali yes, Garner maybe, but not Waqar or Ambrose in ODIs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He is now the 2nd quickest to 200 ODI wickets, only taking 112 games, beating out Donald, but is not number 1.

He one ahead of him is a spinner though, in Saqlain.

 

[Adamc]

Wasim, McGrath, Murali yes, Garner maybe, but not Waqar or Ambrose in ODIs.

Why does Garner only garner a maybe? He has clearly the best record in ODI history IMO.

 

[marc71178]

Both exceptional.. I don't get how when you remove the minnows Lee's is actually lower than before. He obviously doesn't like playing minnows.

Could it be that he opens, so bowls against the better batsmen who stay in longer, but doesn't get a chance to come back and bowl against the tail because the other bowlers have cleaned them up.

That's exactly what happened at Old Trafford.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why does Garner only garner a maybe? He has clearly the best record in ODI history IMO.

In a completely different era of ODI cricket though. Garner was unquestionably a great ODI bowler, but he didn't have to deal with opening the bowling to batsmen who insisted at scoring at a run a ball, or sending down his yorkers at the death in a time when 10 an over in the last 5 isn't uncommon. Scoring rates were quite simply much lower then. Players like Hadlee, Lillee, Kapil etc also have superlaitve economy rates my modern standards.

Having said that, his record stands out even in his own era, and his brilliant yorkers have rarely been matched. He's certainly an all-time great in ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Wasim, McGrath, Murali yes, Garner maybe, but not Waqar or Ambrose in ODIs.

you'd have to be absolutely insane if you thought brett lee is a better bowler than ambrose.
no one who played into the 90s has a better ER than 3.48, along with an average of 24(it would have been a fair bit lower had he not played as long as he did), thats quite brilliant.
waqar before injury had an excellent ER and bowling average.
and i cant see how anyone can be unsure about someone averaging 18.85@ 3.10 being better than lee.
IMO there are a fair few bowlers who are clearly better than lee in ODIs. from the 90s onwards theres been:
mcgrath
murali
ambrose
wasim
pollock
donald
saqlain
waqar

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ambrose, perhaps, was a little off the mark. Having thought on it further I think you're right there and he was ahead of Lee, and Garner as I said has a supreme record and was the best of his time, but with the differences between the eras it is harder to judge. Donald and Waqar, though, I'm not sold on. Waqar obviously had his days when he was better than anyone, just like he did in tests, but Lee's consistent wicket taking is one of his major virtues. It is amazingly rare these days that he plays a game where he doesn't take a wicket, which is exactly why his strike rate is significantly better than anyone elses, even though he isn't quite as destructive as them.

Including players who played in the 90s and after only, I'd rate McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim, Warne, and Saqlain clearly ahead of Lee, and Pollock very close. Donald and Waqar might be ahead of Lee right now, but I think he will have overtaken them by the time he retires.

That's of course the other problem with rating Lee right now in the all-time great category. He's only 28, and has a lot of cricket ahead of him fitness permitting. Maybe he'll do a McGrath/Lillee/Hadlee job and get even better, or maybe he'll do a Bishop/Waqar/Donald and go downhill.

 

[King_Ponting]

you'd have to be absolutely insane if you thought brett lee is a better bowler than ambrose.
no one who played into the 90s has a better ER than 3.48, along with an average of 24(it would have been a fair bit lower had he not played as long as he did), thats quite brilliant.
waqar before injury had an excellent ER and bowling average.
and i cant see how anyone can be unsure about someone averaging 18.85@ 3.10 being better than lee.
IMO there are a fair few bowlers who are clearly better than lee in ODIs. from the 90s onwards theres been:
mcgrath
murali
ambrose
wasim
pollock
donald
saqlain
waqar

Warne should definently be in that list

 

[age_master]

indeed Lee could easily play more than double his current number of ODI's

 

[shaka]

He one ahead of him is a spinner though, in Saqlain.

McGrath took 133 games to reach it, as did the great AA

 

[C_C]

Wasim, McGrath, Murali yes, Garner maybe, but not Waqar or Ambrose in ODIs.

I would easily include Waqar ahead of Lee....
Waqar was considerably more devastating than Lee at a similar stage with same wicket/match ratio, better economy rate, more 5-fers and 4-fers
You cant compare the completed career of a player with one that is ongoing- have to compare it at current stage.
I would include Ambrose ahead of Lee as well. Ambrose had a worse wicket/match ratio but a significantly superior economy rate. I consider both factors to be important in ODIs, with economy rate being the most important but i think Ambrose's economy rate is significantly better than Lee's compared Lee's superior wicket-taking capability.

 

[marc71178]

Waqar after 112 games - 187, Lee - 200