Fringe Aussie fringe Players who would excel in other teams..

[Greg Blewett]

Lee performed well in certain matches but in others he was total rubbish. He had some good games obviously such as the 1st Final against Pakistan 3/23 a 3/63 & 4/38 against an underperforming West Indies. Though no one can deny he lacks consistency 1/66, 1/63 v.PAK. The other three games he was average and nothing special.

So obviously as you say 'zizan12' Lee was NOT "bowling crap thru-out" the whole VB series but a lot of the time he was, or he putting on average performances.

 

[Scallywag]

Lee performed well in certain matches but in others he was total rubbish. He had some good games obviously such as the 1st Final against Pakistan 3/23 a 3/63 & 4/38 against an underperforming West Indies. Though no one can deny he lacks consistency 1/66, 1/63 v.PAK. The other three games he was average and nothing special.

So obviously as you say 'zizan12' Lee was NOT "bowling crap thru-out" the whole VB series but a lot of the time he was, or he putting on average performances.

I dont think anyone here has said Lee was fantastic every time he played, but overall he was the best performed player and deserved the man of the series award.

I know its fashionable to call Lee rubbish but who does perform every game, even McGrath has his off games every now and then.

Sometimes the batsmen played well and sometimes Lee bowled well, but when you say Lee bowled crap you make it sound like the batsmen were bunnies and Lee didnt take advantage, so give the batsmen some credit.

 

[Mr Casson]

Lee performed well in certain matches but in others he was total rubbish. He had some good games obviously such as the 1st Final against Pakistan 3/23 a 3/63 & 4/38 against an underperforming West Indies. Though no one can deny he lacks consistency 1/66, 1/63 v.PAK. The other three games he was average and nothing special.

So obviously as you say 'zizan12' Lee was NOT "bowling crap thru-out" the whole VB series but a lot of the time he was, or he putting on average performances.

Lee never bowled 'total rubbish' in the VB series.

 

[Greg Blewett]

Lee never bowled 'total rubbish' in the VB series.

1/63 from 9 overs inc. 2nb & 4w. I don't know but that isn't exactly great bowling in my book. That one wicket was Yasir Hameed who also has not been playing well as of late.


I never claimed Lee was rubbish all the time, he performed great on several occasions but I really must say I was surprised that he was given the Man of the Series. I really thought it would be given to McGrath. Yes McGrath does have his off games as you said but a lot less frequently than most. McGrath played 6 games Lee played 8. Lee took 17 wickets at 20 or so, McGrath took 15 at 12.

 

[Mr Casson]

1/63 from 9 overs inc. 2nb & 4w. I don't know but that isn't exactly great bowling in my book. That one wicket was Yasir Hameed who also has not been playing well as of late.

Stats...

I watched all the games and Lee never bowled 'total rubbish'. He had some spells where he wasn't rewarded for good bowling, and naturally some were better than others...

 

[Greg Blewett]

So having around 7 an over come off your bowling in your eyes was good, but he just wasn't rewarded appropriately?

Oh and I watched all the games too, Lee bowled well but in my opinion, not in every game.

 

[Mr Casson]

So having around 7 an over come off your bowling in your eyes was good, but he just wasn't rewarded appropriately?

Oh and I watched all the games too, Lee bowled well but in my opinion, not in every game.

Mate, it happens sometimes...

Stats can be mauled to pieces and at a glance look terrible. Last night Kabir Ali had 1/22 off 8 overs and ended up with 1/58 (if I remember correctly). That doesn't change that for most of that he bowled with movement and accuracy, and those last two overs were during 'happy hour' against batsmen who were giving it everything. He might not have bowled excellently in his last spell, but sometimes mere adequacy is just inadequate.

 

[Zinzan]

Lee performed well in certain matches but in others he was total rubbish. He had some good games obviously such as the 1st Final against Pakistan 3/23 a 3/63 & 4/38 against an underperforming West Indies. Though no one can deny he lacks consistency 1/66, 1/63 v.PAK. The other three games he was average and nothing special.

So obviously as you say 'zizan12' Lee was NOT "bowling crap thru-out" the whole VB series but a lot of the time he was, or he putting on average performances.

I think you forget that onedayers are generally a batsmens game. Lee played around 10 games. For his worst 2 games to go for 1/66 and 1/63 in a tournament where Afridi had a strike rate of around 200 with the consideration Lee is a very attacking bowler is not too bad at all.

If he went for 60 every game that would be rubbish. I don't think its unacceptable to go for around 60 in 2 games out of 10 in a tournament played on good wickets. Especially when you consider the damage he did in the other 8 games.

 

[Zinzan]

IMO symonds from what ive seen from him in ODI cricket and the bit in test cricket is simply not good enough at doing anything else other than hammering the ball out of the park. not something that helps a lot in test match cricket.

You mean he bats like Flintoff then??

 

[Zinzan]

because hes been bowling rubbish in ODIs.

The above was TEC's reasoning when asked "how do you know Lee's wouldn't return a good test bowler?"

Now Lee's won the VB series player of the year. I notice TEC maintains Lee wouldn't make a good test bowler because he's always performed in onedayers.

Slight inconsistency...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lee is bowling a lot better now than he was when his test career started to decline. Oneday cricket or not, anyone (unless they plainly just hate Lee) that knows anything about cricket or have played at a reasonable level will acknowledge that he was superb with the new ball though-out the VB series. He was man of the series remember.

I never denied that Lee looks good lately.

All those Stats you've put together may be fact, they are completely irelevant to the way Lee is bowling at the moment(as opposed to 12 months ago). You've said yourself that Flintoff has improved as a bowler (to which I totally agree), then why can't Lee improve?

I've insinuated that, where? Keep focussed on the point please. A statement was made that Lee is a better bowler than Flintoff and I begged to differ. IMO Flintoff is at least as potent as Lee at the moment. It has nothing to do with Lee being a substandard Test bowler, but rather more to do with Flintoff.

Do you really think Lee was bowling crap thru-out the VB series??

When did I state that??? Please don't put words on my monitor.

Have you played cricket yourself at the top level? If so, surely you know your cricket and can appreciate great fast bowling when you see it.

I wouldn't get carried away and say that Lee has been exhibiting greatness with his fast bowling of late. Outstanding, but a way off great.

 

[chaminda_00]

I've insinuated that, where? Keep focussed on the point please. A statement was made that Lee is a better bowler than Flintoff and I begged to differ. IMO Flintoff is at least as potent as Lee at the moment. It has nothing to do with Lee being a substandard Test bowler, but rather more to do with Flintoff.

IMO Lee is more potent then Flintoff, if u want a wicket, who would u bowl?? Lee would be the guy i would pick over Flintoff.

On the issue of who is a better bowler, then on current form Flintoff is, but that is because Lee hasn't played a test in over an year. On overall abilty, when u look at both bowlers at their best, IMO Lee is better bowler.

There is no doubt that Flintoff has improved allot over the past year, but if Lee bowled aganist the same teams with his current form (regardless of the fact it is 1Day Cricket) i think Lee would of improved the same amount.

 

[Zinzan]

I wouldn't get carried away and say that Lee has been exhibiting greatness with his fast bowling of late. Outstanding, but a way off great.

If Lee's bowlings been outstanding, but not great IYO....How would you rate Flintoff's bowling?? Surely no better than outstanding?

 

[Mr Casson]

IMO Lee is more potent then Flintoff, if u want a wicket, who would u bowl?? Lee would be the guy i would pick over Flintoff.

I really like Lee, and I'd really like to see him back in the Test side; but given the way he HAS taken a wicket every time his captain has needed him to lately, as a captain I'd turn to Flintoff.

 

[Zinzan]

I really like Lee, and I'd really like to see him back in the Test side; but given the way he HAS taken a wicket every time his captain has needed him to lately, as a captain I'd turn to Flintoff.

Everytime?? England did lose one of the tests in S.A didn't they?? So it can't be everytime....

I still maintain if both bowlers are at the very top of their game, Lee is a more potent bowler. They have both been awful in the past in periods and are both good bowlers when at their best. Flintoff has obviously had the better test form recently, but seeing Lee back to his very best, I expect him to return to test cricket a far more dangerous bowler than Flintoff. Main reason is now he's actually demonstrating control for the first time in a long time and his extreme pace gives him the edge over Flintoff..Thats IMO....

 

[Mr Casson]

Everytime?? England did lose one of the tests in S.A didn't they?? So it can't be everytime....

Yeah it can be.. they lost that test because of absolute garbage batting.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah it can be.. they lost that test because of absolute garbage batting.

Yeah I suppose his test bowling record and his amazing record of ONE test 5 wkt bags really testifies to your argument...

 

[tooextracool]

Why would Aust even consider dropping one of there top 6 (assuming Flintoff was Australian) in their test side.

Do you really believe they need a forth seamer along with Mcgrath, Gillespie, Kaspa and Warne??

I suppose it because their existing attack have so much trouble bowling sides out....is that right??

Remember I'm talking test cricket here

because players like clarke are still unproven, players like hayden are overrated, and players like lehmann seem to be on the decline. having flintoff in the side improves the balance of any side, and the fact that they've picked watson only suggests that they are open to that idea. yes perhaps based on the recent series, you might consider batting gilchrist ahead of him, but it still doesnt mean that flintoff wouldnt make the side.

 

[Mr Casson]

Yeah I suppose his test bowling record and his amazing record of ONE test 5 wkt bags really testifies to your argument...

Well it certainly doesn't detract from it...

 

[tooextracool]

All i was commenting on was the fact that u said that u need to be consistent for 5 years to rated as a good bowler or batsmen. Flintoff only been decent for a season. Therefore u could say last season was down to luck just like u said Brett Lee first season was..

yes but the fact that its still going on would suggest that its more likely to continue, than it is for brett lee who had 1 good season followed by 4 mediocre ones. and really the improvement flintoff has shown with both bat and ball has been on for more than a season, even it hasnt equated to the performance that hes showing now.

It does mean something to mean but that fact is he only has one 5wh aganist WI . You have to be wicket taking bowler to be good in test cricket, which Flintoff clearly isn't compared Brett Lee. It does matter how cheap u get your wicket, but it is more important how many wicket that u get. So therefore Brett Lee is a better bowler then Flintoff as he takes more wickets per Test, which also gives u a greater chance of getting 20 wickets. You need to take 20 wickets to win a test not keep a team under 3.5 an over.

i doubt it, personally taking 4 wickets is almost as good as taking 5, and id much rather have flintoff take 4/80 than have lee take 5/200.