Do you consider Colin Croft a "what if?"

[Migara]

And yet, Lee didn't have the one skill that he needed, and Croft had, i.e. accuracy and control over his craft. Among the most wayward bowlers ever to have played that long.

An example, see the Sydney test 2004 when he went for over 200 in under 40 overs. Remembering Harsha Bhogle's commentary there, "Brett Lee's 200 is up. Second double century in the match".

Croft did not bowl to any thing remotely as aggressive Lee bowled to. Neither he led the attack when more illustrous peers retired.

The issue is not how Croft and Lee played in their respective teams. What would have happened if the switched places.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Croft did not bowl to any thing remotely as aggressive Lee bowled to. Neither he led the attack when more illustrous peers retired.

The issue is not how Croft and Lee played in their respective teams. What would have happened if the switched places.

What aggresive thing did Lee bowled to?

 

[Migara]

What aggresive thing did Lee bowled to?

Tendulkar, Lara, Shewag, Pietersen and ABdV to start with. Younis, Sangakkara, Yousuf, Inzamam, VVS were pretty free flowing too.

The mos aggressive Croft have bowled to would be Chappel or Miandad. AB and Gavaskar, two other great batsmen of the era were sedate batsmen.

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar, Lara, Shewag, Pietersen and ABdV to start with. Younis, Sangakkara, Yousuf, Inzamam, VVS were pretty free flowing too.

The mos aggressive Croft have bowled to would be Chappel or Miandad. AB and Gavaskar, two other great batsmen of the era were sedate batsmen.

Bro you're comparing a 23 test career to a 76 one so of course Lee would've faced more aggressive batsmen. Still, this comparison is insulting. Lee was an ok bowler, Croft was very good and likely would've been great or at worst Gillespie level.

 

[trundler]

Javagal Srinath must be crushed by Migara pumping some other 30 average bowler's tires randomly.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Why all the comments about Brett Lee? He was superb in 2000 and the 1999 BDT (debut), but from 2001 onwards he averaged 33. Croft would've been much better.

 

[honestbharani]

Javagal Srinath must be crushed by Migara pumping some other 30 average bowler's tires randomly.

 

[Migara]

Bro you're comparing a 23 test career to a 76 one so of course Lee would've faced more aggressive batsmen. Still, this comparison is insulting. Lee was an ok bowler, Croft was very good and likely would've been great or at worst Gillespie level.

I look in to the fact how a bowler fits to the rest of the attack, and how much hence it improves. For West Indies attack a top class swing bowler or a spin bowling all rounder would have added much more than Croft coming in as the fourth seamer. In THAT team Lee would be bowling sharp, short spells at height of his pace to shock the batsmen. That would be his role if I would assign to him. IMO he is better equipped to do it than Croft, because Lee threatens head and toes alike. Others can differ with their opinions, but this is how I justify some players in to some of sides.

 

[mr_mister]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to a solitary 8-fer or something. Venky Prasad or someone random probably has one, when top bowlers don't.
The rate of WPMs - is that down to him playing those tours when others were out of it?

Yeah, wiki said he'd taken 5 fivefers but Cricinfo is showing it was only 3, so comparable enough to Garner rather than easily better like I said.

However, his WPM was 4.6, Garner's 4.4, Robert's 4.2 and Holdings 4.1

Usually WPM is sketchy for rating bowlers (Hadlee and Murali had no other ATGs to share with, McGrath and Warne had to share with each other) but considering these bowlers all played together mostly, it's somewhat useful. Maybe Garner and Roberts were softening batsmen up and Croft was picking up the scraps? Or just being used more often by Lloyd. But that all feels like reaching to try and take the success off him to fit a narrative

But to your other point, it looks like no, Croft mainly always bowled with at least 2 of Roberts/Garner/Holding, often all 3(with Marshall occasionally featuring)

Anyway, for whatever reason, Croft was the most frequent wicket taker of the quartet while he was in the team. Decent feather in the cap. Makes me think he must have been pretty close to their level


Edit - one explanation for the WPM I can think of, at least for Garner and Holding, is that when Marshall was established they had to share with the GOAT rather than just Roberts for Croft

However after '83 it was only a trio rather than quartet as Roberts and Croft were done, so maybe that's a moot point

 

[Slifer]

I look in to the fact how a bowler fits to the rest of the attack, and how much hence it improves. For West Indies attack a top class swing bowler or a spin bowling all rounder would have added much more than Croft coming in as the fourth seamer. In THAT team Lee would be bowling sharp, short spells at height of his pace to shock the batsmen. That would be his role if I would assign to him. IMO he is better equipped to do it than Croft, because Lee threatens head and toes alike. Others can differ with their opinions, but this is how I justify some players in to some of sides.

WI already had a fast shock bowler aka Michael Holding and what's more, he was much more accurate than Lee hence his much better record. Marshall fyi was a top class swing bowler so WI have that covered as well. Wi needed a line and length bowler; thats covered as well (Garner). An Akram or a Warne/Murali are about the only bowlers who'd bring something new to that attack. Therefore, Lee brings absolutely nothing new or particularly special to that WI team. At the very least, Croft besides his awkward angle,.kept things tight (relative to Lee) and therefore helped to build pressure on batsmen. This is such an absurd comparison. Lee wouldn't even add anything to the current Aussie attack let alone the atg attacks Croft was apart of.

 

[_00_deathscar]

The only thing Brett Lee would have added to that West Indies attack is release of pressure and free flowing runs for the opposition.