Wastemen etc

[Red]

Agree. Always thought Bichel and Kaspa were better than Lee. But CA love marketability (hey Mitch Marsh!), and at the time we were just thrashing everyone anyway. Probably could have just played 8 batsmen plus Gilly, McGrath and Warne and still had no trouble bowling the opp out.

 

[Furball]

Funny how Johnson gets flak for his 2009 Ashes series when the consensus on Lee's 2005 effort is that he bowled better than his figures suggest (he didn't).

 

[listento_me]

Johnson over Lee is either a joke or people didn't watch Lee bowl

 

[Top_Cat]

Johnson over Lee - yes.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Agree. Always thought Bichel and Kaspa were better than Lee. But CA love marketability (hey Mitch Marsh!), and at the time we were just thrashing everyone anyway. Probably could have just played 8 batsmen plus Gilly, McGrath and Warne and still had no trouble bowling the opp out.

Lee was the best ODI pace bowler by a fair way at that point and was bashing the door down. He only made it into the side for the 2005 Ashes (IIRC) and it was a series where he outperformed Gillespie and Kasprowicz, who had been selected ahead of him over the prior twelve months.

 

[Spikey]

feel like Bichel is benefiting from being 12th man so often. i wouldn't take him over lee ever

 

[Coronis]

Johnson over Lee is either a joke or people didn't watch Lee bowl

faster =/= better.

 

[Midwinter]

Johnson had one of the greatest 18 month purple patches of all time, but before that "He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right...."

Lee had one glorious summer after McGrath retired, bowling with Stuart Clark ( a bit like Johnson and Harris perhaps).

But Johnson was amazing during that purple patch so he has to get the nod.

 

[Furball]

Johnson had one of the greatest 18 month purple patches of all time, but before that "He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right...."

Lee had one glorious summer after McGrath retired, bowling with Stuart Clark ( a bit like Johnson and Harris perhaps).

But Johnson was amazing during that purple patch so he has to get the nod.

It's a complete fallacy to suggest that Johnson was total **** before the 2013/14 Ashes though. He spent the first year of his career bowling ok and averaging 30, then took 8-for at Perth in his break out performance. He was then probably the best cricketer on the planet for 6 months. It wasn't just his bowling, he got left high and dry on 96* in the 2nd Test in South Africa and backed it up with a ton in the 3rd.

That's why his 2009 Ashes series is so notorious. It wasn't just that we had an Aussie quick rocking up and bowling complete arse after a generation of domination (again, a reminder that Brett Lee in 2005 was much worse than Johnson in 2009) but that Aussie quick came with a (justifiably) enormous amount of hype.

Off the top of my head I can't remember much of 2009/10 but I don't remembe there being many calls for his head until after Brisbane. Then he rocked up in Perth and absolutely destroyed England.

Post Ashes he definitely got worse to the point where he'd have been dropped had he not got injured in South Africa, but he was a fine bowler with the occasional burst of genius and the occasional burst of crap for most of his career.

 

[Furball]

Lee was the best ODI pace bowler by a fair way at that point and was bashing the door down. He only made it into the side for the 2005 Ashes (IIRC) and it was a series where he outperformed Gillespie and Kasprowicz, who had been selected ahead of him over the prior twelve months.

That's damning Lee with faint praise.

His 1st innings performances at Edgbaston and at the Oval are two of the worst displays of fast bowling I have ever seen.

 

[Red]

Lee was the best ODI pace bowler by a fair way at that point and was bashing the door down. He only made it into the side for the 2005 Ashes (IIRC) and it was a series where he outperformed Gillespie and Kasprowicz, who had been selected ahead of him over the prior twelve months.

Yeh, Lee was a different fish kettle in ODIs, no doubting that.

Gillespie was done as a bowler in 2005, and Kaspa wasnt far off being cooked. Had McGrath played the 2nd test, we probably would have won it, and ditto for the 4th test. With McGrath in the attack, any combo supporting him from Gillespie, Kaspa or Lee (or Tait), would have been effective. Without McGrath, we just couldn't maintain pressure. I think during that series I realised just how good McGrath was, when he wasn't there. Any trio from the support cast just looked woeful (Warne excluded, obviously).

 

[zaremba]

He was always box office, there's no doubt about that.

Not for a long period in the middle of his career. Without checking cricinfo, there was an Ashes series (think in England) where he looked a pathetic sight at times.

Box office doesn't always mean good. When he was bad, and the crowd got on top of him, he was box office too.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't think I've ever seen a bowler as good as Johnson when he was at his peak.

Sorry, but you either can't have seen much Test cricket in your lifetime or you're just being biased. Simple as that.

Johnson was a very good Test bowler and could be extremely menacing at his best, nobody would dispute that. But the best you've ever seen?

You can't have seen Steyn at his best for starters.

 

[Furball]

Nope.

 

[Burgey]

You can't consistently play bowling like Johnson dished up in 13/14. Its not physically possible when you combine the pace with that action, accuracy and some movement. The fact Harris and to an extent Siddle were so good that series also meant you couldn't just sit on Johnson and feed off the others. It was a perfect storm that series. Fmd I hate England but even I felt sorry for them having to face it. There's something horrific about facing someone who you know is too quick for you. To have it happen to test players is a pretty rare thing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Steyn and Lee both have nice actions where you can see the ball the whole way as a batsman as well. It is a different kettle of fish with Johnson - I've not seen tailenders that disinterested in batting since the Windies.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, his action made it much, much worse. This clip of his bouncers in the first test of that series is like watching a car crash. It's awful but you can't look away.

 

[Gnske]

the du Plessis dismissal alone should have him in the pantheon.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sorry, but you either can't have seen much Test cricket in your lifetime or you're just being biased. Simple as that.

Johnson was a very good Test bowler and could be extremely menacing at his best, nobody would dispute that. But the best you've ever seen?

You can't have seen Steyn at his best for starters.

I think you mustn't have watched him bowling that series

nothing that Steyn's ever dished up has come close

 

[Zinzan]

I think you mustn't have watched him bowling that series

nothing that Steyn's ever dished up has come close

I watched almost all of that series & it was truly impressive bowling. But saying it's the best anyone's ever bowled at their peak (assuming Stephen has been watching cricket for at least a decade) is a massive stretch.

I'd say if you really want to answer the question properly, which also factors conditions, then some of Steyn's performances in the SC were even more impressive for a start, and that's forgetting about the peaks of bowlers like Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Akram & McGath to name a few.

Had Stephen said it was the most menacing he'd seen a bowler at their peak, that would be a slightly different argument, but his statement was, he'd never seen a bowler 'as good' in their peak.

Now if you can find any non-Australian who's actually watched a decent amount of cricket make that same statement, I'll be extremely surprised. Hence why I'll say it again, he's either biased or hasn't seen much cricket in the last decade or to say that.