Brett Lee is Rubish!

[Tim]

Bond doesn't swing the red ball? what are you basing this on Richard? coverage you saw of Bond 3 years ago at the WACA?

 

[garage flower]

A bowler deserves a wicket with a ball that deserves a wicket, and no more. Poor strokes say nothing whatsoever about a bowler's ability, as they happen with equal regularity regardless of accuracy, or "pressure" as some would have it believed.

Another one of your strange theories Richard, no doubt backed up by years of painstaking analysis and numerous scientific studies by anonymous "experts".

Of course building pressure/stifling runs causes batsmen - particularly attacking and inexperienced batsmen - to play rash/poor shots and be dismissed by balls that, based on their individual, intrinsic merit, don't "deserve" to take a wicket.

This has happened on numerous occasions in the South Africa v West Indies series. To take your theory to it's logical conclusion consider the following scenario:

Fidel Edwards bowls 10 overs of pure ****e for 60 runs (perish the thought) spliced with 1 brilliant, inswinging yorker that clean bowls Kallis. In the next innings, Shaun Pollock bowls an accurate, but innocuous 10 over spell that concedes just 6 runs, but includes Gayle and Lara smacking a couple of rare wide half volleys down the throat of point.

Is Edwards more deserving of his 1 wicket than Pollock is of his 2?

The point is that it is ludicrous to judge each ball individually, as you seem to be suggesting, rather than in the context of an over/a spell/ a day's bowling/the batsman on strike/field placings/the match situation etc.

Depending on how a ball that "deserves to take a wicket" is defined in your strange little world, the pecking order of world bowlers could be dramatically - and inaccurately - reshaped.

 

[Richard]

Bond doesn't swing the red ball? what are you basing this on Richard? coverage you saw of Bond 3 years ago at the WACA?

Highlights packages of the games at Bellerive and The WACA are all I have ever seen of him bowling with a red ball.
I was perhaps simply trying to find a reason for his extraordinarily poor series there. If he's as accurate as he usually is in ODIs, and swings the ball, he really should be a massive threat with a new ball anywhere, against any batsmen.
However, the fact is, when he's had decent batsmen to face and conditions that weren't ridiculously seam-friendly, he's failed 2 series out of 3.
The phrase "Bond isn't and never will be a Test-class bowler" has never passed my lips or keyboard - I simply say people overestimate his deeds thus far.

 

[Richard]

Another one of your strange theories Richard, no doubt backed up by years of painstaking analysis and numerous scientific studies by anonymous "experts".

Of course building pressure/stifling runs causes batsmen - particularly attacking and inexperienced batsmen - to play rash/poor shots and be dismissed by balls that, based on their individual, intrinsic merit, don't "deserve" to take a wicket.

This has happened on numerous occasions in the South Africa v West Indies series. To take your theory to it's logical conclusion consider the following scenario:

Fidel Edwards bowls 10 overs of pure ****e for 60 runs (perish the thought) spliced with 1 brilliant, inswinging yorker that clean bowls Kallis. In the next innings, Shaun Pollock bowls an accurate, but innocuous 10 over spell that concedes just 6 runs, but includes Gayle and Lara smacking a couple of rare wide half volleys down the throat of point.

Is Edwards more deserving of his 1 wicket than Pollock is of his 2?

The point is that it is ludicrous to judge each ball individually, as you seem to be suggesting, rather than in the context of an over/a spell/ a day's bowling/the batsman on strike/field placings/the match situation etc.

Depending on how a ball that "deserves to take a wicket" is defined in your strange little world, the pecking order of world bowlers could be dramatically - and inaccurately - reshaped.

I'm afraid just because you think it would be an inaccurate change doesn't mean it would be.
In the hypothesis you have named, of course Edwards deserves his wicket more.
You don't need any painstaking or scientific techniques to work out that there are balls that should take wickets and balls that shouldn't.
If a batsman is pressurised by the fact that he's not scoring at a certain rate, that's no credit to the bowler. Any bowler worth his salt should realise the limitations of a player. If he comes-up against a team of batsmen who don't worry about their speed of scoring, realising, sensibly, that slow runs are better than no runs, he's inevitably going to be exposed if he's got no other methods than batsmen giving their wickets away because they can't take being slowed down.
Attacking and inexperienced batsmen are yet more stereotypes and generalisations that have little meaning.

 

[Damien Martyn]

Yeah but in my opinion they drop Lee and let him find form and maybe put him back in and they should do the same to the All Mighty Martyo

 

[Eclipse]

Martyn's spot should never have been in any threat at all.

The stupid media have taken this way to far Martyn had a slightly off test series and all off a sudden they think his spot is under pressure in the ODI's ignoring the fact he had a brilliant 2003 in ODI's and in his most recent ODI series before this one he was in great form making a brillinat ton and a pair of 60s in the TVS cup.

I dont think the selectors have any plan's to drop him what so ever but having all this unwarented media attention can really get you down. lets hope Martyn can shut them up soon.

 

[Choora]

How is Mr Lee doing in domestic matches? is he still doing good? I think Lee should be made to earn his place in Australian test side rather than just granting him a place coz he can bowl fast.

 

[bennyr]

Yeah but in my opinion they drop Lee and let him find form and maybe put him back in and they should do the same to the All Mighty Martyo

I have to agree with you on both counts.

I don't beleive Brett Lee is rubish, nor is he rubbish. He is a very quick bowler who needs to add some accuracy and intelligence to his game to be a decent international cricketer. Most of the Aussies aging batting line up have benefitted from a spell in the domestic competition, and this might be the best thing for Lee. If he can reinvent himself he will be a bowling force, but if they just keep selecting him, he might start beleiving that the stuff he has been bowling is of international stantard - and it aint.

And as for Marto - I like the dependable 30-50 he has offered in the middle order of the test line up over the last couple of years (in stark contrast to Ponting who is either under 25 or over 150), but he needs to start scoring some runs because, as we all know, there are plenty waiting for their chance.

 

[V Reddy]

How is Mr Lee doing in domestic matches? is he still doing good? I think Lee should be made to earn his place in Australian test side rather than just granting him a place coz he can bowl fast.

If i am not wrong he took 21 wickets in 2 games before getting selected for Aus against India. So he indeed earn his place in the side.

 

[mavric41]

If i am not wrong he took 21 wickets in 2 games before getting selected for Aus against India. So he indeed earn his place in the side.

You are very wrong. It was more like 8 or 9 with only 1 5wkt haul.

 

[Richard]

Martyn's spot should never have been in any threat at all.

The stupid media have taken this way to far Martyn had a slightly off test series and all off a sudden they think his spot is under pressure in the ODI's ignoring the fact he had a brilliant 2003 in ODI's and in his most recent ODI series before this one he was in great form making a brillinat ton and a pair of 60s in the TVS cup.

I dont think the selectors have any plan's to drop him what so ever but having all this unwarented media attention can really get you down. lets hope Martyn can shut them up soon.

Annoying, sometimes, the media, isn't it!
And no selector has ever ignored it for long - because that's not their job.
Everyone knows the media are basically the selectors - no selection panel ever ignores them for long.
Any question over Martyn's ODI place is again falling into the trap of muddling the game-forms. A persistant and infuriating trait, especially amongst the older followers (which tabloid-journos invariably are).

 

[Richard]

I have to agree with you on both counts.

I don't beleive Brett Lee is rubish, nor is he rubbish. He is a very quick bowler who needs to add some accuracy and intelligence to his game to be a decent international cricketer. Most of the Aussies aging batting line up have benefitted from a spell in the domestic competition, and this might be the best thing for Lee. If he can reinvent himself he will be a bowling force, but if they just keep selecting him, he might start beleiving that the stuff he has been bowling is of international stantard - and it aint.

And as for Marto - I like the dependable 30-50 he has offered in the middle order of the test line up over the last couple of years (in stark contrast to Ponting who is either under 25 or over 150), but he needs to start scoring some runs because, as we all know, there are plenty waiting for their chance.

But his ODI form has never warranted any question over his place.

 

[Rik]

So what were the other times in aid of then?

Other times?

 

[Linda]

I dont think the selectors have any plan's to drop him what so ever but having all this unwarented media attention can really get you down. lets hope Martyn can shut them up soon.

Amen to that. Ah well, if you look at his series so far, you will see that he at least hasnt wasted any balls!! Theres a big one around the corner... TRUST ME! (Tommorow, and then at the WACA preferably...)

I also think the selectors are wary of dropping players because if they drop them once, chances are they'll be out for the VB series.

 

[SquidAU]

Drop Lee and bring back Bracken. At least we know he is economical!

 

[Rik]

Drop Lee and bring back Bracken. At least we know he is economical!

Yes, I was a tad surprised when Bracken was left out of the VB series squad, especially as he was the more impressive of an opening attack in India, with Williams. Both had a poor Test series but Williams kept his place for the VB series. Bracken got his ODI average down to 19 in the winter and Williams was just as un-impressive in the Tests. Anyway I don't see why form in Tests should dictate your place in ODIs! Yeah sure if you are doing well in one form why not give the player a go, but you shouldn't use it to say weather they stay in the squad, they are totally different games. Lee was brought in because he has a very good record in ODIs, but in an attack with Bichel, Gillespie and Williams, doesn't it seem a bit samey? All right arm fastish. Bracken, however much I think he's rubbish, has at least shown form in ODIs, and therefor, in principle, should be in the squad. I'll say it again but Williams wasn't as impressive as Bracken in India and they were both poor in the Tests. Also Bracken would bring in some much needed variation to what looks like a very samey attack. If Lee is playing with Bichel, Gillespie or Williams then the Indian batsmen get used to the pace and then do what Grant Flower did for Zimbabwe over here against the West Indies: IE just guess every ball is going to be delivered at a certain pace and then just hit it. As has been shown many times, it doesn't matter how fast you bowl it, if the batsman is good enough or is used to the pace of the ball, it won't trouble him too much.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Pick Bracken! He's in my fantasy team!

 

[mavric41]

Yes, I was a tad surprised when Bracken was left out of the VB series squad, especially as he was the more impressive of an opening attack in India, with Williams. Both had a poor Test series but Williams kept his place for the VB series. Bracken got his ODI average down to 19 in the winter and Williams was just as un-impressive in the Tests. Anyway I don't see why form in Tests should dictate your place in ODIs! Yeah sure if you are doing well in one form why not give the player a go, but you shouldn't use it to say weather they stay in the squad, they are totally different games. Lee was brought in because he has a very good record in ODIs, but in an attack with Bichel, Gillespie and Williams, doesn't it seem a bit samey? All right arm fastish. Bracken, however much I think he's rubbish, has at least shown form in ODIs, and therefor, in principle, should be in the squad. I'll say it again but Williams wasn't as impressive as Bracken in India and they were both poor in the Tests. Also Bracken would bring in some much needed variation to what looks like a very samey attack. If Lee is playing with Bichel, Gillespie or Williams then the Indian batsmen get used to the pace and then do what Grant Flower did for Zimbabwe over here against the West Indies: IE just guess every ball is going to be delivered at a certain pace and then just hit it. As has been shown many times, it doesn't matter how fast you bowl it, if the batsman is good enough or is used to the pace of the ball, it won't trouble him too much.

Bracken was selected in the original squad but pulled out with injury. Williams was his replacement and has done quite well and therefore has retained his place.

 

[bennyr]

But his ODI form has never warranted any question over his place.

Fair call. I think Martyn looks a bit shaky at the moment in terms of confidence, but as you say, it should raise a question over his ODI position (yet). Many more innings like tonight's and he'll have to be looked at.

 

[Richard]

Bracken was selected in the original squad but pulled out with injury. Williams was his replacement and has done quite well and therefore has retained his place.

I thought it must be too ludicrous to be true that he could have been left-out after his TVS Cup.
Surprising, however, that Williams wasn't in the original squad either.