Great ODI Bowlers - Where does Brett Lee stand?

[GingerFurball]

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.

[BoyBrumby]

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.

[Cruxdude]

I rate him as a great bowler. His duels with Sachin when INdia toured last were epic.

[FBU]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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]

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

[Xuhaib]

Originally Posted by Pratters

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

He's a poor sub cont bowler quite surprising since fast skiddy reverse swing bowlers generally like the SC.

[pup11]

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.

[vic_orthdox]

I'd imagine that his record at home would be pretty awesome?

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

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.

[inbox24]

How does he average in England?

[Uppercut]

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]

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]

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

^ Makes no sense.

[Richard]

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.