• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Great ODI Bowlers - Where does Brett Lee stand?

Furball

Evil Scotsman
314 wickets from 178 matches, 9 5 wicket hauls, average 22 and a strike rate in the high twenties.

When people think of great ODI fast bowlers we think of Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Pollock, Garner, Hadlee...where does Brett Lee stand in comparison?

edit: from a quick glance at Statsguru, statistically at least, Brett Lee compares favourably with anyone.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I'd say he's up there. His record in ODIs is anomalous in a way, because he's often thought of as quite an expensive bowler in tests. His strike rate in the longer form has always been impressive, but the perception of him is one of a bowler who can go for a few.

His ER of 4.7ish is more than most of the chaps you list (only marginally more than Waqar's tho, tbf) but it's more than acceptable & his average & (in particular) strike-rate are exceptional. Any bowler who has Lee's facility for yorkers is going to be a force in the shortened formats.

I suspect possibly where he does worse in comparison to the bowlers you've mentioned is that they were all genuinely great test bowlers too; Lee was a good and on occasion a very good test performer, but not quite in the same bracket in the longest form of the game. I think a lot of us (myself undoubteded included) tend to mark down those who're greats in limited overs but fall short in tests, even if it's just subconsciously.
 

FBU

International Debutant
314 wickets from 178 matches, 9 5 wicket hauls, average 22 and a strike rate in the high twenties.

When people think of great ODI fast bowlers we think of Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Pollock, Garner, Hadlee...where does Brett Lee stand in comparison?
Don't forget Bond, he's back.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Averages 37 in India, 31 in Sri Lanka, has never played in Pakistan. Needs to correct this.
 

pup11

International Coach
I think Brett Lee is a fantastic bowler when he is bowling with a white ball, and he is definitely one of the best quicks in the last one decade in the shorter form of the game, though he does have his fair share of weaknesses.

As Pratters pointed out, his record in the sub-continent is pretty mediocre, and that's something he would need to rectify, and he would have a chance to do that pretty soon as well, the other problem is for a bowler of his caliber, he has through his career relied basically just on pace, and really he hasn't given much thought to developing some variations.

Though having said that, after his recent comeback from injury, he seems to have developed a deceptive slower-ball and slower ball bouncer, which should hold him in good stead for the upcoming years of his career, so if he stays fit, he should end up with atleast 400 ODI wickets, which should indeed rank him right up there with some of the very best.
 
Last edited:

pup11

International Coach
He's a poor sub cont bowler quite surprising since fast skiddy reverse swing bowlers generally like the SC.
If you are surprised by that, then chances are you haven't been following Lee that closely, he has struggled in sub-continent due to the lengths he has bowled there, more than anything else, on slowish sub-continental tracks his back of a length bowling and his extra yard of pace sit-up nicely for the batsmen to spank his bowling to all parts of the ground.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He's almost a pure reverse-swing bowler these days (Troy Cooley involved, maybe?). You can only imagine how good he would be without the 34th-over ball change rule.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Lee's capable of bowling very well in ODIs, but actually does so less often than his average would suggest. The combination of average and economy-rate suggests "expensive wicket-taker"; the reality is that when Lee bowls well he tends to bowl economically and penetratively, and when he bowls badly neither. Lee has on plenty of occasions - due to the excellence of the rest of Australia's ODI attack for almost all of his career - bowled pretty badly and ended-up with, say, 9-52-3, because of the fact that batsmen have had to hit-out at him with ~15 overs left and he's cleaned-up some gimme wickets.

I'd say Lee probably bowls well about ~40% of the time in ODIs, and badly ~60%. The best bowlers would tend more to bowl well ~70% of the time. So no, to my mind Lee isn't up there with the very best, nor terribly close, but certainly in the next tier down.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Brett Lee's economy rate is more a result of when he bowls IMO. Until the 34th-over ball change was introduced, he'd very rarely bowl a single over that wasn't either powerplay or death (at the moment he's bowling in both at the same time).

Also have to account for the changing eras, of course.

The stats tell you a lot less in ODIs than they do in tests though. Personally I find a fantastically economical wicket-taker like Pollock or McGrath a little more valuable than Lee. Certainly open to debate though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
But likewise, I think you'd find that he often comes in with great figures of say 6-24-2, and then ends up conceding 25-35 runs off his last 4 overs because he's bowling at the death, and as a fast bowler, any decent edges are going to fly away for four.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Keeping the run rate down to 5.5 per over and taking two wickets when the opposition need 120 more from 15 overs to win is bloody good. A side requiring 8 per over for 15 overs is game-on time in an ODI. When Lee comes on and takes 2/22 off 4 overs he's winning you the game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Brett Lee's economy rate is more a result of when he bowls IMO. Until the 34th-over ball change was introduced, he'd very rarely bowl a single over that wasn't either powerplay or death (at the moment he's bowling in both at the same time).
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).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But likewise, I think you'd find that he often comes in with great figures of say 6-24-2, and then ends up conceding 25-35 runs off his last 4 overs because he's bowling at the death, and as a fast bowler, any decent edges are going to fly away for four.
I can't recall him doing that very often (there are a few bowlers who I have seen it happen to plenty of times - Darren Gough later in his career being one of the best examples). If you can show me lots of times when it has, I'll be quite happy, but as I say - I don't recall it very often.

Lee is capable of bowling very well at the death too, being unhittable. And generally if he bowls well at one stage he bowls well at both, and vice-versa.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Keeping the run rate down to 5.5 per over and taking two wickets when the opposition need 120 more from 15 overs to win is bloody good. A side requiring 8 per over for 15 overs is game-on time in an ODI. When Lee comes on and takes 2/22 off 4 overs he's winning you the game.
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.
 

Top