Shoaib Akhtar v Brett Lee

[marc71178]

No, as I said, I was just commenting on the dangers of generalisation, not specifically quabbling this case.

You what?!!!!!

You for some bizarre reason don't think Lee is a good ODI bowler.

Having shown that he has an exceptional S/R AND average (by dismissing top order players in the main), you say that it is just a generalisation?

Generalisation of what exactly?

 

[Richard]

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

Except that this particular part of the discussion wasn't about Lee, it was about the standard of Australia's attack. Trying to twist words won't cut the mustard, sonny.

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!)

It covers it because I said I shouldn't have brought the standard of player into it. I should simply have stuck to the guns that it doesn't matter how good or bad a player is; good players play bad shots and if a wicket results from a bad shot the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.

 

[Richard]

You what?!!!!!

You for some bizarre reason don't think Lee is a good ODI bowler.

Having shown that he has an exceptional S/R AND average (by dismissing top order players in the main), you say that it is just a generalisation?

Generalisation of what exactly?

Trying to bring the matter of Lee back into it when I've ruled it out won't work, either.
I don't immidiately set any stall by S\R, I look at whether the wickets were taken with good balls (and you can't use the "built-up pressure" argument in Lee's case because he goes for far too many runs for that to make sense), I just thought I'd repeat that.
Generalisation, for your information if you insist on being pedantic, is that players batting at 1-3 are invariably top-order standard players. And it's not invariably true, however there usually aren't enough anomalies for me to quibble over the use of this to show about the standard of batsmen Lee has the wickets of against his name.
And like I say, I should never have brought that into anything, because good batsmen play poor shots. I should simply have said... I really can't be bothered to say it again.

 

[marc71178]

Except that this particular part of the discussion wasn't about Lee, it was about the standard of Australia's attack. Trying to twist words won't cut the mustard, sonny.

I'm twisting words? Discussing Brett Lee's career by mentioning he's part of the best attack in the World by far (which Warne was during that time in question a key part of) and now you tell me I was only talking about the standard of the Aussie attack?

Glad you can read my mind, but I think that you're the one twisting my words because I said is rather than was.

It covers it because I said I shouldn't have brought the standard of player into it. I should simply have stuck to the guns that it doesn't matter how good or bad a player is; good players play bad shots and if a wicket results from a bad shot the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.

So it's all a major fluke that Lee has got and will almost certainly continue to get good players out whilst maintaining a low S/r and Average?

Pull the other one.

 

[marc71178]

Trying to bring the matter of Lee back into it when I've ruled it out won't work, either.

The thread title is "Shoaib Akhtar vs Brett Lee" - how can you rule Brett Lee out of it (since we're discussing your claim that he's over-rated)?

I don't immidiately set any stall by S\R, I look at whether the wickets were taken with good balls

Words fail me - you keep bringing this same point up, yet criticise others for restating things.

Generalisation, for your information if you insist on being pedantic, is that players batting at 1-3 are invariably top-order standard players. And it's not invariably true

You want a bet - take a look at the current top 3s in ODI's and try again.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

Unfortunately for you (and your pleasure) Samuels is injured and won't face South Africa.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It covers it because I said I shouldn't have brought the standard of player into it. I should simply have stuck to the guns that it doesn't matter how good or bad a player is; good players play bad shots and if a wicket results from a bad shot the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.

So what you're trying to say is that you've seen most of Brett Lee's 137 ODI wickets and most of them have been either tailenders or poor shots?

So you saw when he bowled Gary Kirsten twice (Kirstenesque swipes no doubt), had Lara (for a duck), Stewart (twice), Anwar, Arnold, Gayle, and Jimmy Adams LBW (horrible shots), Astle caught at slip for 0, Boucher caught behind for 0 and bowled for 0, Boje LBW for 0, Cullinun bowled for 0, Younis Khan caught for 0, Aravinda caught for 0, Trescothick caught behind for 0 and caught out for 0, Ganguly and Sehwag caught behind for 9 and 4 respectively, Jayawardene caught behind for 0, Tillekeratne caught behind for 3, Bashar caught behind for 0, Alok Kapali bowled for 0 - you've seen them all? Horrible, horrible shots I expect.

You amuse me Richard. You really do.

 

[Eclipse]

Richard I bet you have not even seen 1/3 off Brett Lee's wickets.

 

[rajat]

Y not have poll on this. we have been having poll for various stupid question posted by forum members. I request the moderators to have a poll on this

 

[havocas]

Best wicket in the history of cricket:

Tendulkar bowled golden duck Shoaib in India:

R M B 4 6

SR Tendulkar b Shoaib Akhtar 0 2 1 0 0



OH YEAH

 

[Craig]

Pakistani?

 

[luckyeddie]

Pakistani?

Not sure. His location is given as 'efwefwef'. That's in Norway, isn't it, Samuel_Vimes ?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Not sure. His location is given as 'efwefwef'. That's in Norway, isn't it, Samuel_Vimes ?

No, Sweden

 

[Richard]

Richard I bet you have not even seen 1/3 off Brett Lee's wickets.

I saw every single one from NatWest Series 2001 to the South Africa 7-ODI series in March-April 2002. I didn't see any before or after. And as I've said, before seems to be a different era if the Test career is anything to go by.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately for you (and your pleasure) Samuels is injured and won't face South Africa.

Lucky for him.
Mind you, Ricardo Powell slogged 20 or 30-odd against them in WC2003 and if he can score runs against someone, Samuels might be able to too.

 

[Richard]

So what you're trying to say is that you've seen most of Brett Lee's 137 ODI wickets and most of them have been either tailenders or poor shots?

So you saw when he bowled Gary Kirsten twice (Kirstenesque swipes no doubt), had Lara (for a duck), Stewart (twice), Anwar, Arnold, Gayle, and Jimmy Adams LBW (horrible shots), Astle caught at slip for 0, Boucher caught behind for 0 and bowled for 0, Boje LBW for 0, Cullinun bowled for 0, Younis Khan caught for 0, Aravinda caught for 0, Trescothick caught behind for 0 and caught out for 0, Ganguly and Sehwag caught behind for 9 and 4 respectively, Jayawardene caught behind for 0, Tillekeratne caught behind for 3, Bashar caught behind for 0, Alok Kapali bowled for 0 - you've seen them all? Horrible, horrible shots I expect.

You amuse me Richard. You really do.

I have already named the series' I have seen; work-out for yourself which ones you have seen and whether or not they were good balls.
And "either" tail-enders or poor shots is irrelevant; you can get tail-enders with good balls, but they do play more poor shots than most. Don't worry about where they batted, just look at how good a ball it was.
And I suspect you saw the ODIs in The Caribbean last spring, so you could probably tell us all of his wickets there accurately.

 

[Richard]

I'm twisting words? Discussing Brett Lee's career by mentioning he's part of the best attack in the World by far (which Warne was during that time in question a key part of) and now you tell me I was only talking about the standard of the Aussie attack?

Glad you can read my mind, but I think that you're the one twisting my words because I said is rather than was.

Exactly - you said is, rather than was. Hence Warne is irrelevant because he is most likely in the past.
That particular part of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned, had nothing to do with Lee. I was simply pointing-out that I considered your ascertation that Australia's attack was the best in The World by a mile.

So it's all a major fluke that Lee has got and will almost certainly continue to get good players out whilst maintaining a low S/r and Average?

Pull the other one.

You can't say Lee will "almost certainly" continue to. All either of us can do is wait and see.
Whether he starts to get wickets with wicket-taking balls is entirely another matter and is far more what I was talking about; as I say, statistics aren't the subject of the discussion.
I never actually said "it's a major fluke" or anything along those lines, but you know perfectly well that I won't convert to the a-bowler-deserves-every-wicket-he-has-against-his-name theory.

 

[Richard]

The thread title is "Shoaib Akhtar vs Brett Lee" - how can you rule Brett Lee out of it (since we're discussing your claim that he's over-rated)?

Words fail me - you keep bringing this same point up, yet criticise others for restating things.

You want a bet - take a look at the current top 3s in ODI's and try again.

If no-one ever discussed off-topic points on threads there would be no discussions. It's fair enough to have rules against discussions going round in endless circles, but no thread is invariably going to stay strictly on topic. This particular discussion was irrelevant to Lee and I had stated that. You tried to turn something (I can't even remember exactly what) to your advantage by mentioning Lee again when I had said he was irrelevant.
Very few sides have regular pinch-hitters in the top 3, or in 4-7; it's a waste of time and doesn't work very often, so it's just used as a once-in-a-while tack. Therefore using a generalisation to try to cover for a generalisation won't work either; to do a proper analysis you would need to check every scorecard and look at whether pinch-hitters had been used in the games, not just say "this team's top-three is usually this".

 

[marc71178]

Exactly - you said is, rather than was.

Despite it being clear to almost everyone what I was going on, I am the one twisting the words?

I made a typo, nothing to do with twisting words.

 

[Richard]

Well, if you made a typo, you were attempting to lie.
A case of your typo trutheth up the matter!