Great ODI Bowlers - Where does Brett Lee stand?

[Furball]

Of course it does. Lee can have bowled, say, 5-30-1, not very well, and can come back and bowl not-very-well once again but because the oppo is needing 120 off 15 overs, he can get gifted a couple of wickets and end with 4-22-2 in his second spell. This is great for the bowling-average, but doesn't in reality represent bowling well.

And such a thing has happened with Lee on quite a few occasions.

wot.

 

[Furball]

He isn't though. The game's already essentially won. To praise someone for doing something so stupidly easy as that is to praise mediocrity.

A side needing 120 off 15 overs in a ODI, especially with only 3-4 wickets left, has no realistic chance, and will only win with diabolical bowling and miraculous batting.

What about a side who's only 2 down, needing 120 off 15? In most cases, I'd back the side chasing.

 

[andyc]

He is capable of bowling economically in Powerplays though, and has done many times. It's not impossible to bowl economically in a Powerplay, especially if you've got a new-ball and batsmen new to the crease, and starting the innings off.

Lee's high economy-rate is a result of bowling poorly not-irregularly, IMO. I don't care too much for overall career averages, I prefer to look at things on a match-by-match basis. Look at Lee's ODI spells, count the good ones and poor ones (and don't just say "he got 8-46-4 so he bowled well" - look at whether the wickets were useful ones early or useless ones at the death).

Wickets at the death are definitely not useless though. The best way of stopping scoring is to take wickets.

 

[Furball]

Fastest ever to 300 ODI wickets as well, 171 matches compared with 2nd placed Waqar's 186.

 

[Richard]

What about a side who's only 2 down, needing 120 off 15? In most cases, I'd back the side chasing.

They've got a chance, but good death-bowling will still see the side defending win.

In any case such circumstances are not the ones I'm talking about. You find me a match where someone has been in that position against Australia during Lee's career. I'm talking about when the game's up and all that remains is for the formalities to be finished-off.

 

[Richard]

Wickets at the death are definitely not useless though. The best way of stopping scoring is to take wickets.

Not true at all, especially at the death. If the bowling isn't consistently in the blockhole, teams will score at 8-9-an-over at the death, regardless of how many wickets they lose doing it. Wickets are only useful in a ODI early on, because then they genuinely can help bowling be economical later on - but even then, that bowling has to be good enough. If a team is 90-4 off 20 overs and the bowling later is poor, they'll still get a big score.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not true at all, especially at the death. If the bowling isn't consistently in the blockhole, teams will score at 8-9-an-over at the death, regardless of how many wickets they lose doing it. Wickets are only useful in a ODI early on, because then they genuinely can help bowling be economical later on - but even then, that bowling has to be good enough. If a team is 90-4 off 20 overs and the bowling later is poor, they'll still get a big score.

Getting rid of a set batsman during the last 10 is a huge wicket.

 

[andyc]

Not true at all, especially at the death. If the bowling isn't consistently in the blockhole, teams will score at 8-9-an-over at the death, regardless of how many wickets they lose doing it. Wickets are only useful in a ODI early on, because then they genuinely can help bowling be economical later on - but even then, that bowling has to be good enough. If a team is 90-4 off 20 overs and the bowling later is poor, they'll still get a big score.

Not if they're bowled out.

 

[Richard]

Getting rid of a set batsman during the last 10 is a huge wicket.

Can only guess you've not watched the huge number of ODIs where batsmen come in with 4-5 overs left and still manage to whack it about.

 

[Richard]

Not if they're bowled out.

Obviously if you can bowl a side out it's different, but how often do you see a side which was in a powerful position with, say, 10 overs left end-up bowled-out? Not very often.

If you get wickets in the last 10 you're very unlikely to be influencing the course of the innings very much.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Not true at all, especially at the death. If the bowling isn't consistently in the blockhole, teams will score at 8-9-an-over at the death, regardless of how many wickets they lose doing it. Wickets are only useful in a ODI early on, because then they genuinely can help bowling be economical later on - but even then, that bowling has to be good enough. If a team is 90-4 off 20 overs and the bowling later is poor, they'll still get a big score.

Erm, what happens if you have an opener who has batted for 45 overs and is already 150 not out? Wickets tend to slow down the scoring at any time, anyone who has played cricket must realise that it is far easier to strike a ball when you have been doing so for twenty minutes than when you first come in. Sure, there will be times when there are a few edges that fly away, or someone sees it well and connects with a few hits early on, but I think it's generally accepted that a set batsman will score faster than a fresh batsman.

Put it this way, if you had the choice of three wickets or no wickets in the final five overs, you'd be struggling to make an argument for taking none...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Can only guess you've not watched the huge number of ODIs where batsmen come in with 4-5 overs left and still manage to whack it about.

Likelihood of a set batsman scoring quickly is so much higher than a new one.

 

[Richard]

Maybe the ideal states that, yes, but in reality there are hundreds of batsmen who come in with a handful of overs left and score quickly straight from the off. They won't get very many in all likelihood, but they'll still score at 6-7-an-over.

 

[vic_orthdox]

They're also more likely to get out, which provides you with more dot balls, and a lesser batsman to come in after that.

 

[Richard]

Erm, what happens if you have an opener who has batted for 45 overs and is already 150 not out? Wickets tend to slow down the scoring at any time, anyone who has played cricket must realise that it is far easier to strike a ball when you have been doing so for twenty minutes than when you first come in. Sure, there will be times when there are a few edges that fly away, or someone sees it well and connects with a few hits early on, but I think it's generally accepted that a set batsman will score faster than a fresh batsman.

It's widely accepted, yes, but the reality is somewhat different from the ideals, same way the reality is somewhat different from the widely accepted ideals in terms of England ODI selection (ie, the best way to pick is to go for those who've done the biz at domestic OD level, not pick good First-Class batsmen and bowlers who "look like wicket-takers"). In reality, if the ball is in the slot, batsmen will whack it with a few overs left in a ODI regardless of whether they've been in for 3 balls or 133. If you watch cricket rather than look at the ideals you'll realise that.

Put it this way, if you had the choice of three wickets or no wickets in the final five overs, you'd be struggling to make an argument for taking none...

If a team has 5 wickets and 5 overs left and you've the choice of taking 3 wickets for 40 runs and 0 wickets for 40 runs, the individual choice would obviously be the wickets, but as far as the team is concerned, there's no difference. What matters in the death overs - as all overs in ODIs - is how few runs you can concede. Fewer runs for fewer wickets in a ODI under any circumstances > more runs for more wickets.

 

[Richard]

They're also more likely to get out, which provides you with more dot balls, and a lesser batsman to come in after that.

Put it this way - if you bowl badly, whether you take 3-30 off 3 overs or 0-30 off 3 overs, it's irrelevant. But even though 3 overs for 25 with 0 wickets is worse for your average than 3-30 is, for your team it's better.

And unless the batsman to come is a rank rabbit I fail to see the relevance, as I've already mentioned how batsmen will score quickly against length bowling at the end of a ODI regardless of almost anything.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

In reality, if the ball is in the slot, batsmen will whack it with a few overs left in a ODI regardless of whether they've been in for 3 balls or 133. If you watch cricket rather than look at the ideals you'll realise that

They will try to deposit it over the ropes, certainly. However if the batsman has been there for 133 balls, there is a much higher chance of it actually ending up over the ropes. The new batsman is more likely to miss it or not get all of it - either resulting in fewer runs or another wicket.

 

[Richard]

Maybe - and it is a maybe - there is merely a 70% chance or so rather than a 85% one. Beyond doubt, the chance of it happening remains considerable.

The only way to bowl economically at the death is to hit the blockhole consistently. Things won't slow down, from out-of-control to under-control, just because wickets are falling. Wickets at the death will not very often influence the outcome of the innings.

 

[andyc]

Maybe - and it is a maybe - there is merely a 70% chance or so rather than a 85% one. Beyond doubt, the chance of it happening remains considerable.

The only way to bowl economically at the death is to hit the blockhole consistently. Things won't slow down, from out-of-control to under-control, just because wickets are falling. Wickets at the death will not very often influence the outcome of the innings.

If a team gets to the 40th over 4 wickets down, you generally would only need to take 3 wickets before you're into the tail. The fact is, taking wickets at the end of an innings is going to help the bowling team more so than hinder it, not only because it slows down the team's scoring rate (at the very least, you get a dot ball), but because by that time you probably don't need many more wickets to get to the tail. Give me 3/30 off three overs over 0/25 any day.

 

[Richard]

You seem to think I'm suggesting that not taking wickets > taking wickets; I'm not. I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter whether you take wickets at the death because the rate will be sky-high (barring excellent, consistently blockhole bowling) regardless of whether wickets are falling or not. If you want a bowler to influence the innings by taking wickets, he has to take them early on.

How on Earth is conceding 5 extra runs, thus leading to a total 5 runs higher, better than conceding 5 fewer runs without any wickets? You don't win games because you've taken more wickets, you win them by scoring more in 50 overs. Whether a team finishes their 50 overs 6 down or 9 down is completely and totally irrelevant.