Lee as Good as Windies Quicks - Sir Viv

[archie mac]

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.

Fair enough, when did Ambrose start?

 

[SJS]

Tell you what. Ishant Sharma, Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth might have all got into ther West Indies side of 1970-71 (Mr Gavaskar's grand debut series)

I can see the screaming headlines in tomorrow's Indian dailies :-

Indian pace attack as good as West Indies in the 70's.
Sir SJ's stunning revelation to world media ​

 

[Manee]

Tell you what. Ishant Sharma, Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth might have all got into ther West Indies side of 1970-71 (Mr Gavaskar's grand debut series)

I can see the screaming headlines in tomorrow's Indian dailies :-

Indian pace attack as good as West Indies in the 70's.
Sir SJ's stunning revelation to world media ​

I think their nationality may have hindered them.

 

[DaRick]

Fair enough, when did Ambrose start?

During the 1987/88 season.

 

[archie mac]

During the 1987/88 season.

Thanks for that

 

[Richard]

Ambrose begun his career shortly after Holding and Garner had finished.

Anyway the suggestion that West Indies never had four outstanding seamers at once after Roberts' retirement in 1983/84 isn't true at all - Walsh in 1984/85 may not have been the bowler he was to become, but he was still far from a soft option, and the attack of Marshall-Holding-Garner-Walsh that Australian summer destroyed all.

Also, dismiss the notion that Patrick Patterson was in the slightest less impressive in his debut series in 1986 than Lee has been for the last 6 months. In that series he is generally thought to have bowled as quickly as anyone for West Indies in the previous decade, including Croft, including even Holding circa 1976. There were no speedguns so this can't be substantiated, but he certainly hurried-up plenty of excellent players. Graham Gooch, who dealt with the West Indian seamers of the 1980s better than near enough anyone (yes, including Sunil Gavaskar, who played only the occasional good innings against truly excellent bowlers), was said to have been most worried about his safety during Patterson's opening series.

Patterson thereafter was mostly fairly average - but Lee too has been mostly fairly average, in fact quite a bit worse than that, for most of his career. I'll wait a while before deciding who's better out of those two.

A more appropriate date for the finish of the West Indian pace deadliness would be 1986/87. Holding and Garner played sporadically that season, neither with the effect they had had previously, and retired at the end of it, and Ambrose and Walsh did not become the true forces they were eventually known as until 1990, by which time Marshall was about to retire. Winston Benjamin was far from a poor bowler either, and should certainly have played far more than he did. And of course Ian Bishop was magnificent for most of his career, interrupted as it was.

 

[Jono]

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 .

Haha fair enough, you got me there.

I'll re-state that by saying "from pure visual watching, Ambrose and McGrath are the only fast bowlers i've seen who were clearly better over a small pocket of form" than Lee. Waqar PROBABLY was going by all accounts and obvious dominance of stats, but I never saw it.

 

[Richard]

Donald CLEARLY was by any possible measure too IMO, and TBH it flabbergasts me that anyone who knows a thing about cricket could suggest otherwise.

Honestly Jono, what is it about you and Donald? Not satisfied with "Warne ****s all over Donald" it's now "Brett Lee for these 6 months has been better than he ever was".

 

[Jono]

Firstly, I love(d) Donald

Secondly, Warne does **** over Donald, and Akram, and Waqar, and Pollock (as a bowler). Although in hindsight '**** over' is a disrespectful term to such greats. But he's a better bowler IMO, significantly.

Thirdly, I never EVER said Lee in teh past 6 months has been better than Donald. I said as good as Donald has ever been. Read the post I quoted by Faaip ,where he said he's bowled as good as anyone he's ever seen.

So you suggesting I have a personal vendetta against Donald (particularly since I mentioned Akram in that same post earlier, and I LOVE AKRAM) is stupid and I don't like it.

 

[Jono]

And for the record Richard, if it makes you feel any better, overall as a bowler, Donald ****s on Lee.

 

[Richard]

Well Donald was significantly better than Lee has ever been and Warne ever was, as far as I'm concerned, and I simply don't see how it makes any sense to suggest otherwise. I also think Wasim Akram was, too. I can't find any Fuller posts this thread quoting you, so I've presumed it was this one the other way around. As good as Donald is bad enough, TBH. As I said - I'd say there were quite a few six-month periods where Donald bowled better than Lee has here.

BTW I wasn't trying to suggest you had a "personal vendetta" against Donald, simply that you don't seem to consider him as good as I think you should.

 

[Jono]

That's your view Richard. I disagree. No dramas at all, and I don't think you should pull me up regarding my view that Lee over the last 6 months has bowled as well as Donald has, particularly taking into account the strain he's had and the tracks he's bowled on.

And yes I meant Faaips post which I quote, where he said "I think Lee in recent times has bowled about as well as any fast bowler I've seen".

I was agreeing with that mostly, but just saying that I think the same except McGrath and Ambrose at some stages bowled better. Donald IMO, no, about just as good. Same with Wasim, taking all things into account.

 

[silentstriker]

Lee over the last year or so, to me, has certainly been as good as Donald was. In fact, considering the pitches he was bowling on, and the batsmen he was bowling against, he has been as good as pretty much anyone that I've seen, including McGrath. The beauty of McGrath though was keeping it up for a decade and a half with exceptional consistency. But over the course of a single year, if you are comparing that and only that, Lee has been as good as anyone that I've seen.

 

[Migara]

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 you consider the peaks (the length of the peak is variable), then Lee < Waqar < Shoaib.

Shoaib is the best bowler I have ever seen when he's on the song. He could decimate any side in to rubble within a matter of 10 overs.

 

[Jono]

I love Shoaib, probably my favourite cricketer, but when exactly has he even played 6 months straight?

I'm not talking peaks as in when they're at their peak, but a pocket of 6-12 months.

 

[SJS]

I think their nationality may have hindered them.

Verrrry good point.

 

[funnygirl]

sreesanth on song is the best bowler ,heck even bundled out SA for 84( i am talking about that particular spell only when he was at his best,tell me who else bundled a good team under 100) ,enuff said . definitely on par with Holding .

 

[funnygirl]

Haha fair enough, you got me there.

I'll re-state that by saying "from pure visual watching, Ambrose and McGrath are the only fast bowlers i've seen who were clearly better over a small pocket of form" than Lee. Waqar PROBABLY was going by all accounts and obvious dominance of stats, but I never saw it.

I don;t think u can prove that without ''statistics '',even if they trouble the batsmen and didn;t take any wickets .

Lee has been bowling so well .He deserves a lot of praise .

But without looking at statistics can u explain how Wasim performed in 1990 and Donald in 1992?. From what u saw .

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Also, dismiss the notion that Patrick Patterson was in the slightest less impressive in his debut series in 1986 than Lee has been for the last 6 months.

Interesting theory, made more so by the fact that that notion hasn't been put forward anywhere.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Im not saying Kasprowicz performed better than Lee in those respective periods, was just arguing the point that bowlers cant have short periods where they bowl above expectations and then return to being crap. I dont expect that from Lee of course, but it has happened before.
As far as leading an attack is concerned, its kind of impossible to do that when you have Mcgrath and Gillespie in the same side so its not a mark on Kasprowicz IMO.