The King is dead. Long live the King!

[Engle]

Nice article.
The one point that's not mentioned is that Lee failed to flower under a tutor/mentor no less than the great Glen McGrath. McGrath and Lee will not be thought of as one of the great fast bowling pairs in the same breath as Lillee & Thommo and so many others.

Yet after GM's retirement, he successfully steps into the senior's shoes, proving perhaps a point that promotion may have a bearing on performance/productivity as much as pairing.

 

[Woodster]

I dont like your example of Ashes 2005 either. He didnt bowl badly in that. His average was high but if that is your sole basis for judgement then its tough to argue.

Apart from the noball issue he was always at the batsman and had a disproporionate number of runs come backwards of square. He was used as an attacking option which is illustrated by his high wicket total and high economy due to the aggressive fields set.

I agree, there were occasions when Freddie and KP successfully took him on, but by and large he was very dangerous.

Good article SS.

 

[Richard]

I think you will find there are a lot that have always rated Lee very highly on this forum and something like this season is no suprise to myself and others.

Why? Because you didn't think he bowled poorly 2001-2005? Or because you thought that in spite of this he could still go on to be as good as he has the last 3 months?

I dont like your example of Ashes 2005 either. He didnt bowl badly in that. His average was high but if that is your sole basis for judgement then its tough to argue.

It's nothing to do with overall average. I actually feel his average flattered him. He did well on the seaming, uneven deck in the First Test (despite going for not far short of 5-an-over after his opening burst). Thereafter, he rarely offered much threat other than when England were falling in a heap (not that unusual in that series, the batting was always fragile). The few bags he took were poor strokes rather than good deliveries. After the First Test, the only really good bit of bowling from him in that series was his working-over of Strauss in the first-innings at Old Trafford, which really was superb. Though the ball he should have got Pietersen with at The Oval was a good one too.

Apart from the noball issue he was always at the batsman and had a disproporionate number of runs come backwards of square. He was used as an attacking option which is illustrated by his high wicket total and high economy due to the aggressive fields set.

His wicket total was never particularly high, though. His strike-rate between 2001 and 2005 against Test-class teams was over 61 - not disgraceful, but certainly not good at all. Even if his economy-rate had been better, his average would still have been wholly unremarkable.

 

[aussie]

It's nothing to do with overall average. I actually feel his average flattered him.

His average reflected how he bowled in that series perfectly i thought. He was brilliant in some innings & poor in others. Didn't have the consistency that he has had since the Ashes but he was definately better in the 2005 Ashes than he was between the 2001 Ashes to India 2003/04.

He did well on the seaming, uneven deck in the First Test (despite going for not far short of 5-an-over after his opening burst).

I don't recall him being very expensive at Lord's at all..

Thereafter, he rarely offered much threat other than when England were falling in a heap (not that unusual in that series, the batting was always fragile). The few bags he took were poor strokes rather than good deliveries. After the First Test, the only really good bit of bowling from him in that series was his working-over of Strauss in the first-innings at Old Trafford, which really was superb. Though the ball he should have got Pietersen with at The Oval was a good one too.

The periods where Lee looked threatening in the Ashes where the entire 1st test, 2nd Innings @ Edgbaston, 1st day @ Old Trafford, 2nd Innings @ TB & 1st session of the 5th day @ the Oval (where he had KP Dropped).

Fantastic spells all of them so don't try to undermine it by saying ``The few bags he took were poor strokes rather than good deliveries``.

 

[Richard]

His average reflected how he bowled in that series perfectly i thought. He was brilliant in some innings & poor in others.

Nah, for mine he was brilliant for the odd spell here and there, and poor most of the time.

Didn't have the consistency that he has had since the Ashes but he was definately better in the 2005 Ashes than he was between the 2001 Ashes to India 2003/04.

Yes, indeed. But that's no massive feat of achievement.

I don't recall him being very expensive at Lord's at all..

First 9 overs of the match cost 10, next 21 cost 95.

The periods where Lee looked threatening in the Ashes where the entire 1st test, 2nd Innings @ Edgbaston, 1st day @ Old Trafford, 2nd Innings @ TB & 1st session of the 5th day @ the Oval (where he had KP Dropped).

Fantastic spells all of them so don't try to undermine it by saying ``The few bags he took were poor strokes rather than good deliveries``.

They were poor strokes. The only times Lee bowled particularly well in the series, as I said, was the First Test, the opening burst at Strauss in the Third, and the final day at The Oval. Even in that final day, he mixed nonsense with the odd good ball.

 

[andyc]

Richard, I don't get why you're arguing. People on this forum have been saying for ages that Lee has been constantly improving and becoming a much better bowler and that better figures and performances would soon follow. This has now happened. Therefore, said people were pretty clearly right. I know it may be hard for you to admit that you were wrong, but there's pretty much an obvious indication (ie. the fact that since the 2005 Ashes he's averaged under 26) that this may in fact be the case.

 

[Perm]

There is absolutely no point arguing with you on this Richard, because quite frankly you are wrong on this occasion.

It appears you have decided that Lee is a poor bowler, and will stick by this judgement. In other cases you may produce some obscure amount of statistics or bizzare logic, but you aren't willing to listen to sound reasoning on this case. Bowling well doesn't matter if you don't take wickets, just as batting well doesn't matter if you don't score runs.

EDIT: Good article though, really enjoyed it

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Richard, I don't get why you're arguing. People on this forum have been saying for ages that Lee has been constantly improving and becoming a much better bowler and that better figures and performances would soon follow. This has now happened. Therefore, said people were pretty clearly right. I know it may be hard for you to admit that you were wrong, but there's pretty much an obvious indication (ie. the fact that since the 2005 Ashes he's averaged under 26) that this may in fact be the case.

Richard basically can't be wrong. If he thinks something, and it turns out not to be the case, he was of course still right all along, things merely changed. For example, people once believed the world was flat, and they were in fact right, because there was no reason to believe at the time that the world was spherical, except of course for the obvious pieces of evidence that eventually led to more enlightened individuals discovering the truth. They were right when they thought the world was flat, and right again when they realised it was not. Just like Richard.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I don't get why you're arguing. People on this forum have been saying for ages that Lee has been constantly improving and becoming a much better bowler and that better figures and performances would soon follow. This has now happened. Therefore, said people were pretty clearly right. I know it may be hard for you to admit that you were wrong, but there's pretty much an obvious indication (ie. the fact that since the 2005 Ashes he's averaged under 26) that this may in fact be the case.

As I said in a conversation with Whelan a little while ago, that things happen as they are predicted, while making the prediction an accurate one, doesn't neccessarily make it a good one. It might do, and as I said, if someone said "Lee's going to do well in 2007\08 because he's been doing X and Y since he last played a Test" that'd be fine.

But as I said - AFAIC, there was no good reason to think what people said about Lee in 2005\06 and 2006\07. People have said, any number of times, "he's looking good and the figures will start coming" about certain players, and plenty of times it hasn't happened, too. People were right if they predicted it about Lee in this case, but that doesn't make it a good prediction, at least as far as I'm concerned. Others can perceive it the way they like.

Richard basically can't be wrong. If he thinks something, and it turns out not to be the case, he was of course still right all along, things merely changed. For example, people once believed the world was flat, and they were in fact right, because there was no reason to believe at the time that the world was spherical, except of course for the obvious pieces of evidence that eventually led to more enlightened individuals discovering the truth. They were right when they thought the world was flat, and right again when they realised it was not. Just like Richard.

Rubbish. That's a very poor analogy. The shape of The World doesn't change; the calibre of cricketers does. Maybe people weren't stupid to think The World was flat, but they were still incorrect.

On the other hand, saying Lee was rubbish was correct. It then changed. Cricketers don't stay the same throughout a career. And no, I don't often say "he's crap and he'll always be crap", because I've seen more than enough cases to suggest that's not a very astute thing to say.

 

[Richard]

It appears you have decided that Lee is a poor bowler, and will stick by this judgement.

Nope, I've made no such "decision" or judgement. I won't row back on saying Lee was poor for a long time, though, no. The present and the future doesn't change the past. Lee's past rubbishness doesn't change the fact he's bowled excelletly this summer, and his excellence this summer doesn't change the fact he was rubbish for a long time before it.

In other cases you may produce some obscure amount of statistics or bizzare logic, but you aren't willing to listen to sound reasoning on this case. Bowling well doesn't matter if you don't take wickets, just as batting well doesn't matter if you don't score runs.

Don't see the relevance of any of this TBH.

 

[Swervy]

as you say 'Richard basically can't be wrong'

 

[Richard]

Yes, Fuller's got that one pretty bang on. I take care to say as little as possible which can be conclusively "wrong". It's the sensible thing to do.

I was wrong to think Lee would never get better, which I did (though I'm pretty sure I never actually said it - might be wrong there too mind), and full credit to him for doing so. But I was not wrong to say he was rubbish when he was.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, Fuller's got that one pretty bang on. I take care to say as little as possible which can be conclusively "wrong". It's the sensible thing to do.

I was wrong to think Lee would never get better, which I did (though I'm pretty sure I never actually said it - might be wrong there too mind), and full credit to him for doing so. But I was not wrong to say he was rubbish when he was.

I dont think he was as rubbish as you would make out though, you simply do not take 270 test wickets being as bad as you say he has been.And you do not take a wicket every 50 balls being as bad as you say he has been. Granted, he can be damned frustrating, because he hasnt performed the way his potential always suggested he could. Its great now that he is realising that potential, and the results were bound to come in given his improvement over the last 2 and a half years.

 

[Richard]

I dont think he was as rubbish as you would make out though, you simply do not take 270 test wickets being as bad as you say he has been.And you do not take a wicket every 50 balls being as bad as you say he has been.

But, for the umpteenth time, that isn't the way it's always been. Lee has not been the same bowler all career. There is absolutely no two ways, AFAIC, about the fact he was rubbish between 2001 and 2005, when his strike-rate was over 60 and his average almost 40. I said it just the previous post - do not let one part of a career fool you when judging a very different other part.

Granted, he can be damned frustrating, because he hasnt performed the way his potential always suggested he could. Its great now that he is realising that potential, and the results were bound to come in given his improvement over the last 2 and a half years.

They weren't bound to, at all. And we wait to see what happens next.

 

[Swervy]

But, for the umpteenth time, that isn't the way it's always been. Lee has not been the same bowler all career. There is absolutely no two ways, AFAIC, about the fact he was rubbish between 2001 and 2005, when his strike-rate was over 60 and his average almost 40. I said it just the previous post - do not let one part of a career fool you when judging a very different other part..

Ok, ok...relax man

They weren't bound to, at all. And we wait to see what happens next.

indeed we will

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But, for the umpteenth time, that isn't the way it's always been. Lee has not been the same bowler all career. There is absolutely no two ways, AFAIC, about the fact he was rubbish between 2001 and 2005, when his strike-rate was over 60 and his average almost 40. I said it just the previous post - do not let one part of a career fool you when judging a very different other part.

He was certainly not a good test bowler during that period, no. I think he always had potential, but he flattered himself a bit at the start of his career and had a lot of things to work on. Being dropped helped him, and it was obvious from around the 04/05 summer (IMO) that he had improved dramatically and needed to be brought back into the test side. The results since he returned in the Ashes back that up, as far as I'm concerned, as does his actual performance with the ball. Lee has bowled well in more tests than not since he came back into the team.

Really, the issue people take with your stubborness isn't actually that you were wrong all along. To an extent, you were right about Lee, though I think you were obviously blind to the ability he had, and focused too much on the results. Regardless, what's absurd isn't you saying that Lee was a poor bowler until 2005, or even that he bowled badly some of the time since then, it's that you routinely responded to people saying "Lee is improving, and it will soon show tangible results" with essentialy "no he isn't" and "no it won't", and then when exactly that has occured, you still claim to have been correct. Clearly you weren't, because some people predicted basically exactly what happened. Just because you didn't think the arguments were valid at the time doesn't make them any less correct in hindsight. All the things which made Lee such a fantastic bowler this summer have been evident in his game for the last couple of years, simple as that.

 

[Manee]

It is good to see Brett Lee make such a great improvement and I for one am not shocked at all. His damn near perfect biomechanical action means that he simply needed a settled body position (which he never had) to realise superb accuracy with great pace of 145kph. The body position is not ideal, but the point is that he can repeat it and consequently, enters a spectacular rhythm when he does not run in too fast (something which only happened for one or two spells in the Indian series.

 

[Richard]

Really, the issue people take with your stubborness isn't actually that you were wrong all along. To an extent, you were right about Lee, though I think you were obviously blind to the ability he had, and focused too much on the results. Regardless, what's absurd isn't you saying that Lee was a poor bowler until 2005, or even that he bowled badly some of the time since then, it's that you routinely responded to people saying "Lee is improving, and it will soon show tangible results" with essentialy "no he isn't" and "no it won't", and then when exactly that has occured, you still claim to have been correct. Clearly you weren't, because some people predicted basically exactly what happened. Just because you didn't think the arguments were valid at the time doesn't make them any less correct in hindsight. All the things which made Lee such a fantastic bowler this summer have been evident in his game for the last couple of years, simple as that.

Well, no, I don't think they have been. And that's why I don't think any predictions of how well he'd do this summer were particularly stuff-of-genius, regardless of the fact that they turned-out to be correct.

I don't claim to have been correct for not thinking Lee would bowl as he had this summer, I claim that it was not unreasonable to suggest it was far from certain. And will continue to do so.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, no, I don't think they have been. And that's why I don't think any predictions of how well he'd do this summer were particularly stuff-of-genius, regardless of the fact that they turned-out to be correct.

Brett Lee didn't just wake up one day and decide to be a world-class bowler. He's been showing signs for quite some time. He's the classic example of an overnight success years in the making.

 

[Richard]

Of course he didn't wake-up and decide to, if all it took was the decision that he wanted to be you'd imagine he might just have made said decision a while ago.

As I say, though, I don't think there were any particularly reliable signs pointing to the success of this season. Yes, undoubtedly plenty of people thought it was building, but people think that about players ATT, and they're wrong as often (if not more) than they're right.