The over-rated XI

[gibbsnsmith]

James Anderson is a fine young talent and is probably better than any of the young pacers coming out of Australia right now.

QUOTE]


AUSTRALIA?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I am referring to our summer last. You don't bowl 10 overs for 12 without being very accurate (even notwithstanding that I've argued in the past that Bevan and Martyn weren't really trying to belt the bowlers anyway; shaddap, I was bloody there! ). And in general, he was pretty accurate all series, hence why he picked up wickets.

Another telling sign is his pace. Whilst watching the recent series, he barely rose above 85mph and most of the time was in the 80-83mph bracket. Several times here in Australia, he was above 90mph or just below it. Now, you could argue differing conditions, atmospheric or otherwise, but that's a big drop by anyone's criteria and that tells you something about his physical shape I think.

Agreed

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Anderson is from Australia?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Anderson is from Australia?

No. Last check he's from England. Read my comment again and you might understand what I was saying.

 

[Craig]

A handful of bowlers can do it in the world and that makes it 'nothing special'? Two particular bowlers can do it and it's 'nothing special'? Riiiight............

There is PLENTY special about being able to bowl an accurate yorker at 150km/h and because there's another person or persons who can do it, does not make it any less so.

My 'nothing special' comment was referring it to Age's comment about Brett Lee. A case of you misunderstanding me.

"His accuracy is inconsistent"; what does that mean? That he can't bowl accurately? Rubbish. That he can't do it on a consistent basis? Rubbish. James Anderson has proven on quite a few occasions that if he's nothing else, he's accurate so unless we're thinking of two different James Andersons, this statement is false and I'm sure if you looked at a computer-generated view of his deliveries relative to someone like a McGrath, you'd see that whilst he's not in the same class, he's right up there.

No I mean on some days he is consistant with his accuracy and some days he is bowling a pile of rubbish. Only four games he has truely been accurate in ODIs. 4.86 runs per over is a tad high. Or are you a subscriber to the theroy that you should just let your quick bowlers run and bowl and not worry about economies?

And no kidding, I don't know how anyone could have watched the same series as I did (Eng-SA) and not concluded that Flintoff has at LEAST improved by plenty since before the series began. People may not quite rate him REALLY highly but it's only a couple of consistent series' away and he showed plenty in that series that he's more than just a slogger who can bowl a bit. [/B]

What do you judge by improvement? With the ball or with the bat? With the bat, there has been some improvement in there.

 

[age_master]

Brett Lee iss the best Fast bowler in the world at the current time, probably the best One Day bowler in teh world at the current time. his SR is 27.4, that is AMAZINGLY FREAKY. Akhtar gets close at 27.9, but thats baout it, they both bowl above the 150kp/h mark, Lee has been quicker than Akhtar on most occasions they play in the same match. how could either of these amazing bowlers be consideered over rated.


Stuart Macgill bowls crap at times, but still takes wickets, he might bowl 2 or 3 loose balls in an over at times, but he takes wickets, his SR's are pretty comparible to Lee an Akhtars, and for a leg spinner thats also amazing.


why are you saying that such amazing players are overrated

 

[Top_Cat]

My 'nothing special' comment was referring it to Age's comment about Brett Lee. A case of you misunderstanding me.

I beg to differ. My comment stands. You're effectively saying that because Shoaib Akhtar can bowl relatively accurately (especially a yorker) at 150km/h+, the fact that Brett Lee can do it too means it's 'nothing special'. If you meant something different, say so because that's what I took for what you said.

No I mean on some days he is consistant with his accuracy and some days he is bowling a pile of rubbish. Only four games he has truely been accurate in ODIs. 4.86 runs per over is a tad high. Or are you a subscriber to the theroy that you should just let your quick bowlers run and bowl and not worry about economies?

I think his amazing strike-rate more than makes up for an economy rate which is a little higher than those considered to be quite accurate. In fact, it used to be well above 5-an-over so he's improving. Having a team full of military-mediums who can bowl with a sub-4.5 ER doesn't guarantee you a win. Australia has tried it in the past as have England and NZ and it was only when they had at least one attacking strike bowler in the side that they started to have real success, particularly Australia.

So yes, if a guy bowls with a slightly high economy rate but takes wickets at the rate Lee does, I'd be quite prepared to wear that, particularly considering the outstanding ER's of McGrath, Gillespie and Warne.

Brett Lee has something which Australia has lacked for a while; someone who can just rip a batsman out. If the opposition is doing well, in the past, all we've been able to do is sit back and wait for the batsman to make a mistake. In Lee, we have a bowler who, even if someone is pumelling him, will eventually get one through the batsman which they won't see, as he proved against NZ in the WC. If I brought on Brett Lee and he was belted for three fours in a row and then ripped a yorker through the batsman, I'd take that because you've effectively won that battle then. And with that sort of speed and movement, there's no reason why he wouldn't then take a few more quick wickets. Regardless of how many runs he gives away, that's a priceless ability. Even if a batsman gets to 50 and is looking good for a ton, I'd bring on Lee for a couple of overs to see if he could get one through the guy. There are few bowlers in the world who can do that and again, considering the other quite miserly bowlers in the side, it's a risk worth having in the side.

Lee and Akhtar are in the side to take wickets. They do it well too. Leave the low ER stuff to the guys who are better at it and accept and embrace the guys who may go for a few more runs but will win you more games than they lose with their style of bowling. That's what Australia has done.

 

[Eclipse]

When was this? Before or after his elbow injury? And was there a batsman there? If so, was it just a club 3rd Grade batsman or a FC cricket or at the acadmay?

More details please.

2 years ago after his elbow injury at tarining before the MCG test test against South Africa.

 

[marc71178]

Brett Lee iss the best Fast bowler in the world at the current time, probably the best One Day bowler in teh world at the current time.

On the Fast, depends if you mean out and put speed, in which acase there's only about 3 in the World.

As for best One Day - I'd definitely pick McGrath, Pollock, Murali ahead of him, and there's several others I'd consider.

why are you saying that such amazing players are overrated

Interesting definition of amazing that.

 

[age_master]

As for best One Day - I'd definitely pick McGrath, Pollock, Murali ahead of him, and there's several others I'd consider.

i did say at the current time, in his last 25 matches Lee has taken 49 wickets at 19.36.

In Pollocks last 25 matches he has taken 29 wickets @ 27


Murali has taken 45 wickets @ 15, however, most of his better performances over this time have been against weaker batting line ups OR bowling on the sub continent - his last 25 games in sri lanka, funny enough, he has taken 48 wickets @ 13. it is also, always difficalt to compare spinners and quicks. interestingly in Sri Lanka's last 25 wins, Murali has taken 50 wickets @ 13, but in their last 25 losses he has taken 39 wickets at 22.

McGrath is Injured at the moment, so i wasn't counting him, he hast taken 39 wickets in his last 25 games, at an average of 19.

Murali, McGrath and Lee are pretty close, add to this Gillespie, who has taken 42 wickets @ 21,



but getting back onto my origional point which was not that brett lee is the best, but that he is not over rated, and as he is so good in ODI's especially, i meant more in saying that that he is not over rated.

 

[The Argonaut]

It's a strange argument this one. Only Craig seems to think that these guys are overrated. The only one I might agree with is Flintoff but the rest are fine.

Lee is not the best pace bowler around at the moment. I would rate Gillespie as a higher quality bowler at present. Even Shoaib is marginally better. That said, it's probably the spinners that are generating more headlines at the moment. There are not too many high quality fast bowlers in the game at present.

Still only my opinion.

 

[Craig]

IMO Gillespie is a slightly better bowler then McGrath.

 

[Langeveldt]

IMO Gillespie is a slightly better bowler then McGrath.

Id sort of agree, he certainly has more to offer, but McGrath just does the basics so well its silly, thats where his success comes...

 

[Richard]

Just one point - because someone has wickets against their name doesn't mean they deserve them.
In Lee's case, there have been many, many ODI wickets that he has to his name that I feel he did not merit through his own bowling, simply through batting incompetance.
No denying Lee must take a place in Australia's ODI side atm, but when considering World XIs and not just overrated players but those flattered by their stats, you must look at whether wickets have been earned instead of whether they're just against the name.

 

[marc71178]

Id sort of agree, he certainly has more to offer, but McGrath just does the basics so well its silly, thats where his success comes...

But don't forget Inness! :rolleyes: