World Crickets speed demons

[vic_orthdox]

IIRC harmison was tipping 150 when the english played over in australia?

 

[anzac]

IMO you can't count Dizzy as a fast bowler any longer - he's off a shortened run & has cut his pace down to the mid - high 130's so as to concentrate on his control of line & length....

interestingly Cairns expressed the opinion that he thought this was a mistake & made the current AUS seam attack much the same paced with McGrath, Gillespie & Kasper - another arguement for Lee - Cairns believes that Dizzy is the more likely to be dropped (if any) unless he gets amongst the wickets...........

 

[Arrow]

IIRC harmison was tipping 150 when the english played over in australia?

Around 140-145 that series. In SA recently i never saw him go over 90mph. Seemed to be stuck in the mid 80s all series.

 

[Swervy]

Around 140-145 that series. In SA recently i never saw him go over 90mph. Seemed to be stuck in the mid 80s all series.

he certainly didnt have his rhythm right in SA...I am sure I have seen the radar clock him at 97 mph before though

 

[twctopcat]

He usually floats around 89,90.91. I have seen him in the 90's plenty of time in the last year. I remember in the natwest series against India last year he really went for it and was consistently bowling 90-95.

 

[age_master]

If you disregard Akhtar.

Oh wait, Akhtar isn't Australian is he?

akhtar is rubbish more often than not, not that you could tell because whenever he comes up against oposition who look like getting oon top of him he suddenly gets injured.

 

[Richard]

akhtar is rubbish more often than not

As opposed to Lee who's rubbish almost all the time.

 

[Richard]

An average of 30 is very poor? So the likes of Chaminda Vaas, Michael Kasprowicz, Makhaya Ntini, Matthew Hoggard, Andrew Flintoff, Danish Kaneria etc are very poor bowlers?

It depends - in Ntini's and Kaneria's cases yes (though I'm very confident Kaneria will improve)
In Hoggard's case just about (though there's no doubt his post-2003 he's not been quite so poor as he was before - even if the non-Zim\Bang-average still isn't very good).
In Kasprowicz and Flintoff's case the fact that their recent stats are very different to the less recent ones is what matters.
In Vaas' case yes, because he goes from averaging 16 to averaging 200 in a series-by-series case.
Any average over 30 means a bowler must have their ability at that level seriously called into question (be it Test or First-Class).

Lee's current average is in my view no more reflective of his abilities than the record of 42 wickets @ 16 with a strike rate of 32 he had before his first serious injury. A better measurement of his abilities will come out in the future as he plays more test matches. Personaly I'd expect him to finish with an average in the high 20s and an excellent strike rate, as one might expect from a quality fast bowler. Perhaps he will get the average down a bit further if he continues to develop through the later part of his career.

Lee is 28 years old.
His 2001-2003\04 average reflects very accurately how exceptionally poorly he bowled in that period.
I don't know whether or not his 42 wickets at 16.07 reflected well how he bowled then, because I didn't see any of the games.
Most seamers reach their peak around 28-30 (only the creme de la creme generally differ).

 

[Richard]

Elton Chigumbera

His max is 93 mph, and Aussie clearly said 95 mph.

Chigumbera can bowl in the 90s????!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

Harmison strikes me as a fast-medium/fast bowler. That is, he can bowl deadly spells, but when he's off, he's ordinary fast-medium.

Not strictly true, Harmison was still hitting the 90mph mark pretty consistently both at home to you guys and in South Africa.
But was still spraying it.

 

[Richard]

in odi i would say Bond would be the best

Beyond question.

 

[Richard]

He was usefull in onedayers only and that too against Pakistan against whome any pacer can look brilliant.

Now you've got a point with the bowling, but the ODI batting?
Salman Butt, Yasir Hameed, Shoaib Malik, Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Yousuf Youhana is most certainly a very capable line-up and to call it otherwise smacks of anit-Pakistan prejudice.

 

[Richard]

interestingly Cairns expressed the opinion that he thought this was a mistake & made the current AUS seam attack much the same paced with McGrath, Gillespie & Kasper - another arguement for Lee - Cairns believes that Dizzy is the more likely to be dropped (if any) unless he gets amongst the wickets...........

A demonstration of how ridiculous the argument to get Lee into the side has become.
If anyone seriously thinks he's half the bowler Gillespie is they need psychiatric treatment.

 

[Richard]

he certainly didnt have his rhythm right in SA...I am sure I have seen the radar clock him at 97 mph before though

96 was the top, and that was freakish, in that ODI against NZ at The Riverside.

 

[Richard]

not that you could tell because whenever he comes up against oposition who look like getting oon top of him he suddenly gets injured.

As opposed to Lee who just bowls on and gets smashed all over the place.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It depends - in Ntini's and Kaneria's cases yes (though I'm very confident Kaneria will improve)
In Hoggard's case just about (though there's no doubt his post-2003 he's not been quite so poor as he was before - even if the non-Zim\Bang-average still isn't very good).
In Kasprowicz and Flintoff's case the fact that their recent stats are very different to the less recent ones is what matters.
In Vaas' case yes, because he goes from averaging 16 to averaging 200 in a series-by-series case.
Any average over 30 means a bowler must have their ability at that level seriously called into question (be it Test or First-Class).)

Just to be clear, I don't think any of those bowlers are "very poor". Ntini is not great but he's a decent, solid test match workhorse bowler who takes enough wickets to justify his place in the squad, and he would make several other test sides as well. Kaneria is clearly a fantastic talent who is (in my view) likely to go on and have a long and successful test career. Hoggard is a quality bowler who has improved plenty in recent times. Kasprowicz and Flintoff are both among the top 10 in the world today and are high quality bowlers. Vaas is also of great quality, despite his inconsistency. Plenty of bowlers with a 30+ average are poor of course, but picking an arbitrary cutoff point and dismissing anybody over that point as poor is ridiculous. Hell, I've heard you rate Craig White, who only averaged under 30 in one series in his whole career and that was against a shocking batting lineup, and Saqlain who averages close to 30 over his whole career as well.

Lee is 28 years old.
His 2001-2003\04 average reflects very accurately how exceptionally poorly he bowled in that period.
I don't know whether or not his 42 wickets at 16.07 reflected well how he bowled then, because I didn't see any of the games.
Most seamers reach their peak around 28-30 (only the creme de la creme generally differ).

Neither his current test average nor his early test average accurately reflect his abilities. He bowled very well early on of course, but mostly it was just that New Zealand and India couldn't handle his vicious pace, and he bowled first change and tore middle orders apart in his first two series. After his injury he never looked the same again, and it was just the odd match here or there where he shone. Recently though he's got over his persistant injuries and started to concentrate a bit more on line and length bowling, and it's noticable to those who have watched him recently. You will notice that practically no Australian fans, even those who dislike Lee intensely, claim otherwise.

And yes, I would say Lee is around his peak at the moment, or would be if he was getting the opportunity to play 4 and 5 day cricket more often. I am confident that if he is brought in for the second test he will have a successful return to test cricket and be a regular fixture for some time. Even if he declines in his 30s, good bowlers can adapt to a loss of pace.

 

[Richard]

Just to be clear, I don't think any of those bowlers are "very poor". Ntini is not great but he's a decent, solid test match workhorse bowler who takes enough wickets to justify his place in the squad, and he would make several other test sides as well. Kaneria is clearly a fantastic talent who is (in my view) likely to go on and have a long and successful test career. Hoggard is a quality bowler who has improved plenty in recent times. Kasprowicz and Flintoff are both among the top 10 in the world today and are high quality bowlers. Vaas is also of great quality, despite his inconsistency. Plenty of bowlers with a 30+ average are poor of course, but picking an arbitrary cutoff point and dismissing anybody over that point as poor is ridiculous. Hell, I've heard you rate Craig White, who only averaged under 30 in one series in his whole career and that was against a shocking batting lineup, and Saqlain who averages close to 30 over his whole career as well.

Saqlain, except on a turning pitch, is like any fingerspinner - nothing special. On a turning pitch he's better than a normal fingerspinner because of his Doosra.
Hoggard is not a quality bowler, he's a bowler who will sometimes bowl well, and sometimes very poorly.
Ntini is not a particularly good bowler, yes he takes wickets, but he usually takes a while to take them, and sometimes sprays the thing all over the place, too - and even when he takes them it's mostly poor strokes.
Vaas when he bowls well is better than anyone; when he bowls poorly he's absolutely shocking. You cannot possibly say that Vaas is anything in general, because it really doesn't work like that.
Craig White had 1 period where he really, really bowled well (the batting-line-up of West Indies most certainly was not shocking, either - they were just made to look so by some exceptional bowling on some good pitches for seamers), that being 2000-2000\01. He also bowled OK in 2002\03, though obviously not as well as 2 years earlier.
In the 2000-2000\01 period he had 4 good matches (series are not the relevant thing).

Neither his current test average nor his early test average accurately reflect his abilities. He bowled very well early on of course, but mostly it was just that New Zealand and India couldn't handle his vicious pace, and he bowled first change and tore middle orders apart in his first two series. After his injury he never looked the same again, and it was just the odd match here or there where he shone. Recently though he's got over his persistant injuries and started to concentrate a bit more on line and length bowling, and it's noticable to those who have watched him recently. You will notice that practically no Australian fans, even those who dislike Lee intensely, claim otherwise.

And yes, I would say Lee is around his peak at the moment, or would be if he was getting the opportunity to play 4 and 5 day cricket more often. I am confident that if he is brought in for the second test he will have a successful return to test cricket and be a regular fixture for some time. Even if he declines in his 30s, good bowlers can adapt to a loss of pace.

And Lee is not a good bowler, and he's not made any improvement in accuracy, as anyone can see unless they've been wanting to see otherwise for ages and haven't seen him bowl for a while.
If you really can blame Lee's period of shockingly poor bowling in 2001-2003\04 on persistent injuries you're just looking to forgive any failing.
What it is about Lee that so many people like so much I just don't know. But there are so many people who will do anything to try to make it look like he's a superb bowler.

 

[aussie]

aussie

His performance in test matches have been an embaressment so far (that doesn't mean he can't deliver in future ) untill he get a place in test team and delivers, he can't be considered atall.

u cant be serious how can u say lee's perfromances in test cricket is embarassing, he has 130 odd wickets at an average of about 31 its not great but its good, cleary mate u dont know what ur saying

 

[aussie]

aussie

As opposed to Lee who's rubbish almost all the time.

ahhhhhhhh yes richard another one of ur special comments, prove to me that lee is rubbish all the time, jeeeese mate how could you make such a poor comment. Have you looked at lee performances in the vb series and in the just concluded odi series in nz that same rubbish bowler had the paksitan, west indies and kiwi batsmen all jumping around with has pace and since i first saw him in 1999 home seies againts india i have never seen him bowl better.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Just to be clear, I don't think any of those bowlers are "very poor". Ntini is not great but he's a decent, solid test match workhorse bowler who takes enough wickets to justify his place in the squad, and he would make several other test sides as well. Kaneria is clearly a fantastic talent who is (in my view) likely to go on and have a long and successful test career. Hoggard is a quality bowler who has improved plenty in recent times. Kasprowicz and Flintoff are both among the top 10 in the world today and are high quality bowlers. Vaas is also of great quality, despite his inconsistency. Plenty of bowlers with a 30+ average are poor of course, but picking an arbitrary cutoff point and dismissing anybody over that point as poor is ridiculous. Hell, I've heard you rate Craig White, who only averaged under 30 in one series in his whole career and that was against a shocking batting lineup, and Saqlain who averages close to 30 over his whole career as well.



Neither his current test average nor his early test average accurately reflect his abilities. He bowled very well early on of course, but mostly it was just that New Zealand and India couldn't handle his vicious pace, and he bowled first change and tore middle orders apart in his first two series. After his injury he never looked the same again, and it was just the odd match here or there where he shone. Recently though he's got over his persistant injuries and started to concentrate a bit more on line and length bowling, and it's noticable to those who have watched him recently. You will notice that practically no Australian fans, even those who dislike Lee intensely, claim otherwise.

And yes, I would say Lee is around his peak at the moment, or would be if he was getting the opportunity to play 4 and 5 day cricket more often. I am confident that if he is brought in for the second test he will have a successful return to test cricket and be a regular fixture for some time. Even if he declines in his 30s, good bowlers can adapt to a loss of pace.

good comment at last richard