Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Uppercut]

GIMH, you're an England fan. Would you be happy or not if Brett Lee was named in the Australia side for the Cardiff game?

 

[Richard]

So basically, your argument does just amount to "smaller numbers therefore it's ****".

No, it amounts to "smaller numbers therefore less individual success". And less individual success is one of the multitude of reasons I think Twenty20 is crap.

 

[Richard]

How many ODI bowlers have an econ under 4?

In recent times, only McGrath, Pollock and Murali IIRR. There've not been that many good ones of late, never mind outstanding ones like those three.

That doesn't mean it's impossible though. Briefly, Ian Bradshaw showed how it could be done - but he was a late starter and was in a weak attack so did not get the advantages he should have done.

 

[Richard]

What?

I don't really see how I can add anything more to what I wrote in the previous post TBH.

 

[GIMH]

GIMH, you're an England fan. If you'll be happy to see Brett Lee play at cardiff give me a hell yeah

HELL YEAH

No, it amounts to "smaller numbers therefore less individual success". And less individual success is one of the multitude of reasons I think Twenty20 is crap.

But smaller numbers!=less success. Even in Test cricket you can't make that argument, otherwise Ian Bell's 199 V Saffies would be a more successful innings than Freddie's 70-odd against ye crims at Egdbaston.

Rich, as you know I have been one of your biggest defenders here over the years, and always enjoy debating with you even if I don't agree. But I honestly think you'd be best served staying out of the Twenty20 debates, it would be a bit like me wading into the Sri Lanka domestic season thread. I don't watch or follow that, so I don't know anything about it.

 

[GIMH]

In recent times, only McGrath, Pollock and Murali IIRR. There've not been that many good ones of late, never mind outstanding ones like those three.

That doesn't mean it's impossible though. Briefly, Ian Bradshaw showed how it could be done - but he was a late starter and was in a weak attack so did not get the advantages he should have done.

No argument from me that those three are the best ODI bowlers of recent times. But I think you're setting the bar a little high (or low as it may be) to say that bowlers would basically need to match them to be considered decent. I'd consider under 5 an achievement as if all your bowlers managed under 5, then 250 would be enough...

 

[scorpiogal]

HELL YEAH

And I'll give a hell yeah for Hughes smashing Broady-boy!

 

[Top_Cat]

Geez, Lee looks stacked in your new avatar. As far as I'm aware, his muscular bulk is relatively new. Wonder how it'll affect his bowling?

 

[Top_Cat]

No, it amounts to "smaller numbers therefore less individual success". And less individual success is one of the multitude of reasons I think Twenty20 is crap.

You're defining success in terms of ODI and Tests, though. Need to re-adjust the parameters for what constitutes success if you're to view T20's on context.

It's not just T20's, though. A couple of decades ago, 300 Test wickets was a monumental effort. Scoring a Test 200 was pretty rare too, now several batsmen running around have one and a few have several. I mean, I've seen you redefine success (based on flatter pitches or whatever) within the Test sphere when you talk about the respective records of batsmen in the 90's vs 00's. Or bowlers who manage to maintain good records in more bat-friendly eras. Why do you not extend the same courtesy towards T20's vs other forms of the game?

I suspect you just don't like the game which is fine. But the reason you're giving here makes very little sense.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lee's problem in 2005 was that for every superlative innings (4th innings at Trent Bridge, when Lee and Warne looked like ripping through England being the perfect example) he bowled, he bowled some utter dross and got hammered (Oval 3rd innings, Edgbaston 1st innings)

In fact, I'd forgotten how bad Lee's figures were at the Oval.

Coming into that Test, he'd taken 19 wickets @ 33.68, which aren't bad figures considering they include an absolute train wreck of a performance at Edgbaston (and a poor 1st innings figures wise at Trent Bridge).

For sure. Don't forget second dig at Edgbaston too; his spell early on Day 3 was, in my opinion, as good as McGrath's at Lords. Obviously he took tap from Flintoff later but his day might have been even better had Pietersen been given first ball strangled down the leg-side.

 

[Jakester1288]

IMO, under 3.5 in ODI is excellent, about 4 is good, and a target rate, if you add in a couple of wickets, that's awesome. 3 is pretty good for Test, and really, anything under about 5 is excellent for Twenty20, but under 7-8 isn't too bad.

Geez, Lee looks stacked in your new avatar. As far as I'm aware, his muscular bulk is relatively new. Wonder how it'll affect his bowling?

Yeah, he does. I read he spent lots of time in the gym working out to put more bulk on, and apparently he was bowling very fast in the IPL, but not maintaining the pace for very long. Not that it's an issue, because in Twenty20 he just has 4 overs to go all out, try to max out top speeds and stuff. But if he if bowling at the death, that changes.

It looks like he has put on more bulk than I'd expected, I've also seen some other pictures where he looks pretty big.

 

[NUFAN]

IMO, under 3.5 in ODI is excellent, about 4 is good, and a target rate, if you add in a couple of wickets, that's awesome. 3 is pretty good for Test, and really, anything under about 5 is excellent for Twenty20, but under 7-8 isn't too bad.

Under 5 is absolutely incredible in T20 and you will not see any bowlers get under 3.5 in ODI in this day and age.

Your targets are not reasonable at all with the exception of Test Cricket.

Reasonable expectations
Test 2.75
ODI 4.5
T20 7

 

[four_or_six]

Geez, Lee looks stacked in your new avatar. As far as I'm aware, his muscular bulk is relatively new. Wonder how it'll affect his bowling?

That's a really old photo. A few years, at least.

 

[Richard]

You're defining success in terms of ODI and Tests, though.

Of course I am - they're similar. 10-34-3 is a great spell in a ODI; 15-39-3 is a very good spell in a Test. Ditto, 130 is a very good score in both game-forms (obviously in Tests it doesn't matter if it's off 150 balls or 290 balls, whereas in ODIs it needs to be pretty sharpish).

Twenty20 is completely dissimilar.

 

[Richard]

No argument from me that those three are the best ODI bowlers of recent times. But I think you're setting the bar a little high (or low as it may be) to say that bowlers would basically need to match them to be considered decent. I'd consider under 5 an achievement as if all your bowlers managed under 5, then 250 would be enough...

But it's never the case that all bowlers manage the same thing. For starters, there's not a hope in hell of three bowlers all bowling well and getting the same figures if one bowls at the start and end, one bowls 10 overs off the reel at the start and the other bowls 10 between overs 15 and 35. They'll all be different, though with really good bowling all can easily concede <4-an-over.

Precious few bowlers have ever managed career economy-rates of under 4-an-over playing exclusively in the modern ODI era - only the very best like Fraser, Pollock, McGrath, Ambrose etc. Even some outstanding merchants like Donald, Warne and Saqlain Mushtaq have conceded 4.1-4.2-an-over.

However, anything more than 4.5-an-over and for me a bowler's not good enough for ODIs. And even 4.43-an-over, for instance, is rather profligate if you're not bowling regularly at the death.

Forget totals - it's individual performance that counts, and there's always good reason why the total will exceed the cumulative individual. And not just leg-byes.

 

[Richard]

But smaller numbers!=less success. Even in Test cricket you can't make that argument, otherwise Ian Bell's 199 V Saffies would be a more successful innings than Freddie's 70-odd against ye crims at Egdbaston.

Context is obviously always required, but 40 off 24 balls = less successful than 130 off 150 balls. But the former would be much the better innings, for a team, in a Twenty20.

Rich, as you know I have been one of your biggest defenders here over the years, and always enjoy debating with you even if I don't agree. But I honestly think you'd be best served staying out of the Twenty20 debates, it would be a bit like me wading into the Sri Lanka domestic season thread. I don't watch or follow that, so I don't know anything about it.

I do know about Twenty20 though - because I know why I don't like it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Context is obviously always required, but 40 off 24 balls = less successful than 130 off 150 balls. But the former would be much the better innings, for a team, in a Twenty20.

I do know about Twenty20 though - because I know why I don't like it.

Exactly, for a start the guy that got 130 off 150 balls would have to face every delivery himself and then con the bowling team into bowling him an extra 30 in a Twenty20. The rest of the team would get the ****s.

 

[Prince EWS]

Context is obviously always required, but 40 off 24 balls = less successful than 130 off 150 balls.

Not in Twenty20. Success is relative to context; not absolute.

 

[four_or_six]

Context is obviously always required, but 40 off 24 balls = less successful than 130 off 150 balls. But the former would be much the better innings, for a team, in a Twenty20.

I do know about Twenty20 though - because I know why I don't like it.

Surely success is measured by how useful the innings is to the team, rather than the actual number of runs. I would argue that 130 is more successful in an ODI than in a test. 130 in an ODI is more like 180 in a test in terms of its usefulness to the team.

It would be interesting to see what score leads to 90% of the matches won by that team. Eg. 90% of tests are won if someone scores x, 90% of ODIs if someone scores y, 90% of T20s if someone scores z.

 

[Matt79]

Under 5 is absolutely incredible in T20 and you will not see any bowlers get under 3.5 in ODI in this day and age.

Your targets are not reasonable at all with the exception of Test Cricket.

Reasonable expectations
Test 2.75
ODI 4.5
T20 7

AWTA expectations for ODIs