Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[scorpiogal]

You shouldn't be embarrassed - the site's great. Good on you.

Thanks.

 

[Burgey]

Thanks.

No probs.

Still not sure he should be picked for the 1st test though......

 

[Top_Cat]

Awesome photo of Lee with his girlfriend.

Oh wait, that's Watto.

My bad.

 

[scorpiogal]

No probs.

Still not sure he should be picked for the 1st test though......

Oh he'll get chosen. I just enjoy discussing him

 

[scorpiogal]

Awesome photo of Lee with his girlfriend.

Oh wait, that's Watto.

My bad.

Oldest joke in the book

 

[Burgey]

Awesome photo of Lee with his girlfriend.

Oh wait, that's Watto.

My bad.

Imagine if Broad was in the photo too.....

 

[scorpiogal]

Imagine if Broad was in the photo too.....

He can't fit in with the big boys. He too girly-looking.

 

[Top_Cat]

He can't fit in with the big boys. He too girly-looking.

Haha, too true. Needs to hit the beach weights.

We never see photos of Piddle Pants sharing a day at the cricket with Andy McDonald, though. I mean, what do Lee/Watto have that they don't, huh?! It's the Ranga effect, I reckon.

That and they're bloody Vics.

 

[Furball]

I'm in the camp who reckons Lee bowled a fair bit better in 2005 than his figures would suggest so we'll see whether he can top it but then, he wasn't asked to lead the attack back then. It's a different scenario and considering his predilection for bowling utter tosh when under-worked, from a team perspective, I find it far too risky to pick him.

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)

 

[four_or_six]

He can't fit in with the big boys. He too girly-looking.

Oh, I found that site the other day when I was looking for a copy of that photo of Watto at the tennis without a watermark. I had a look round then and thought it was great.

 

[Furball]

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).

 

[scorpiogal]

Oh, I found that site the other day when I was looking for a copy of that photo of Watto at the tennis without a watermark. I had a look round then and thought it was great.

Thanks

 

[Richard]

From today's cricket alone:

Umar Gul: 3 overs, 0 maidens, 5 wickets for 6
Wayne Parnell: 4 overs, 0 maidens, 4 wickets for 13

Yep you're right Richard. No chance of bowling economically in T20 cricket, and there's very little chance of getting a bagful....

Believe it or not I didn't actually say that such things are never once going to happen.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you realise how ridiculous your point was though, individuals can have as big an impact on a T20 as they can on any other form of cricket. I watch it far more than you do, so you're going to have to take my word for it. All your post really amounted to was "but the numbers next to their name aren't as big!"

Yeah, that's precisely what I mean. The numbers aren't anywhere near so big (or small, as the case may be) so thus the scope for individual success is minimalised.

 

[GIMH]

No it's not Richard, it just means that you need smaller numbers to be considered a success. It certainly doesn't mean the chances of success are minimalised.

 

[Richard]

So you feel that the following are typical scores:
T20 - 140
ODI - 200

I don't think 4 per over for an ODI is a realistic target these days. I'm thinking anything under 4.5 is very good these days.

ODI and T20 are so much more similar than Tests.

I'd go as far to say under 5. If you restrict the other team to 250, you're usually in with a good chance of winning.

Yeah I almost went to 5. But I figured that the good bowlers should be a little below 5 overall.

I haven't thought a bowler has done a good job too often if he's gone for 50 off 10.

4-an-over is still the target economy-rate for an excellent bowler. A very good bowler who doesn't have to bowl at the death can and will still achieve this.

The reason such high economy-rates and run-rates are common currently is the dearth of quality accurate bowlers (and in some cases selectors' refusal to pick them based on misunderstanding of the requirements for ODI success), the large number of runway-esque surfaces and the stupid amount of shortening of boundaries.

If you've got a good bowling attack you'll win with 250 on 9 occasions out of 10, if not more. Now, or 15 years ago.

 

[Richard]

No it's not Richard, it just means that you need smaller numbers to be considered a success. It certainly doesn't mean the chances of success are minimalised.

It does though. 40 = far, far less successful than 120.

Thus, Twenty20 makes it extremely hard to achieve real success - the sort of success in ODI\Test definition.

 

[GIMH]

How many ODI bowlers have an econ under 4?

 

[Uppercut]

It does though. 40 = far, far less successful than 120.

Thus, Twenty20 makes it extremely hard to achieve real success - the sort of success in ODI\Test definition.

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

 

[GIMH]

It does though. 40 = far, far less successful than 120.

Thus, Twenty20 makes it extremely hard to achieve real success - the sort of success in ODI\Test definition.

What?