"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[Pratters]

Fact is Lee has been bowling with 3 good bowlers and has cashed-in on that to the extent of averaging in the late 30s.
That is utterly rubbish.

Then we are really getting into the ifs debate.

Having good bowlers in the side does not necessarily mean your average is enhanced. How can you conclusively say he cashed in on the 3 good bowlers being there? Do not give me the cliche of McGrath etc bringing in pressure from their ends and thus Lee producing better figures. Prove conclusively.

Do we really need to break up the 30 tests to find out how many tests Lee played against poor opposition(which applies to every player/team) to show a better average, how many matches Lee played with the likes of Warne/McGrath missing (which was true in the ending of Lee's last run in test cricket but not in the entire 30 tests) etc?

It all balances out in the end. Also, it is a worthless exercise to go into the million ifs.

Fact is Lee was poor during the period but writing him off the way it was done was uncalled for. Talking about the present and the future, once some one is written off in the past, there is no justification which can be given once the player starts performing other than rubbish, reasoning it out.

It has been just one test but the Aussie selectors are known to persist with players only when they have faith and only after a period of time can it be assessed with a clearer picture on the truer perception.

 

[Richard]

Lee was getting sideways movemnet in the first test. one clear example is that full toss that he bowled to Pietersen. was swerving in the air. at top pace. C'mon Richard that is talent. Richard haven't you learned anything from laying into how rubbish Freddie and Harmy were. You always sem to forget Form is temporary, Class is permanent

Exactly, and I have learned from laying into Harmison and Flintoff that they haven't changed. I am still right to have done so as far as I'm concerned.
And so far nothing's changed. Lee's good form (if it is even that, which I doubt - more a pitch) doesn't change the fact that his class is poor.

 

[Pratters]

You always sem to forget Form is temporary, Class is permanent

I should have just said that instead of posting such a long entry!

 

[Pratters]

And so far nothing's changed. Lee's good form (if it is even that, which I doubt - more a pitch) doesn't change the fact that his class is poor.

So when he performs, it will just be form or a miracle but if he does not perform it justifies that he is rubbish and has no class.

You never lose then do you?

 

[Richard]

Then we are really getting into the ifs debate.

Having good bowlers in the side does not necessarily mean your average is enhanced. How can you conclusively say he cashed in on the 3 good bowlers being there? Do not give me the cliche of McGrath etc bringing in pressure from their ends and thus Lee producing better figures. Prove conclusively.

Do we really need to break up the 30 tests to find out how many tests Lee played against poor opposition(which applies to every player/team) to show a better average, how many matches Lee played with the likes of Warne/McGrath missing (which was true in the ending of Lee's last run in test cricket but not in the entire 30 tests) etc?

It all balances out in the end. Also, it is a worthless exercise to go into the million ifs.

If you wish to believe so, then you must do so - it is my experience that most things in cricket which are presumed to even each other out actually don't.
Fact is Lee has played far more of his Tests than not with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne, and they constantly have taken wickets and allowed Lee to bowl at new batsmen. Yet he hasn't even managed to take advantage of that.

Fact is Lee was poor during the period but writing him off the way it was done was uncalled for. Talking about the present and the future, once some one is written off in the past, there is no justification which can be given once the player starts performing other than rubbish, reasoning it out.

It has been just one test but the Aussie selectors are known to persist with players only when they have faith and only after a period of time can it be assessed with a clearer picture on the truer perception.

Aussie selectors are known to be very poor and make countless stupid decisions.
And I'm highly hopeful that faith in Lee will prove to be another.

 

[Richard]

So when he performs, it will just be form or a miracle but if he does not perform it justifies that he is rubbish and has no class.

You never lose then do you?

No, if he performs consistently it will either be poor batting or good bowling.
If he starts bowling well it will be because he's better now than he was - that won't be a miracle, I was merely being hypothetical, for the 2nd time.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I should have just said that instead of posting such a long entry!

No you were correct to post your long entry. One thing that cannot be levelled at Lee is the "form is temporary class is permanent" maxim.

 

[Pratters]

Aussie selectors are known to be very poor and make countless stupid decisions.
And I'm highly hopeful that faith in Lee will prove to be another.

Australians and bringing in lesser new test players than any other country. That is a stat which will discount the selection of some recent test failures in the past two years - the only argument I can think you to come up with.

Compare that with the selections they have made to rebuild the side post 1985 and I cant believe you are stating the Aussie selectors have been poor!

 

[Pratters]

No, if he performs consistently it will either be poor batting or good bowling.

As I said, it seems you will never lose, for the second time.

 

[Pratters]

Peter Roebuck on Lee in his latest column:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...e/2005/07/25/1122143784220.html?oneclick=true

Not so long ago Lee was in such bad form that he could hardly release the ball. No one present during the Sydney Test match against India 18 months ago was confident of ever seeing him bowl for his country again. He was reduced to releasing the ball from a yard behind the popping crease and left nursing embarrassing figures. A bowler's pain is public. Dismissed batsmen retreat to the rooms. It might have broken a lesser man.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Early in his career, Lee sampled the joys of the game as he cut a swathe through opponents like a latter-day Errol Flynn. Then came injuries and setbacks and losses of form that created confusion in an essentially relaxed brain. Sydney was the low point. It had looked like the end. In fact, it was just a beginning.

Lee could take consolation from the fact that he was still dangerous with the white ball. Indeed, he was the best bowler at the most recent World Cup. Armed with a white missile, he could bowl with pace and swing, a potent combination. His success in one-day cricket brought him the time that he needed to sort out the rest of his game.

Taken to India but not chosen for a single Test match, Lee dedicated himself to taking his fitness to an even higher level. That he lost weight on the tour was due not to Delhi belly but to his new physical discipline.

In Shane Watson he found a splendid partner in this endeavour. Every evening the pair flogged their bodies mercilessly in search of the strength and speed needed to give them an edge. Ever since, Lee has been superb in both forms of the game.

Naturally, it took time to convince the selectors that he was indeed a new man. Last autumn he toured New Zealand and again could not force his way into the team. He arrived in England as fourth seamer but bowled with such gusto that his candidacy had to be taken seriously, especially by a team lacking a cutting edge. Lee did not play at Lord's because a colleague had lost form. He demanded a place with stirring performances.

He provides the view that the poor performances was due to lack of form and not due to lack of class.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

But if he was always world class, why don't his figures reflect it? I think he has improved on this latest tour, but would rather wait until the series ends to make a more balanced assessment.

 

[Pratters]

But if he was always world class, why don't his figures reflect it? I think he has improved on this latest tour, but would rather wait until the series ends to make a more balanced assessment.

I wouldnt say he has been of a superb class. He was certainly poor which lead to his dropping from the team. But I wouldnt say he is rubbish.

 

[Richard]

Australians and bringing in lesser new test players than any other country. That is a stat which will discount the selection of some recent test failures in the past two years - the only argument I can think you to come up with.

Compare that with the selections they have made to rebuild the side post 1985 and I cant believe you are stating the Aussie selectors have been poor!

How many players have been dropped when they shouldn't have been?
Lots - Bevan to the fore.
And as for the picking Bichel, Bracken, Williams, Lee and the like ahead of the fully fit Kasprowicz in 2003\04, that was beyond ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

As I said, it seems you will never lose, for the second time.

Well - if you count "losing" as Lee bowling well, I will.
I'd not say it's a case of "winning" and "losing" though.

 

[Richard]

Peter Roebuck on Lee in his latest column:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...e/2005/07/25/1122143784220.html?oneclick=true

Not so long ago Lee was in such bad form that he could hardly release the ball. No one present during the Sydney Test match against India 18 months ago was confident of ever seeing him bowl for his country again. He was reduced to releasing the ball from a yard behind the popping crease and left nursing embarrassing figures. A bowler's pain is public. Dismissed batsmen retreat to the rooms. It might have broken a lesser man.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Early in his career, Lee sampled the joys of the game as he cut a swathe through opponents like a latter-day Errol Flynn. Then came injuries and setbacks and losses of form that created confusion in an essentially relaxed brain. Sydney was the low point. It had looked like the end. In fact, it was just a beginning.

Lee could take consolation from the fact that he was still dangerous with the white ball. Indeed, he was the best bowler at the most recent World Cup. Armed with a white missile, he could bowl with pace and swing, a potent combination. His success in one-day cricket brought him the time that he needed to sort out the rest of his game.

Taken to India but not chosen for a single Test match, Lee dedicated himself to taking his fitness to an even higher level. That he lost weight on the tour was due not to Delhi belly but to his new physical discipline.

In Shane Watson he found a splendid partner in this endeavour. Every evening the pair flogged their bodies mercilessly in search of the strength and speed needed to give them an edge. Ever since, Lee has been superb in both forms of the game.

Naturally, it took time to convince the selectors that he was indeed a new man. Last autumn he toured New Zealand and again could not force his way into the team. He arrived in England as fourth seamer but bowled with such gusto that his candidacy had to be taken seriously, especially by a team lacking a cutting edge. Lee did not play at Lord's because a colleague had lost form. He demanded a place with stirring performances.

He provides the view that the poor performances was due to lack of form and not due to lack of class.

A lack of form for 3 years?
Sorry, but I think not.

 

[Pratters]

How many players have been dropped when they shouldn't have been?
Lots - Bevan to the fore.
And as for the picking Bichel, Bracken, Williams, Lee and the like ahead of the fully fit Kasprowicz in 2003\04, that was beyond ridiculous.

That is a stat which will discount the selection of some recent test failures in the past two years - the only argument I can think you to come up with.

And yes the Australians have been ruthless in dropping players like they did with Healy when he wanted another test, Steve Waugh would very likely have been dropped if he didnt retire after India's tour of Australia, and it is disputable whether the dropping of the likes of Bevan, Lehmann, Mark Waugh were spot on or poor decisions.

The team certainly continues to perform well which can certainly not be discounted to just talent and no selection acumen.

You forget the larger picture of the team builidng the selectors have done post 1985. Do not forget Langer, Hayden's come backs - credit to the selectors for bringing them back - a potent reason for the success Australia has achieved has been the opening partnership. Bringing in Clarke in India when not many were wanting him to play (and how Clarke performed in India!) are just things I can think off my head.

 

[Pratters]

Well - if you count "losing" as Lee bowling well, I will.
I'd not say it's a case of "winning" and "losing" though.

No the fact that you will always try to come up with a reason if Lee performs. Its either the batsmen who are poor or Lee was lucky or it was the pitch or some thing else.

 

[Pratters]

A lack of form for 3 years?
Sorry, but I think not.

He has actually said injuries, setbacks and lacks of form and an essentially relaxed brain and not just a lack of form.

As I said, Lee was poor but Roebuck provides a different view than the simplistic rubbish point you brought in for the reason behind it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Whose fault is it then? If not Mike Hunt?

His name is really Mike Hunt?

 

[marc71178]

IMO he certainly isn't doing anywhere near as well as a bowler as most people have said since summer 2004;

So the SA series didn't happen then.