Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Richard]

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested Lee shouldn't be in the squad, just that he should most certainly not be a nailed-on certainty to start in the XI.

 

[aussie]

Nope. Sorry, I don't agree with that.

IPL and T20's are not appropriate preperation for an Ashes series. If Brett is so arrogant and stupid as to believe that they are, then frankly he doesn't deserve a spot.

How is Lee being arrogant?. Why would any county want to pick him this season when his recovery was basically unknown?

If his injury woes where moving smoothly before now, he would have played all the ODI vs PAK and the option of going to England would maybe have been discussed (you have to also consider if a county would want to give him practise in Englad).

So for now these T20 games, Lee is forced to basically ease himself back into action.

Plus, he averages over 45 in England.

Just stats. He was awful in 01 & although had is poor spells, he also produced some brilliant spells as you would remember in 05.

Plus he is a much improved bowler now, once fully fit don't expect him to dominate. But he will do well over here.

I would pick Stuart Clark over Lee in an instant when touring England.

Him & Lee have the same issue with injury recovery. So i can't see how Clark gets off so easily...

 

[Noble One]

Even if Brett Lee does not make the 1st Test. He will surely get his chance somewhere along the way. Johnson is probably the only certainty to last the entire series, given his recent lack of any injuries. But he may be called upon to shoulder a huge workload and he does have a terrible past for injuries. Then to suggest Siddle will play every test is also very unlikely, as injury prone as they come. Stuart Clark is still carrying niggles and is a complete unknown how he will last. Then the back-ups in Hilfenhaus and Bollinger have had numerous injury problems in recent seasons.

Brett Lee will either play a large part, or at least some part in this Ashes series. Given the little chance any of our bowlers will last the entire series.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested Lee shouldn't be in the squad, just that he should most certainly not be a nailed-on certainty to start in the XI.

Apologies, I misunderstood the poll then.

 

[pasag]

I don't see how anyone can argue that Lee shouldn't go and at the same time say that Siddle is a cert.

I wasn't arguing what should happen, was arguing what will happen. Anyone who thinks Siddle won't be playing come the first Test has lost it.

 

[four_or_six]

I wasn't arguing what should happen, was arguing what will happen. Anyone who thinks Siddle won't be playing come the first Test has lost it.

Agreed, fitness permitting. I thought the discussion was about the squad, not the team. My mistake.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's absolutely no doubt Lee should be in the squad IMO. He should be ahead of Hilfenhaus in the pecking order as long as he can prove his fitness to an extent, too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agreed, fitness permitting. I thought the discussion was about the squad, not the team. My mistake.

Nah, I think you're right. I'm pretty sure Burgey originally meant about touring. At least that's my reading of it:

Please assume the following.

Each of Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Lee, Clark and McDonald are all fit and available to tour England.

Should Brett Lee be selected, and if so, which if any of those listed should miss out?

Edit: Please also assume Watson is fit (look, it's a stretch, but hey).

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, question was about touring rather than the starting XI.

 

[Richard]

Surprised you think there's any real question over whether he'll tour or whether anyone thinks he should TBH.

 

[morgieb]

Really am unsure. He hasn't bowled well since WI 2008, and while I'd like to think that he would, I can see why he may not get picked.

 

[Noble One]

Really am unsure. He hasn't bowled well since WI 2008, and while I'd like to think that he would, I can see why he may not get picked.

Struggled in India. Was well down in all areas, pace, stamina, accuracy, swing. Simply a bowler struggling with fitness, confidence and pitch conditions.

Bowled really well at times against New Zealand. Almost Brett Lee back to his best again. Remember this is just 6 months ago. His bowling in Adelaide was fantastic.

Then fell away against South Africa with injuries causing problems again.

He may well be a spent article as a bowler, but I don't think his performances since West Indies 2008 will be taken as a decisive factor for selection. Some good bowling at times mixed with some fitness/confidence plagued spells.

 

[DaRick]

How is Lee being arrogant?. Why would any county want to pick him this season when his recovery was basically unknown?

The same could've been said of Stuart Clark. If Lee had wanted to, he could've played for any county of his choice. They would've been happy to take him. This especially applies to more recent times (i.e - since April).

If his injury woes where moving smoothly before now, he would have played all the ODI vs PAK and the option of going to England would maybe have been discussed (you have to also consider if a county would want to give him practise in Englad).

Well, they could very well have played Lee in the last few ODI's. There probably wasn't that much point though, because Bracken had recovered some of his form, Bollinger was bowling very well and Clark and Hilfenhaus were on hand. Plus, there was the dead rubber.

So for now these T20 games, Lee is forced to basically ease himself back into action.

Well, Lee did say back in March that he thought that the IPL was a 'lovely little entree' for the Ashes, which just smacked of arrogance. Despite being only a 20-over game, the IPL is intense and there are many games. He probably could've played a few county games instead.

Just stats. He was awful in 01 & although had is poor spells, he also produced some brilliant spells as you would remember in 05.

I do admit that I don't think his overall stats really did him justice back in 2005. I do think that an average in the late-30's would have been more befitting.

Anyway, he bowled competently in Lord's, bowled crap most of the time in Edgbaston, bowled decently in the first innings at Old Trafford and the second innings in Trent Bridge and was absolutely terrible at The Oval. So I think that he bowled as much rubbish as good stuff. Plus, his ER was far too high.

Plus he is a much improved bowler now, once fully fit don't expect him to dominate. But he will do well over here.

I would've agreed back in mid-2008, but he's been shocking ever since, except in one game vs NZ (where he was brilliant at times). Granted, he bowled better against SA than his stats indicate, but he was still a massive disappointment. He shouldn't have played, TBH.

It is true that he has had a multitude of fitness issues during that time. However, that doesn't strengthen his case for selection - it just adds doubt as to whether he should be picked. I mean, is he really back to full fitness?

Of course, I'd like to see him prove me wrong, but I have serious doubts that he will.

FWIW, I picked him in my Ashes squad, but only as a reserve. I don't think he deserves a place in the starting XI.

Him & Lee have the same issue with injury recovery. So i can't see how Clark gets off so easily...

Well, Clark has had a little more time to recover. Plus, the thought of him bowling at Lord's makes me salivate. That's why I'm happier to draft him in than Lee.

 

[Johnners]

FWIW, I picked him in my Ashes squad, but only as a reserve. I don't think he deserves a place in the starting XI.

Haha love that. Bloke is regarded as arguably the best bowler in the world mid-2008. 3 series later, 2 of which were admittedly poor/mediocre, but all of which were hampered by an injury of some sorts, and the guy "doesn't deserve it". Yeah lets just pick Hilfenhorse, Hauritz, Krezja, Bollinger, McDonald or McGain ahead of him now that he's fit again, because they clearly to deserve it based on their stupendously good FC &/or Test Match records and performances to date.

 

[DaRick]

Haha love that. Bloke is regarded as arguably the best bowler in the world mid-2008. 3 series later, 2 of which were admittedly poor/mediocre, but all of which were hampered by an injury of some sorts, and the guy "doesn't deserve it". Yeah lets just pick Hilfenhorse, Hauritz, Krezja, Bollinger, McDonald or McGain ahead of him now that he's fit again, because they clearly to deserve it based on their stupendously good FC &/or Test Match records and performances to date.

You do realise that mid-2009 isn't mid-2008 don't you...and that 2 of those series had 3 tests or more...and that the one series that Brett did well in was a 2 match series. Hell, even in that series, he did well in precisely one test (he was brilliant though)!

Statistically, he was poor to diabolical in those two series. In practice, he was a bit better than diabolical, but not significantly so. Maybe in Perth, he deserved a couple more wickets, but that's about it.

I'm not debating his inclusion in the squad, either...and when the hell did I advocate Hauritz or Bollinger ahead of him, anyway? The only one I advocated ahead of him would be Hilfenhaus and that courtesy of typical English conditions, not because I have some kind of thing for Hilfenhaus.

So yeah, let's get him into the first XI, despite his lack of 4-day match fitness, his poor record in England and him using T20's as match practice. That's really smart thinking there, Clapo.

 

[Johnners]

Noooo not the rolleyes

I know you didn't advocate any particular bowler ahead of Lee, but you did say he "doesn't deserve to be in the starting XI" which obviously means you thought at least one of the players I mentioned did (unless you were going to pick someone different again, in which case my point that they've done little in FC/Test match cricket to prove they're a better option than Lee applies)

1. He'll have 2/3 FC games under his belt going into the first test, which along with numerous T20 games is good enough for me for a bowler of Lee's experience and quality. It's also worth noting, that the time he's had off has probably been just as much a help to him as it has a hinderence given the workload the Australia bowlers have had since they left to play in India 7/8 months ago.

2. He may have a poor record in England, but at least he's bowled there (Quite unlike Hilfenhorse), and I'd back him to defy that record and average under 30 given that how he will/would be used now, would be quite differen to previous times he bowled in england.

3. Lee's poor series against SA (and India to a certain extent, as that's where the gastro started....) really needs to be put into perspective. The bloke was quite clearly still suffering his his bout of gastro in India, and had a foot injury to boot. The fact that he was able to bowl quite well against NZ is a testament to him given how many things he had going against him.

4. Hilfenhaus had conditions that were tailormade for him in SA, and only managed 7 wickets in 3 tests @ 52. I like Hilfenhaus as a player, and want him to do well (always have), but there's no chance in hell he's a better bowler than Lee at this stage.

 

[Nate]

4. Hilfenhaus had conditions that were tailormade for him in SA, and only managed 7 wickets in 3 tests @ 52. I like Hilfenhaus as a player, and want him to do well (always have), but there's no chance in hell he's a better bowler than most of the blokes in Gordon 3rds.

awta

 

[The Legend]

As you know Brett Lee is the fastest Aussie bowler and I think most experienced now he deserves his place. He has the capability to take early wickets and he is also a handy batsman.

As Ashes is the biggest challenge, he should deserve a place in the squad.

 

[dossa]

I don't think Australia need Brett Lee but IF SO I would drop McDonald. I don't think Australia need either of McDonald, Lee or Bollinger.

 

[DaRick]

1. He'll have 2/3 FC games under his belt going into the first test, which along with numerous T20 games is good enough for me for a bowler of Lee's experience and quality. It's also worth noting, that the time he's had off has probably been just as much a help to him as it has a hinderence given the workload the Australia bowlers have had since they left to play in India 7/8 months ago.

It might be fine if he had played county cricket prior to those FC games and done well, but neither really applies in his case. Really, is 2/3 games of FC cricket (at most) enough to prepare him for an Ashes series, especially given that he hasn't bowled in that form of the game in months? T20 isn't adequate prep for an Ashes series, for a variety of reasons. It never has been.

2. He may have a poor record in England, but at least he's bowled there (Quite unlike Hilfenhorse), and I'd back him to defy that record and average under 30 given that how he will/would be used now, would be quite differen to previous times he bowled in england.

True, he has had experience there - but his experience in England is only a touch better than Harmison's in Australia. That is to say, it shouldn't make him a lock for the First XI like you're suggesting. Plus, if Hilfenhaus is going to bowl and do well anywhere, it's gonna be in England. Conditions are tailor-made for him over there. I'm not sure the same can be said of Lee (who has never swung the ball greatly, anyway).

I don't know how Lee's role now is that much different to what it was back in 2005. I expect that he'll be used as a spearhead. Only thing is, he won't have McGrath and co. at the other end. He may do better (you'd hope so, TBH), but given his travails lately, it is no guarantee that he will.

3. Lee's poor series against SA (and India to a certain extent, as that's where the gastro started....) really needs to be put into perspective. The bloke was quite clearly still suffering his his bout of gastro in India, and had a foot injury to boot. The fact that he was able to bowl quite well against NZ is a testament to him given how many things he had going against him.

He bowled well against NZ in just the one game (where he was brilliant, admittedly).

To be fair, I did think that he deserved a couple more wickets in Perth. All up, though, he shouldn't have played. More troubling for him, too, the Australian bowling line-up has looked more cohesive without him. The bowling line-up in Sydney looked a sight better than it did in Melbourne. This applies to SA, too.

4. Hilfenhaus had conditions that were tailormade for him in SA, and only managed 7 wickets in 3 tests @ 52. I like Hilfenhaus as a player, and want him to do well (always have), but there's no chance in hell he's a better bowler than Lee at this stage.

He did bowl better than that, I thought. I know that Hilfenhaus is still somewhat one-dimensional, but TBH, the wicket in Cape Town was fairly flat.

Objectively speaking, he's not a better bowler than Lee, no. But at least he's conclusively match-fit and he was quite economical most of the time whilst in SA. Like I said earlier, he's also been part of a more cohesive bowling unit which is developing nicely. That's why I only have Lee as a reserve, not as an instant walk-up to the first XI.

Come to think of it, though, if Lee comes in and rips through the county line-ups in those games, then I'd be much happier with the prospect of him playing. This feeling will be strengthened if Hilfenhaus and the like do poorly.