Shoaib Akhtar v Brett Lee

[luckyeddie]

DG Cork?

I'd throw him in and Flintoff too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Signs of the times...

 

[Eclipse]

He might take stacks of (more late-innings than early) wickets in ODIs but even there he still gets hammered round the park most of the time.

That's not true once again you are going on like you know it all.

During an ODI against England last year Channel 9 gave stat's showing were a bowler has had his most succsess ie batting position. And like it or not Lee take's most of his wickets off batsman batting at number three and four.

I cant remember exactly but It clearly showd that most of his wickets are NOT tail enders. Somthing like 65% of his wickets were batsman between number 1-6.

That figure was also very simular for Gillespie and McGrath as well.
It was actulay very much the same for all of the bowlers they looked at with slight diffrences depending on wether you bowled first change opened etc..

 

[Eclipse]

I also remember in that series him getting hit around by the openers of Sri Lanaka and England.

You yourself have called Lee over-rated.

He was never taken apart that bady maybe once or twice but during that series there were bowlers who got carted around alot more than Lee. Caddick for example.

And Yes Lee is overated In test cricket but I dont beleve it's an accuracy thing. to me it's got much more to do with his attitude and trying to take a wicket everyball.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Top Order (1-3) 55 (40.1%)
Middle Order (4-7) 50 (36.5%)
Tail (8-11) 32 (23.4%)

 

[Richard]

Relevance of mentioning Flintoff? Personally I wouldn't mind 10-0-55-4 instead of 10-5-20-0 if I had the Aussie batting lineup and McGrath, Gillespie in support.

I'd take 10-20-0 anyday over 10-55-4.
If McGrath, Gillespie and X all go for less than 30 off their 10 overs, it's not very likely the opposition will get much more than 170-180. Even if you do have the cushion of Harvey and Hauritz or some other pie-chuckers coming on, with Symonds and Clarke to provide the part-time pies.

 

[Richard]

Funny that, looking at the list of batsmen he's dismissed in ODIs more than once, the only one I'd say is a tailender is Saqlain.

Aside from that, it's all genuine batsmen.

Considering Australia have the best attack by a mile, then if they're "late-innings" it suggests to me that he's got settled men out, but considering the quality of attack for Australia, I find that unlikely.

As for "getting smacked around", I can bet there's more than a few bowlers who'd take 4.69 Eco rate.

If someone takes all but 4.7-an-over (remember his most recent ODIs were against Bangladesh...), accompanied with an average of over 30, they've got a nasty surprise coming when they're dropped like a hot potato, because I'm afraid even Pakistani selectors aren't likely to take that for long!
Australia have the best attack by a mile? McGrath and Gillespie are good, but they're not good enough to make-up for the substandardness of 3, 4 or even 5 other bowlers.
Lee mightn't get genuine tail-enders out but for me the like of Oram, McCullum, Adams etc. (this example being those excuses for decent batsmen who were included in a 6-wicket burst after he had taken none in his first spell) aren't much better.
Anyway, twice so what? What about those he's got out once?

 

[Richard]

Top Order (1-3) 55 (40.1%)
Middle Order (4-7) 50 (36.5%)
Tail (8-11) 32 (23.4%)

Trouble with these sorts of generalisations is they're like almost any generalisation - never completely true.
I am not trying to say something this pronounced can be meaningless because of likely just a few anomalies, but to take this as the be-all-and-end-all can never be the best of ideas IMO.

 

[Richard]

That's not true once again you are going on like you know it all.

During an ODI against England last year Channel 9 gave stat's showing were a bowler has had his most succsess ie batting position. And like it or not Lee take's most of his wickets off batsman batting at number three and four.

I cant remember exactly but It clearly showd that most of his wickets are NOT tail enders. Somthing like 65% of his wickets were batsman between number 1-6.

That figure was also very simular for Gillespie and McGrath as well.
It was actulay very much the same for all of the bowlers they looked at with slight diffrences depending on wether you bowled first change opened etc..

Fine, if you say so.
Maybe I am taking some events to be more regular than they are. There is no denying the fact that Lee has taken lower-order bursts (such as the one v. NZ's excuse for a lower-order in WC2003) but so, I guess, will anyone if they play enough.
One thing that is definately true is that Lee, in both the VB Series and WC2003, had periods where he couldn't buy wickets for s**t(SL match at SCG to Eng match at Adelaide; entire WC first stage) followed by periods where he got gifted stacks of wickets. And no, I didn't watch any of the games, but I did read reports and in some cases listen to radio commentary and most of the time wickets were the result of poor strokes (and not poor strokes brought about by accurate bowling) rather than good deliveries.
I can't comment on the West Indian ODIs except to say that West Indies' batting-line-up isn't exactly the best. Bangladesh scarecly matters. He got wickets consistently in the PSO Tournament, yes, but Pakistan were hardly in a good vein and Kenya are barely an ODI class team. Again, the pattern of VB Series 2002\03 and WC2003 was evident in SA in 2002; two 4-fors and two 0-fors. I can't remember much about VB Series 2001\02 but he again had a low average. In NatWest Series 2001, I can say without a doubt that he got gifted wickets from the third game onwards.
The pre-February2001 period is as irrelevant in ODIs as in Tests, and in any case, his average is barely different.
And the one fact not in dispute is that, with some exceptions, Lee goes for plenty.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lee might be crap in tests, but he is a good ODI bowler. If I remember rightly, he was one of Australias best bowlers in the world cup.

 

[marc71178]

If someone takes all but 4.7-an-over (remember his most recent ODIs were against Bangladesh...), accompanied with an average of over 30

Brett Lee has a career average of 21.43, which is nowhere near 30.

Australia have the best attack by a mile? McGrath and Gillespie are good, but they're not good enough to make-up for the substandardness of 3, 4 or even 5 other bowlers.

Substandardness? For a start Lee is one of the best One Day bowlers in the world, and have you forgotten the fact that most of his games also featued some leg-spinner called Shane - but then again, I guess he was also substandard, hence he's no longer playing?

Lee mightn't get genuine tail-enders out but for me the like of Oram, McCullum, Adams etc. (this example being those excuses for decent batsmen who were included in a 6-wicket burst after he had taken none in his first spell) aren't much better.

They can all score runs (all average in excess of 15, without many not outs, which doesn't suggest to me they're tail-enders)

Anyway, twice so what? What about those he's got out once?

Anderson
Bond (at a push)
Fernando
Gough
Kirtley
Kamande (not sure where he bats)
Nagamootoo
Suji
Tuffey
Vaas

About the worst batsmen he's "only" got once - but there's another 54 he's got out once, so I may have missed some.

 

[marc71178]

Trouble with these sorts of generalisations is they're like almost any generalisation - never completely true.
I am not trying to say something this pronounced can be meaningless because of likely just a few anomalies, but to take this as the be-all-and-end-all can never be the best of ideas IMO.

So it's just coincidence that the majority of player he gets out bat in the top order then?

Surely since "McGrath and Gillespie carry the attack of substandard bowlers", he's lucky to even get a bowl, let alone consistently get the opposing teams top batsmen out?

 

[Swanny]

Fine, if you say so.
Maybe I am taking some events to be more regular than they are. There is no denying the fact that Lee has taken lower-order bursts (such as the one v. NZ's excuse for a lower-order in WC2003) but so, I guess, will anyone if they play enough.
One thing that is definately true is that Lee, in both the VB Series and WC2003, had periods where he couldn't buy wickets for s**t(SL match at SCG to Eng match at Adelaide; entire WC first stage) followed by periods where he got gifted stacks of wickets. And no, I didn't watch any of the games, but I did read reports and in some cases listen to radio commentary and most of the time wickets were the result of poor strokes (and not poor strokes brought about by accurate bowling) rather than good deliveries.
I can't comment on the West Indian ODIs except to say that West Indies' batting-line-up isn't exactly the best. Bangladesh scarecly matters. He got wickets consistently in the PSO Tournament, yes, but Pakistan were hardly in a good vein and Kenya are barely an ODI class team. Again, the pattern of VB Series 2002\03 and WC2003 was evident in SA in 2002; two 4-fors and two 0-fors. I can't remember much about VB Series 2001\02 but he again had a low average. In NatWest Series 2001, I can say without a doubt that he got gifted wickets from the third game onwards.
The pre-February2001 period is as irrelevant in ODIs as in Tests, and in any case, his average is barely different.
And the one fact not in dispute is that, with some exceptions, Lee goes for plenty.

Not sure how you can say with any authority someone got 'gifted' wickets when you didn't even see the game. REports are just someones opinion. Reading a match report from you and Mark on the same game would be interesting. I'd bet they would report two very different set of events.

I'd say the WI ODI batting line is one the best in the world at the minute, if they had any bowlers they'd be a major force.

He virtually won the 2nd VS series final on his own after England looked set to cruise it. Your argument seems to be based around the idea that when Lee gets someone out there rubbish and when he doesn't take wickets its because the bowlings awful!!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I can't comment on the West Indian ODIs except to say that West Indies' batting-line-up isn't exactly the best.

Well we don't play to potential most of the times, but...

CH Gayle 40.14 avge, 7 hundreds, 12 fifties
WW Hinds 30.75, 4 hundreds (2 v Aus), 12 fifties
(42.93, 3 hundreds, 2 fifties this year)
BC Lara 43.04, 18 hundreds, 52 fifties
RR Sarwan 44.31, 1 hundred, 8 fifties
S Chanderpaul 36.02, 3 hundreds, 25 fifties
MN Samuels 32.83, 1 hundred, 10 fifties

It's not Australia-quality, but it's certainly better than half the teams in the world.

 

[Richard]

Gayle and Lara both very good indeed; Sarwan's average has dropped like a stone since the Second ODI that series; Chanderpaul is another good player but he didn't play that series; Hinds as you know I don't rate as an opener, even if he got 2 centuries (and more significantly averaged over 100) as an opener that series; and I really haven't rated Samuels since I saw him in Australia. Not much has happened since to change my ideas. His ODI average isn't too bad, no denying that, but if he plays against SA I'd expect it to drop like a stone.

 

[Richard]

Lee might be crap in tests, but he is a good ODI bowler. If I remember rightly, he was one of Australias best bowlers in the world cup.

From the Super Six onwards he averaged, I think, closer to 10 than 20. In the groups he looked the unthreatening run-machine I consider he could always look. Exactly the same pattern as the second half of the preceding VB Series. 1 wicket in 3 games, then something like 10 in the next 4.

 

[Richard]

Brett Lee has a career average of 21.43, which is nowhere near 30.

I never said it was; I simply stated that I think the statement:

I can bet there's more than a few bowlers who'd take 4.69 Eco rate.

is grossly incorrect.

Substandardness? For a start Lee is one of the best One Day bowlers in the world, and have you forgotten the fact that most of his games also featued some leg-spinner called Shane - but then again, I guess he was also substandard, hence he's no longer playing?

I was replying to the comment:

Australia have the best attack by a mile

Hence, given that Warne has officially retired from ODIs, that statement of "fact" makes the past irrelevant.
I'm afraid you're not going to change my view that Lee, Bracken, Williams, Hauritz, Watson, Harvey, Bichel, Kasprowicz etc. are not ODI standard bowlers just by throwing a few statistics at me (which you can't really do in some of those cases anyway). As far as I'm concerned while these are in Australia's ODI attack, it is poor. And it'll take some length of good bowling to change my view.

They can all score runs (all average in excess of 15, without many not outs, which doesn't suggest to me they're tail-enders)

OK, maybe they're better than tail-enders. I still maintain that they're palpapbly substandard as far as international cricket is concerned, but I shouldn't have brough generalisations into it - I should simply have stuck to stating the fact that, from what I heard (from several sources, not just one, Swanny!), Lee got more wickets with deliveries that had little special about them than from genuine good-'uns.

Anderson
Bond (at a push)
Fernando
Gough
Kirtley
Kamande (not sure where he bats)
Nagamootoo
Suji
Tuffey
Vaas

About the worst batsmen he's "only" got once - but there's another 54 he's got out once, so I may have missed some.

Well, I think my above statement covers this.

 

[Richard]

So it's just coincidence that the majority of player he gets out bat in the top order then?

No, as I said, I was just commenting on the dangers of generalisation, not specifically quabbling this case.
I should have known you'd try to turn it to your advantage.

 

[Richard]

Not sure how you can say with any authority someone got 'gifted' wickets when you didn't even see the game. REports are just someones opinion. Reading a match report from you and Mark on the same game would be interesting. I'd bet they would report two very different set of events.

I'd say the WI ODI batting line is one the best in the world at the minute, if they had any bowlers they'd be a major force.

He virtually won the 2nd VS series final on his own after England looked set to cruise it. Your argument seems to be based around the idea that when Lee gets someone out there rubbish and when he doesn't take wickets its because the bowlings awful!!

Yes, basically.
Seriously, from what I hear and read, rarely just one source, Lee might have all the requistites, but he rarely seems to take wickets with good balls.
A comparison of match-reports from me and marc would indeed by very interesting - an idea worth pursuing.

 

[marc71178]

Hence, given that Warne has officially retired from ODIs, that statement of "fact" makes the past irrelevant.

Warne has played in almost all ODI's that Lee has though, so it becomes relevant when discussing his career.

Well, I think my above statement covers this.

How?

Those are the worst players he's dismissed only once, and the one's he's dismissed more than once have almost no bad players (about the worst one in that lot has a Test century to his name!)