Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[vic_orthdox]

I can only disagree, Brett Lee swings the ball regularly, seams it when conditions allow and has developed a good slower ball in the past couple of years (if you remember, he nailed Dravid with it for the first wicket of the Aus-India series of last December). A lack of bounce isn't a problem any more than it is for Dale Steyn.

If Brett Lee really did none of the things you say he doesn't do, he wouldn't have taken 310 test wickets @ 30.

He certainly doesn't swing the red pill regularly, and only tends to get seam on the more friendly pitches. No doubt that he bowled very well in the period after McGrath retired, however, Clark has shown much more consistency throughout his career than we've seen from Lee. In what would be a tight call, the fact that Lee has proven to be a failure in England before means that Clark is the more viable option.

 

[Uppercut]

He certainly doesn't swing the red pill regularly, and only tends to get seam on the more friendly pitches. No doubt that he bowled very well in the period after McGrath retired, however, Clark has shown much more consistency throughout his career than we've seen from Lee. In what would be a tight call, the fact that Lee has proven to be a failure in England before means that Clark is the more viable option.

Hmm- i don't think it's fair to hold Lee's 2005 failings against him. He was a completely different bowler at the time, focused on getting the ball to the other end as quickly as possible. More akin to Shaun Tait than the Brett Lee of today.

Lee swings the ball when conditions allow- not very often in Australia- he was reversing the ball a mile in the West Indies not so long ago. But come on- if, as social says, he had no bounce, no swing, no seam and no slower ball, why does he have three hundred test wickets- particularly considering his best run of form since his debut purple streak was whenever he no longer bowled at express pace?

 

[Manee]

Hmm- i don't think it's fair to hold Lee's 2005 failings against him. He was a completely different bowler at the time, focused on getting the ball to the other end as quickly as possible. More akin to Shaun Tait than the Brett Lee of today.

Lee swings the ball when conditions allow- not very often in Australia- he was reversing the ball a mile in the West Indies not so long ago. But come on- if, as social says, he had no bounce, no swing, no seam and no slower ball, why does he have three hundred test wickets- particularly considering his best run of form since his debut purple streak was whenever he no longer bowled at express pace?

Lee was always a far superior bowler to Shaun Tait in Test cricket and can scarcely ever be compared to him, unless we are talkng about speed alone. Tait is totally wayward whereas Lee's accuracy isn't too poor, but not great and the economy suffers due to the pace meaning that the ball races off the bat when it is just slightly loose. The margin for error in Test cricket is smaller for a bowler of Lee's pace than someone of medium pace, imo.

I agree with you about Lee and swing. The fact is that he can get the ball to wobble a bit in the air more often than not and certainly gets a bit of seam movement. Lee is rarely (not never) a massive mover of the ball but he does subtly move the ball on a regular basis. However, it must be noted that his best run of form since his debut streak, he was not bowling slowly at all, he bowled at 145kph regularly, I think that it is plain wrong to say that he slowed down for accuracy in that period - but it could be me that is misremembering, I'm not too sure. A factor which I'm sure skews judgements is that Lee now takes a few overs to warm up for a non-first spell in a Test match where he bowls at 135kph, but after that, it is usually business as usual.

 

[Uppercut]

Lee was always a far superior bowler to Shaun Tait in Test cricket and can scarcely ever be compared to him, unless we are talkng about speed alone. Tait is totally wayward whereas Lee's accuracy isn't too poor, but not great and the economy suffers due to the pace meaning that the ball races off the bat when it is just slightly loose. The margin for error in Test cricket is smaller for a bowler of Lee's pace than someone of medium pace, imo.

I agree with you about Lee and swing. The fact is that he can get the ball to wobble a bit in the air more often than not and certainly gets a bit of seam movement. Lee is rarely (not never) a massive mover of the ball but he does subtly move the ball on a regular basis. However, it must be noted that his best run of form since his debut streak, he was not bowling slowly at all, he bowled at 145kph regularly, I think that it is plain wrong to say that he slowed down for accuracy in that period - but it could be me that is misremembering, I'm not too sure. A factor which I'm sure skews judgements is that Lee now takes a few overs to warm up for a non-first spell in a Test match where he bowls at 135kph, but after that, it is usually business as usual.

Lee was still a fast bowler when he peaked a year and a half ago, but he wasn't pushing the boundaries of human achievement. Lee did indeed "bowl at 145 kph regularly", but you're forgetting that his record is 160.8kph, bowled in 2005. A general reduction in pace for Lee to allow for greater effectiveness still left him bowling a lot faster than most.

 

[Manee]

Lee was still a fast bowler when he peaked a year and a half ago, but he wasn't pushing the boundaries of human achievement. Lee did indeed "bowl at 145 kph regularly", but you're forgetting that his record is 160.8kph, bowled in 2005. A general reduction in pace for Lee to allow for greater effectiveness still left him bowling a lot faster than most.

Interestingly enough, I don't recall Lee getting near that pace in 2005? Which series was that in? In the higlights of the 2005 Ashes, that they show on Sky Sports, Lee tends to be bowling at around 145-150kph which is just a few kph quicker than what he bowled before he picked up the virus in India. Perhaps, I have misremembered, but I don't recall seeing Lee get anywhere near 160kph in a Test match, but that is probably more of a tribute to my memory than anything.

On the topic of Lee's top speeds, I recall him bowling a ball at 99.9mph (160.7kph) against England in the 2003 World Cup, it was so close to the coveted 100mph and yet, because it didn't get there, no one cared and it was caressed through the off side with little more than a replay for the beauty of the spot.

 

[Uppercut]

Interestingly enough, I don't recall Lee getting near that pace in 2005? Which series was that in? In the higlights of the 2005 Ashes, that they show on Sky Sports, Lee tends to be bowling at around 145-150kph which is just a few kph quicker than what he bowled before he picked up the virus in India. Perhaps, I have misremembered, but I don't recall seeing Lee get anywhere near 160kph in a Test match, but that is probably more of a tribute to my memory than anything.

On the topic of Lee's top speeds, I recall him bowling a ball at 99.9mph (160.7kph) against England in the 2003 World Cup, it was so close to the coveted 100mph and yet, because it didn't get there, no one cared and it was caressed through the off side with little more than a replay for the beauty of the spot.

Cricinfo - Brett Lee unleashes his fastest delivery

I seem to remember Lee hitting dizzy heights the odd time in the 2005 Ashes- a 96mph bouncer to KP on the final day in particular stands out, and i think it was pulled for six. In those days he had a definite tendency to try to beat batsmen for pace, something he couldn't afford to do all the time after McGrath and Warne retired. His effort balls in the 2007/08 series against India may still have been of a very smart pace, showing he was still capable of cranking it up, but his stock balls were certainly 4 or 5 mph slower than they had been UIMM. I don't really know whether his pace was deliberately reduced in order to try to be more effective, or it was just a combination of experience and maturity coinciding with the loss of a little pace. But that was the interpretation of the commentators and pundits at the time.

Nevertheless, if Lee was indeed regularly bowling as fast as he ever was little over a year ago, it only adds to the larger argument I'm making- that he should be in the side.

 

[Manee]

Cricinfo - Brett Lee unleashes his fastest delivery

ODIs though, not Tests, different story imo.

I seem to remember Lee hitting dizzy heights the odd time in the 2005 Ashes- a 96mph bouncer to KP on the final day in particular stands out, and i think it was pulled for six. In those days he had a definite tendency to try to beat batsmen for pace, something he couldn't afford to do all the time after McGrath and Warne retired. His effort balls in the 2007/08 series against India may still have been of a very smart pace, showing he was still capable of cranking it up, but his stock balls were certainly 4 or 5 mph slower than they had been UIMM. I don't really know whether his pace was deliberately reduced in order to try to be more effective, or it was just a combination of experience and maturity coinciding with the loss of a little pace. But that was the interpretation of the commentators and pundits at the time.

Nevertheless, if Lee was indeed regularly bowling as fast as he ever was little over a year ago, it only adds to the larger argument I'm making- that he should be in the side.

Yeah, would be happy to agree with you there.

 

[scorpiogal]

Lee can't swing the bowl or rarely does? Well then I consider myself extremely blessed to having witnessed Lee swinging the ball in Antigua 11 months ago to capture a 5-fer in less than friendly bowling conditions!

Such a rare occasion

 

[scorpiogal]

Hope you're right mate.

As an historical fact, it's unlikely all these guys will be fit, in form and available at the same time, but if you had Johnson, Siddle, Hilf, Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Watson (all rounder) all in or about a side at the same time and pushing each other for spots because they were all bowling well, it would be an insane amount of pace bowling depth.

As I said though, highly likely it won't hapeen with injuries, form etc.

Yep. Let's hope Siddle can recover in time and be back to the form he had prior to injury. ahem ahem

 

[scorpiogal]

If he goes to England all excited about his pace, and worrying about that, then we're going to be back to 2001 imo.

This is Brett Lee the 76 test veteran we're talking about here, not the baby-boy of 2001.

There's been loads of experience/maturity in between that time and now and simply the way he went about bowling in his short spells in the IPL tells you that that's not going to be the case.

 

[Richard]

Again, i can only disagree. Saying "Clark is a far better bowler than Lee" just doesn't explain why Lee's taken more wickets than him in every single series they've played together since the last Ashes. Even if you were to conclude that Clark is better than him anyway- not unreasonable- i still think your mind is holding Lee's previous incarnations against him to too great an extent.

Lee's previous incarnations are essentially a hell of a lot of utter crap and a very brief period of superlativeness. I saw no reason to suspect that superlativeness would continue for all that long during the time it was in motion and I see no reason to be confident that it will return now.

As I say, Lee > Clark in 2007/08. Clark >>>>>> Lee in 2006/07 and 2008/09.

As a sidenote, predicting greater future success for a bowler who has continually had lesser success for a period of two years is something you're intensely critical of selectors for doing.

As I say - to suggest that this is the case with Lee and Clark is to me misrepresentative.

 

[Uppercut]

Lee's previous incarnations are essentially a hell of a lot of utter crap and a very brief period of superlativeness. I saw no reason to suspect that superlativeness would continue for all that long during the time it was in motion and I see no reason to be confident that it will return now.

As I say, Lee > Clark in 2007/08. Clark >>>>>> Lee in 2006/07 and 2008/09.

Don't know how Clark was better than Lee in 2008/09. His two economical wickets @ 80 in India might say "unlucky" to you but all they said to me was "unthreatening". Lee's seven @ 61 was at worst equally poor, but certainly there was nothing to suggest Clark being ">>>>>>" than Lee.

Against New Zealand, too, they fared very similarly- Clark with seven wickets @ 23, Lee with twelve @ 21- having watched both games i can give the opinion that Lee bowled quite a bit better, particularly at Adelaide.

Neither were fit for South Africa's visit, with it being Lee's misfortune that he played anyway.

I can totally understand your perception of Lee's decline- in all but a few spells, he wasn't half the bowler he was in 2007/08. What i don't quite grasp is where you got the impression that Clark was bowling well while this was going on. Truth be told, both bowled poorly, and for whatever reason it only seems to have registered with you in the case of Lee.

 

[aussie]

Richard Clark was better than Lee overall yes, but the gap wasn't that big rest ya self.

Its simply Clark>Lee from SA 06 - WI 08.

 

[Uppercut]

Richard Clark was better than Lee overall yes, but the gap wasn't that big rest ya self.

Its simply Clark>Lee from SA 06 - WI 08.

Richard Clark may refer to:

* Richard Clark (dermatologist), dermatologist
* Richard Clark (pharmacologist), president of Merck
* Richard Clark (pilgrim), pilgrim on the Mayflower
* Richard Clark (director), British television director

 

[GIMH]

 

[Richard]

Don't know how Clark was better than Lee in 2008/09. His two economical wickets @ 80 in India might say "unlucky" to you but all they said to me was "unthreatening". Lee's seven @ 61 was at worst equally poor, but certainly there was nothing to suggest Clark being ">>>>>>" than Lee.

Against New Zealand, too, they fared very similarly- Clark with seven wickets @ 23, Lee with twelve @ 21- having watched both games i can give the opinion that Lee bowled quite a bit better, particularly at Adelaide.

Neither were fit for South Africa's visit, with it being Lee's misfortune that he played anyway.

I can totally understand your perception of Lee's decline- in all but a few spells, he wasn't half the bowler he was in 2007/08. What i don't quite grasp is where you got the impression that Clark was bowling well while this was going on. Truth be told, both bowled poorly, and for whatever reason it only seems to have registered with you in the case of Lee.

Clark bowled unpenetratively and economically; Lee bowled unpenetratively and expensively. Clark had 1 good game, missed a load and had 3 poor ones; Lee had 1 good game and 7 poor ones.

To me, that's Clark bowling quite a bit better than Lee TBH. I can soooooooort of see why it could be perceived otherwise (especially as Lee's good game against the weak Kiwis was on a relative flattie and Clark's good game against the weak Kiwis was on a relative flattie), but I wouldn't do so myself.

 

[scorpiogal]

Clark bowled unpenetratively and economically; Lee bowled unpenetratively and expensively. Clark had 1 good game, missed a load and had 3 poor ones; Lee had 1 good game and 7 poor ones.

To me, that's Clark bowling quite a bit better than Lee TBH. I can soooooooort of see why it could be perceived otherwise (especially as Lee's good game against the weak Kiwis was on a relative flattie and Clark's good game against the weak Kiwis was on a relative flattie), but I wouldn't do so myself.

Take a listen to yourself.

Blahblahblah this is the same argument about Lee since the beginning of time. Clark SHOULD bowl more economically than Lee. Defensive as opposed to attacking.

That's because....oh my God......their roles differ! Epiphany!

 

[Richard]

OK, it really isn't that tricky... defence and attack are not mutual exclusives. Some bowlers (like Clark) can use the same tools to enhance their ability to do both things.

Thus, if Lee cannot attack or defend and Clark cannot attack but can defend, the effectiveness of Clark's bowling > the effectiveness of Lee's bowling.

 

[scorpiogal]

OK, it really isn't that tricky... defence and attack are not mutual exclusives. Some bowlers (like Clark) can use the same tools to enhance their ability to do both things.

Thus, if Lee cannot attack or defend and Clark cannot attack but can defend, the effectiveness of Clark's bowling > the effectiveness of Lee's bowling.

Ever heard of K.I.S.S.?

Saying Lee can't attack is plain stupid. What has the man been doing to have 310 wickets, then?

Comparing these two guys, to me, is like comparing the batting of Hayden and Chanderpaul!

They are different types of bowlers and that's the fact of it all.

And besides....let's wait till the tour matches...no, let's look at how he goes in that T/20 WC....kinda like in 2007. It was the same tournament he made his return before that fantastic summer.

And judging by how he went in the IPL, things are looking up.
You'd be stupid to write Lee off as many in here learnt quite a few times *cough cough*

 

[scorpiogal]

Wow just had a look at some of the portraits on Cricinfo. Some boys posing with an urn they never helped and will never help fight for. McDonald? LMAO