Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[scorpiogal]

Try reading properly. No-one has suggested Lee has taken every single wicket in his career via nothing bowling.

But most of them, according to you, right?

Then Siddle is dreaming up 150 - 200 nothing wickets as we speak.

 

[Uppercut]

I can't think of very many times in Lee's career where he's bowled well and returned average figures. Not many at all. So thus, on occasions where he's been flattered by his figures - as he eminently was in those last couple of Tests of 2006/07 - I don't tend to take too kindly to it.

"Bowling well" is taking wickets.

 

[Manee]

Wickets through good bowling merits praise. Wickets through nothing bowling does not merit any praise. It's not really very complicated.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A wicket is a wicket is a wicket which helps a team on their way toward a positive result. The nature of wickets merely serves as an accurate tool to predict the frequency of wickets throughout a currently young career, imo.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Try reading properly. No-one has suggested Lee has taken every single wicket in his career via nothing bowling.

Only the wickets outside of his "two very brief spells where he's been superlative" are nothing wickets, obviously.

 

[Richard]

"Bowling well" is taking wickets.

Disagree. If all there was to cricket was the scorecard, there'd be no point watching.

Perfectly possible to bowl poorly and still get good figures and perfectly possible to bowl well for moderate (even, very occasionally, out-and-out poor) figures. The whole point of being a cricket fan is to look beyond banal figures.

Not all good figures are the result of good play.

 

[Richard]

Only the wickets outside of his "two very brief spells where he's been superlative" are nothing wickets, obviously.

Even that isn't 100% true - Lee's still bowled good deliveries even in 2001/02 and 2003/04 when he was so mostly dreadful. Even very occasionally sent down the odd decent spell.

The point is that a number of wickets is just such an unimportant figure. Anyone is going to take wickets if they bowl - it's how, when, at what cost and why you take the wickets that matter as to how good a bowler is or is not.

 

[King Pietersen]

"Bowling well" is taking wickets.

So if you were playing a game yourself, and bowled absolute toss for 10 overs, taking 3 wickets due to absolute slogs that go to fielders, and you go for 90 runs in 10 overs, you'd have bowled better than if you'd bowled 10 overs, 4 maidens, 0-20, bowling accurately with the batsman having a few play and misses? Personally I'd prefer the latter.

 

[Richard]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. A wicket is a wicket is a wicket which helps a team on their way toward a positive result.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm merely saying that the fact that a bowler has got a wicket, or a few wickets, does not always mean he has bowled well for it.

A team, or player, doesn't have to play well in order to get the figures or beat the other team - they just have to do better (or, in some cases, less poorly) than the other team\player.

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree. If all there was to cricket was the scorecard, there'd be no point watching.

Perfectly possible to bowl poorly and still get good figures and perfectly possible to bowl well for moderate (even, very occasionally, out-and-out poor) figures. The whole point of being a cricket fan is to look beyond banal figures.

Not all good figures are the result of good play.

What is good bowling? Keeping the ball on offstump all the time and moving it laterally?

 

[Richard]

That's the best possible bowling, but it's not the only example of "good" bowling.

 

[Uppercut]

So if you were playing a game yourself, and bowled absolute toss for 10 overs, taking 3 wickets due to absolute slogs that go to fielders, and you go for 90 runs in 10 overs, you'd have bowled better than if you'd bowled 10 overs, 4 maidens, 0-20, bowling accurately with the batsman having a few play and misses? Personally I'd prefer the latter.

Presumably I'd be playing limited overs, so yeah, so would I.

Nevertheless, I'll expand a little- in test matches, bowling well is taking wickets, and bowling badly is conceding runs.

 

[Uppercut]

That's the best possible bowling, but it's not the only example of "good" bowling.

Is it better to bowl 80mph on off stump, or 90mph erratically?

 

[scorpiogal]

Blah blah blah Richard

same thing over and over and over


The man has 310 wickets ffs not 50.

How about we analyse how he got all those wickets, hmmm?


I wonder how many of Chaminda's wickets were off nothing deliveries?

Let's analyse that one too.

 

[Manee]

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm merely saying that the fact that a bowler has got a wicket, or a few wickets, does not always mean he has bowled well for it.

A team, or player, doesn't have to play well in order to get the figures or beat the other team - they just have to do better (or, in some cases, less poorly) than the other team\player.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you but you are suggesting that a large portion of Lee's wickets throughout his Test career were undeserved and therefore should be taken with a pinch of salt regarding his selection in the Ashes. However, if someone takes 'these' wickets with consistency, and at a good rate, then surely they are of equal selectoral value then any other kind of wicket?

 

[Richard]

Is it better to bowl 80mph on off stump, or 90mph erratically?

Under most circumstances, the former. Under occasional circumstances, the latter.

There's really no hard-fast rule.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you but you are suggesting that a large portion of Lee's wickets throughout his Test career were undeserved and therefore should be taken with a pinch of salt regarding his selection in the Ashes. However, if someone takes 'these' wickets with consistency, and at a good rate, then surely they are of equal selectoral value then any other kind of wicket?

I'm not commenting on Lee's selection (or not) for this Ashes, merely the calibre of his career.

As I say, regardless of whether or not he's gotten certain wickets without deserving them, number of wickets is not of importance. For most of Lee's career, what wickets he has got have come at a hefty price. I just could not care less about how many wickets any bowler has got, that's merely an outcome of playing lots of cricket. It's what cost you get wickets at that determines how good you are.

 

[Manee]

I'm not commenting on Lee's selection (or not) for this Ashes, merely the calibre of his career.

Okay, fair enough.

As I say, regardless of whether or not he's gotten certain wickets without deserving them, number of wickets is not of importance. For most of Lee's career, what wickets he has got have come at a hefty price. I just could not care less about how many wickets any bowler has got, that's merely an outcome of playing lots of cricket. It's what cost you get wickets at that determines how good you are.

I don't think I was suggesting that a pure number of wickets taken throughout a career is important, but merely that method of wickets (with a short wide one or full straight one) is irrelevant over an entire career.

 

[scorpiogal]

I'm not commenting on Lee's selection (or not) for this Ashes, merely the calibre of his career.

As I say, regardless of whether or not he's gotten certain wickets without deserving them, number of wickets is not of importance. For most of Lee's career, what wickets he has got have come at a hefty price. I just could not care less about how many wickets any bowler has got, that's merely an outcome of playing lots of cricket. It's what cost you get wickets at that determines how good you are.

So Lee only has 300 wickets cause he's played 76 tests, then, not because he's a good bowler?


oooookaaaaay then


So I suppose Lee is a better bowler than Anderson since after 37 matches Lee had 139 @ 31 as opposed to Anderson's 128 @ 33 from 37 matches? And maybe Hoggard was on par with Lee with 143 @ 31 after 37?

Or are they both better probably because their wickets came off....I don't know....better deliveries than Lee's nothing deliveries?

Sometimes it helps to keep it simple. If a match is on the line and Lee bowls a "nothing delivery" to get a couple of batsmen out to win the match, we'd all be cheering that Aus won the match, screaming "Lee, you beauty!" I really can't see myself saying "well you know...he should've bowled this or that.." the fact is, he took the wicket.

A wicket is a wicket. As I said, it doesn't say in the records next to Lee's 100th wicket 'but it was a bad delivery, the batsman was stupid to play that shot'.

Like I said before....don't play down the man's achievements.

 

[Uppercut]

Under most circumstances, the former. Under occasional circumstances, the latter.

There's really no hard-fast rule.

Exactly. It's the bowling that's most likely to get you a wicket, right?

 

[Richard]

Yes. However, as with selection, you cannot in my view simply say "it worked so therefore it was the right thing to bowl and those responsible should be credited".