Brett Lee's Test Career

[cnerd123]

Don't Bhuvi and Philander have a disproportionately high amount of wickets in their first spells?

Yadav isn't bowling anywhere close to Lee's quality. The comparison is worthless.

Even if he was, he would have definitely been more effective with McWarne in the same attack

What does quantity of wickets have to do with strike rate and economy rate. Lee took hundreds of wickets. Is that sample size not enough? You think if he took more wickets he'd have a better strike rate? Or worse? I don't get what you are even saying. And I'm not even that drunk right now.

 

[BigBrother]

Don't Bhuvi and Philander have a disproportionately high amount of wickets in their first spells?

Yadav isn't bowling anywhere close to Lee's quality. The comparison is worthless.

Even if he was, he would have definitely been more effective with McWarne in the same attack

What does quantity of wickets have to do with strike rate and economy rate. Lee took hundreds of wickets. Is that sample size not enough? You think if he took more wickets he'd have a better strike rate? Or worse? I don't get what you are even saying. And I'm not even that drunk right now.

So your idea is that let's throw 2 bowlers out of thousands that I'm not even sure about, in fact 2 bowlers who couldn't be any more different from Lee out there? LOL.

That bolded part is what I was talking about in regards to drivel. I would still like to hear a legitimate fact as to why for this from anybody instead just pushing their own biased little opinions.

Strike rate is WICKETS per delivery in case you weren't aware. I also didn't say his strike rate would have been better if people actually bother to read around here. I did however say it's stupid to assume it would have been worse as well since there is no way you can know that.

 

[Goughy]

Honestly one of my all time favourite cricketers. Swung the ball at 150+ clicks, seemed to bounce every where he moved, and that smile. I enjoyed the sport of cricket when Brett Lee was on the field.

 

[Red]

Attacking someone doesn't necessarily grantee them wickets.

A good recent example would be Umesh Yadav in the Australia series. Got pounded and never picked up that many rewards at the end.

Sorry mate, you're criticising people for not reading posts.

I must've missed the part of the recent test series where Yadav (FFS!) had McGrath, Warne and Gillespie bowling from the other end, building pressure

 

[Debris]

Lee was lucky to have the bowlers around him that he did. Only really looked threatening in the beginning and end (2007-8) of his career. Most top order batsmen had his measure otherwise.

Lee was very unlucky to have the bowlers around him that he did. He often was told to stop bowling properly and just shake batsmen up so the bowler at the other end would pick up wickets. That and he had a **** captain in Waugh.

 

[Daemon]

Brett averaged above 30 in tests. However, if you look at his test strike rate, it is 53.3. Given that Steve Waugh asked him to go all out, and it also resulted in him being more way ward than he probably would have been, it is fair to say he did his job in one of the greatest teams fairly well? Lee got you quick wickets, even if he went for a few. That added to the deadliness of the Australians. If you remove Asia and Europe, where he was not that good, Brett Lee took 266 test wickets at 27.5 and a strike rate of 49.2. Tendulkar always rates Lee as one of the best bowlers he faced and Tendulkar's words must count for some thing.

Okay, one can say Lee was a bit less dimensional, not doing too well in England or Asia. However, he was a strike bowler. People are bound to forget bowlers like Lee and Akhtar (who was more **** in the sense that he was unfulfilled and missed half his career), however, they both were capable of running through line ups and without naming names, I would have them ahead of some better average stock bowlers who bowled more economically and thus buttered their averages. Some one who was similar to Lee in the strike sense was Darren Gough imo. A strike rate of just above 50 and an average just below 30. People would forget him 30 years from now. However, they were terrific bowlers a notch or two below absolute great but not mediocre in any way in test terms.

Akhtar was ****ing awesome, though I get your point about not playing as much. I doubt people are going to be in a hurry to forget him.

 

[Sporty1079]

I am a big fan of Shoaib Akhtar but still Lee is better than Shoaib.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Akhtar was way better tbf.

 

[Sporty1079]

Lee has good control over his bowling than Shoaib.

 

[ImpatientLime]

and gough was better than lee ftr.

 

[Daemon]

I am a big fan of Shoaib Akhtar but still Lee is better than Shoaib.

lol.

 

[BigBrother]

Sorry mate, you're criticising people for not reading posts.

I must've missed the part of the recent test series where Yadav (FFS!) had McGrath, Warne and Gillespie bowling from the other end, building pressure

He also didn't have them taking away about what.. over a third of his wickets away, using up the new ball etc etc so it's not such a disadvantage. All those are subjective "psychological" aspects anyways. What's not subjective is that generally, with great bowlers all around you, the lesser ones will be the ones attacked, resulting in worse stats. Something people here seems to have no clue about it seems.

 

[BigBrother]

Akhtar was way better tbf.

Akthar's record is overrated too for me. If he was kept long enough to play 30 extra tests like Lee I doubt there would be that big of a difference between them. Considering what gives Akthar such a good career average is his amazing peak where he may have been the greatest bowler the world had seen.

 

[Red]

He also didn't have them taking away about what.. over a third of his wickets away, using up the new ball etc etc so it's not such a disadvantage. All those are subjective "psychological" aspects anyways. What's not subjective is that generally, with great bowlers all around you, the lesser ones will be the ones attacked, resulting in worse stats. Something people here seems to have no clue about it seems.

I disagree. The better the bowlers you have playing with you, the better your stats will be. It's more likely you'll pick up cheap/easier wickets if you're the least skilled member of a really strong bowling attack.

And Lee isn't some hack surrounded by greats. He was a very good bowler in his own right. It's just that he's probably the least great of McGrath, Warne and Gillespie.

 

[BigBrother]

I disagree. The better the bowlers you have playing with you, the better your stats will be. It's more likely you'll pick up cheap/easier wickets if you're the least skilled member of a really strong bowling attack.

And Lee isn't some hack surrounded by greats. He was a very good bowler in his own right. It's just that he's probably the least great of McGrath, Warne and Gillespie.

Which us brings back to my original assertions that there is no logical or statistical basis behind this, just subjective opinions nobody can ever prove. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, doesn't mean it's at all close to being right.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I disagree. The better the bowlers you have playing with you, the better your stats will be. It's more likely you'll pick up cheap/easier wickets if you're the least skilled member of a really strong bowling attack.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I disagree. The better the bowlers you have playing with you, the better your stats will be. It's more likely you'll pick up cheap/easier wickets if you're the least skilled member of a really strong bowling attack.

Does the converse mean that Wasim Akram > Glenn McGrath? Australian fielding being that much better than the Pakistani unit.

 

[BigBrother]

Does the converse mean that Wasim Akram > Glenn McGrath? Australian fielding being that much better than the Pakistani unit.

Heard this excuse being thrown around many times in recent years. Never was it that popular before 2011 world cup and that team's pathetic show. Yeah the likes of Ajmal, Hafeez and the current bowlers did suffer due to the likes of Akmal, Irfan etc but to say every Pakistan fielder across all generation was this bad is silly.

Can't recall any actual evidence of such a drastic difference while actually seeing the likes of Wasim/Waqar play. Hence this stereotype holds about as merit to me as the one about Wasim getting beneficial lbw decisions.

 

[Red]

Couldn't disagree more.

Because?

 

[Dan]

Because?

- Less chance to take wickets because the other guys are getting 'em instead
- More likely to be used in a specialist role, be it as an enforcer or an expensive partnership breaker, rather than the lead seamer role (which I feel describes Lee's career reasonably well, with McGrath playing both the attack leader and stock bowler roles)


You can obviously go either way with it. Perhaps they cancel each other out. But I agree with BigBrother that we can't make a definitive claim one way or the other.