Tait or Johnson?

[steds]

This is random but I just saw Brett Lee in a hindi music video with Asha Bhonsle. Click here. He needs to stick to cricket.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[PhoenixFire]

Of course he can sing can't he, doesn't he have his own band...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, woeful form from Brett. What was he thinking?

 

[silentstriker]

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard in my life.

 

[silentstriker]

I know they make a ridiculous amount of money in India with endorsements, but how much is your dignity worth?

 

[marc71178]

At the moment it is Mitchell Johnson but if Lee improves rapidly over the next few summers it would be very close.

Next few summers, isn't he already 30?

 

[marc71178]

Tait I think cops much unfair criticism. Granted, he can be expensive, but his overall economy rate in FC cricket is just 3.67.

3.67 in FC is far from good though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

3.67 in FC is far from good though.

It's not good, but respectable, anything below 4, you can live with, as long as they have an exceptional strike-rate.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not good, but respectable, anything below 4, you can live with, as long as they have an exceptional strike-rate.

Um, in four or five day cricket, 3.67 is unacceptable for your main bowler. Anything about around 3.2-3.3 is getting up there.

 

[Laurrz]

HAHAHAHA at the Binger vid...... lmaooo

 

[luffy]

Johnson, he is just the sort of person that could scare the **** out of the poms...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Um, in four or five day cricket, 3.67 is unacceptable for your main bowler. Anything about around 3.2-3.3 is getting up there.

It's only unacceptable if they aren't taking wickets. The problem expensive bowlers run into is when they go without wickets they can be a real liability. SR is, ultimately, more important than ER though, because a bowler who takes 5/100 in 20 overs gives the opposition far less time to make their runs off the other bowlers than one who takes 5/100 in 40, or even 5/80 in 40.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's only unacceptable if they aren't taking wickets. The problem expensive bowlers run into is when they go without wickets they can be a real liability. SR is, ultimately, more important than ER though, because a bowler who takes 5/100 in 20 overs gives the opposition far less time to make their runs off the other bowlers than one who takes 5/100 in 40, or even 5/80 in 40.

Which is why you can basically get away with ignoring both of them. Averages take both into account.