Brett Lee

[tassietiger]

Possibly the bowler with the smallest cricket brain ever to play Test cricket. Quick, but for some reason thinks he is a giant and should be bowling bouncers all the time. Can get swing, but won't get it bowling short crap like we have become accustomed to. Last series he averaged something around 40, and this series he has gotten off to a solid start averaging 74.5.

The most annoying thing about this, is while he bowls badly, he has a way of making it look as if he is bowling well. He's remembered as one of our better players in the 2005 Ashes series, purely because of his batting. When McGrath tripped over that ball, Lee was asked to step up and spearhead the attack. He didn't. If he was our only bowler in that series, England would've gotten 411 every innings. Thank god for Warney.

His celebrations of his GABBA wickets are being replayed time and time again before they go to the break in the cricket. Both of them.

Just because he fancies himself as a pretty-boy and Weet-bix promote him as if he were the team's leading pace bowler doesn't necessarily mean this is the case. If Watson were available for the Adelaide Test, I would've liked to have seen MacGill take Lee's spot. Stuart Clark's bowling is best summed up by Phil Tufnell - "Why would we want to face someone who bowls just like Glenn McGrath?" Although the selectors won't have the balls to do it, I would like to see Tait replace Lee for the next Test. He started off erratic, and everyone knew it, and there is a common misconception that he has harnessed in his bowling. As is being proven now he is bowling to batsmen that are better than the West Indian order he bowled at last summer, he has hardly improved. More of the same old Lee.

Anyone else share my view that he should be dropped? I'm sorry if it has already been discussed on another thread, but I couldn't see it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha. Do you do anything on this forum other than have a dig at Lee every time he has a bad game?

In his last four series before this recent test, he took 50 wickets @ 26.34, and that's significantly inflated by a poor return in Bangladesh. This is with McGrath underperforming and then missing from the team, and Warne having a poorer time of it than normal. He carried the attack, and also contributed well in the bat and in the field. He's one of the hardest workers in the team, and even in the last test he bowled quite well in the first innings - it was only the second innings where he was poor.

Dropping him would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[pasag]

Worst person.

 

[tassietiger]

Haha. Do you do anything on this forum other than have a dig at Lee every time he has a bad game?

In his last four series before this recent test, he took 50 wickets @ 26.34, and that's significantly inflated by a poor return in Bangladesh. This is with McGrath underperforming and then missing from the team, and Warne having a poorer time of it than normal. He carried the attack, and also contributed well in the bat and in the field. He's one of the hardest workers in the team, and even in the last test he bowled quite well in the first innings - it was only the second innings where he was poor.

Dropping him would be absolutely ridiculous.

Firstly, the West Indies and South Africans weren't offering too much resistance. And when in South Africa, it was Stuart Clark getting all of the top order batsmen out anyway. 26.34 is what you expect from a front-line pace bowler - Gillespie averages 26 over his career, yet it is what Lee got during his 'purple patch'.

Hard worker maybe, but he really needs to understand what his capabilities are. He can bowl the ball fast and swing it. He cannot bowl accurate short balls that intimidate batsmen - an unfortunate dilemma faced by any pace bowler without a great deal of height. If he was pitching it up each ball and swinging it, I reckon the batsmen would have a lot of trouble facing him - but when faced with quality batsmen, he isn't doing this, instead choosing to stick with the short balls.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Firstly, the West Indies and South Africans weren't offering too much resistance. And when in South Africa, it was Stuart Clark getting all of the top order batsmen out anyway. 26.34 is what you expect from a front-line pace bowler - Gillespie averages 26 over his career, yet it is what Lee got during his 'purple patch'.

Hard worker maybe, but he really needs to understand what his capabilities are. He can bowl the ball fast and swing it. He cannot bowl accurate short balls that intimidate batsmen - an unfortunate dilemma faced by any pace bowler without a great deal of height. If he was pitching it up each ball and swinging it, I reckon the batsmen would have a lot of trouble facing him - but when faced with quality batsmen, he isn't doing this, instead choosing to stick with the short balls.

That's simply not true, on either count. The best spells Lee has bowled in recent memory all included plenty of short balls, and a bowler of Lee's pace simply can't swing the non-new ball consistently in unfriendly conditions, and will never be able to. Pitching it up and trying to swing a 30 over old ball in hot, dry conditions is just going to get him belted around. Lee needs other plans, and that's been one of his major weaknesses. Telling him keep bowling half-volleys and trying to swing it won't help anything.

Really, one of the reasons Lee often goes for a lot of runs is because he bowls too full in an attempt to swing the ball, and at his pace you don't exactly need to hit the ball brilliantly to send a half-volley away for a boundary. One of the reasons he bowled better last year when McGrath wasn't performing is he worked more on finding a good length with his stock ball, and ended up being more economical and working to consistent plans against batsmen more often. The Boxing Day spell was a perfect example of this. With McGrath in the side he often charges in and tries to bowl as fast as possible and goes into yorker/bouncer mode, presumably under instruction part of the time, and when he's not swinging the ball it can make him pretty easy to score off.

Anyway, he did in fact sort out a lot of the problems with his bowling last summer. He's obviously a lot more accurate these days, even in the recent test he was fairly consistent, just unthreatening. His other problem was often the lack of a second plan when swing and bouncers aren't working out, and he certianly made some big strides in that regard last summer too. England was always going to be a big test for him because he has a poor record against them and they play him aggressively, but it's not as though the South African top order that he succeeded against is particularly poor. I'd wait out the series before writing off his chances of succeeding against English batsmen. The Gabba wicket was pretty unforgiving for a few bowlers, with only the seamers who rely on bounce and hit a good length consistently having success, and he did bowl well in the first innings and could easily have had more than the one wicket. The second innings performance was very disheartening, but it wasn't any worse than Harmison, Hoggard or Anderson bowled.

 

[Matteh]

Although the selectors won't have the balls to do it, I would like to see Tait replace Lee for the next Test. He started off erratic, and everyone knew it, and there is a common misconception that he has harnessed in his bowling.

Haha, i hope they do. Tait bowls at least one 4-ball an over, England will love to just slam that away all day.

 

[Nate]

Kade Harvey > Shaun Tait IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And when in South Africa, it was Stuart Clark getting all of the top order batsmen out anyway.

1st Test - Prince, Hall, de Villiers, Gibbs.
2nd Test - Smith, Boucher, Pollock (twice).
3rd Test - Kallis, Prince, Pollock, Boucher.

Not exactly a lack of batting talent. 12 of 17 wickets...

 

[BoyBrumby]

1st Test - Prince, Hall, de Villiers, Gibbs.
2nd Test - Smith, Boucher, Pollock (twice).
3rd Test - Kallis, Prince, Pollock, Boucher.

Not exactly a lack of batting talent. 12 of 17 wickets...

Bit of a stretch to call Pollock & Boucher "top order" IMHO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Bit of a stretch to call Pollock & Boucher "top order" IMHO.

They're still more than competent batsmen, any player who can score a test hundred, should be worthy of being called at least a batsman of some calibre.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bit of a stretch to call Pollock & Boucher "top order" IMHO.

Not calling them top order batsmen. But the implication was that Lee got easy wickets of lesser batsmen and tailenders. Both Boucher and Pollock are quite competent.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not calling them top order batsmen. But the implication was that Lee got easy wickets of lesser batsmen and tailenders. Both Boucher and Pollock are quite competent.

My mistake then. You using them to reply to TT's assertion that "when in South Africa, it was Stuart Clark getting all of the top order batsmen out anyway." made it seem like you were implying they were top order themselves.

 

[marc71178]

They're still more than competent batsmen, any player who can score a test hundred, should be worthy of being called at least a batsman of some calibre.

** cough ** - AA.
** cough cough ** - Jason Gillespie.
** cough cough cough ** - Mark Ramprakash.

 

[PhoenixFire]

** cough ** - AA.
** cough cough ** - Jason Gillespie.
** cough cough cough ** - Mark Ramprakash.

Isn't your society all praising AA?

Ramps is a more than competent batsman, and well exclude people who get them only against Zim and Banglas.

 

[marc71178]

The AAAS is not as serious as some people think it is.
Bangladesh were improving (remember the First Game in that series)
Ramprakash was not a more than competent Test batsman.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What exactly is the AAAS, apart from this

 

[techno t]

Haha. Do you do anything on this forum other than have a dig at Lee every time he has a bad game?

In his last four series before this recent test, he took 50 wickets @ 26.34, and that's significantly inflated by a poor return in Bangladesh. This is with McGrath underperforming and then missing from the team, and Warne having a poorer time of it than normal. He carried the attack, and also contributed well in the bat and in the field. He's one of the hardest workers in the team, and even in the last test he bowled quite well in the first innings - it was only the second innings where he was poor.

Dropping him would be absolutely ridiculous.

he's a helluva bowler to bring on for a quick blast. Wish we had him in the England side. And Harmy aint really setting the place alight is he. In fact since the Windies he aint really been on form



*

 

[superkingdave]

he's a helluva bowler to bring on for a quick blast. Wish we had him in the England side. And Harmy aint really setting the place alight is he. In fact since the Windies he aint really been on form



*

well Lee would strengthen the lower order batting, so even if he didn't take any wickets he'd still be better than Giles and Harmison.

Though on merit he'd bat 7 if he played for England

 

[BoyBrumby]

well Lee would strengthen the lower order batting, so even if he didn't take any wickets he'd still be better than Giles and Harmison.

Though on merit he'd bat 7 if he played for England

6 nowadays in all honesty.

 

[techno t]

people know nowt if they slag off Lee. He is a cracking aggresive player, which our English side could really do with. Along side Freddie, they would be a cracking pair

*