Lee as Good as Windies Quicks - Sir Viv

[Richard]

Look back through cricket history if you really want to find some examples.

I'm not saying any Joe Schmatlz could waltz in and do what Lee's done the last 6 months, not at all. But many good bowlers (which is what Lee is at present) have done such a thing for short periods. It's really not such a big deal and it doesn't mean Lee's bowling better than almost anyone has for the last 15 years or more.

 

[Jono]

Nah Richard, you made a statement suggesting there are plenty of bowlers that have done what Lee has done for a period of 6 months, and hence its meaningless.

All I asked for is names. Don't weasel out of it.

 

[Richard]

I said it was "meaningless"? You are kidding me? I said there is no way he's bowled better the last 6 months than Donald (or a good few others) bowled. And there isn't, as far as I'm concerned.

The only particularly remarkable thing about Lee in recent times is how big a contrast there was from his previous rubbishness - it's been more of an achievement for him to do that than it was for someone who was already one of the best around. When someone as routinely good as Donald, or Wasim, or Ambrose, or McGrath, or a good few others, bowled this well it wasn't anywhere near so obviously a stand-out. The bar went up slightly, not miles.

 

[Dissector]

IMO the Lee of the last year or so would walk into almost any test side in the history of the game including all but a few West Indies sides of the 80's. Especially if you factor in his useful batting.

The fact is that very few of the West Indies sides had four great quicks playing at once. Usually it was 2 or 3 greats with 1 or two average to good bowlers. Lee is surely better than the likes of Baptiste, Patterson, Davis etc. He is probably better than Walsh in the 80's and certainly so if you factor his batting.

 

[tooextracool]

Like who? Who has been so awesome on such flat tracks and dismissed such gun batsman?

Most, if not everyone you name will be either a very very good cricketer, or a great.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

 

[Dissector]

On thinking about it further I think Lee (on current form) would be an automatic selection for any West Indies side from 1984 onwards.

From 1980-83, Lee would be a strong contender especially if you consider his batting but not an automatic selection.

 

[archie mac]

On thinking about it further I think Lee (on current form) would be an automatic selection for any West Indies side from 1984 onwards.

From 1980-83, Lee would be a strong contender especially if you consider his batting but not an automatic selection.

Which of the WI bowlers after 1984 say until 1990 would you leave out for Blee?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Which of the WI bowlers after 1984 say until 1990 would you leave out for Blee?

On the 1988 tour of England they had Winston Benjamin and Patrick Patterson, Lee could easilly be selected ahead of them but the idea that he's up there with the really great West Indian bowlers is palpable nonsense.

 

[archie mac]

On the 1988 tour of England they had Winston Benjamin and Patrick Patterson, Lee could easilly be selected ahead of them but the idea that he's up there with the really great West Indian bowlers is palpable nonsense.

Yes, I would agree with both points, but I was interested why he chose 1984, who would you leave out at that time????

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

On the 1988 tour of England they had Winston Benjamin and Patrick Patterson, Lee could easilly be selected ahead of them but the idea that he's up there with the really great West Indian bowlers is palpable nonsense.

You're underrating those two if you think that Lee is easily better than them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, I would agree with both points, but I was interested why he chose 1984, who would you leave out at that time????

On the 1984 tour of England Eldine Baptiste played in all five Tests..............

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You're underrating those two if you think that Lee is easily better than them.

I didn't say he was easily better, but he could easily be picked ahead of them. As far as the true greats like Roberts, Holding and Marshall are concerned Lee isn't in the same class - which is what Sir Viv seems to be suggesting.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Was he suggesting that though? Because there's a difference between the elite of the elite and merely the elite. Um, yea...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

Kasprowicz bowled well during that period but I really don't think it was consistently impressive to the degree that Lee's form has been. One of the more remarkable things about Kasprowicz' bowling in that time was that he was always bowling with the old ball as basically the 3rd or 4th string to the attack, which added a lot to the attack simply because a team having four incredibly dangerous bowlers is rare and hard to deal with.

Lee has led the attack, and IMO, been more dangerous than Kasprowicz was, and more than his statistical record reflects.

 

[Burgey]

Seems from the tone of his commetns that Viv is very impressed by Lee's fitness and stamina. I suppose as a captain he rates these attributes very highly in term of being able to turn to someone for a withering spell late on a hot day's play.

Still seems odd to me that he'd compare Lee with those guys.

 

[funnygirl]

Agreed for the most part. I've only really seen McGrath and Ambrose be considerably better (and Waqar in the 90s was better, but I can't remember that as too young) over a period of say 6 months. I'm not talking stats btw Richard so don't go quoting Donald or Akram stats. I think Lee has been on their par from just watching.

If u r not considering statistics ,based on what u r saying Amrose ,Mcgrath and waqar were better than Lee. As u urself suggested that u were too young to watch Waqar .

 

[Top_Cat]

Kasprowicz bowled well during that period but I really don't think it was consistently impressive to the degree that Lee's form has been. One of the more remarkable things about Kasprowicz' bowling in that time was that he was always bowling with the old ball as basically the 3rd or 4th string to the attack, which added a lot to the attack simply because a team having four incredibly dangerous bowlers is rare and hard to deal with.

Lee has led the attack, and IMO, been more dangerous than Kasprowicz was, and more than his statistical record reflects.

Yep, Kasper was definitely the 3rd quick during that whole period and chipped in with vital break-throughs rather than knocking over the top batters. Lee has not only led the attack but against India, he carried it because Clark wasn't at his best and Johnson was (and is) still finding his feet. With Hogg to round out the attack, Lee had an immense workload and, somehow, managed to find a perfect balance between being the striker and kicking back a gear or two for long spells whilst still looking like taking wickets.

Alright, can we just say once and for all that Viv wasn't suggesting Lee is any better than the WI greats? Some of the comments criticising Viv really are dumb. He's not saying Lee is in the class of Holding, Marshall, etc. overall. He's just saying that Lee has bowled well enough in the last year or two to at least have touched their level temporarily which, considering the dreck Lee has bowled in his Test career sometimes, is actually quite a compliment and a fair step up for Lee. I don't think even Craig McDermott got there and he was considered, for the early part of the 90's, to be in the top couple of quicks for that time.

Considering the batsmen, pitches and sheer workload Lee has had to contend with, all post-30 years old no less, it's an immense achievement to come up with the numbers he has. I'd back almost no other bowler currently running round today to stay fit in those circumstances. Dale Steyn may have slightly better numbers but he's at least had good bowlers around him and has certainly bowled a lot less overs per match (25% less by a quick calculation) and I'd have backed him to have an injury with Lee's workload. Not a knock against him at all; just stating how fit Lee is.

 

[Burgey]

In the 9 tests he's played since the Ashes in 06/07, Lee has taken 58 wickets at 21.55, with an ER of 3.01 and a SR of 42.8.
Compared with the balance of his career after his elbow injury v WI, they're great numbers.
But apart from the numbers, you can see the improvement in his bowling from just wtaching him. He's delviering quality almost every spell of late.

 

[sanga1337]

A bunch of them only played 50-odd Tests. Holding makes no bones about that, how it would have been impossible to keep it up with the current workload on fast bowlers.

50 odd is still a lot more tests than the 20 odd Lee has played. If Lee can keep up his great form for a few more years than yes I agree he's definitely up there with the Garner, roberts, and definitely past croft. Its still nothing compared to Ambrose and Marshall however.

 

[Dissector]

Yes, I would agree with both points, but I was interested why he chose 1984, who would you leave out at that time????

I chose 1984 because Roberts retired in 1983. From 80-83 Lee would compete with Croft,Roberts,Garner,Holding and Marshall which would obviously be difficult though on current form it's not crazy to suggest he would have gotten picked sometimes. After all even those greats had their ups and downs not to mention injuries.

From 84 onwards the West Indies never had four bowlers of that quality playing at once. They had a quite a few ordinary bowlers. The toughest cases are probably Walsh and Benjamin and while both were good bowlers I think today's Lee is clearly better especially with his batting.