Brett Lee's final Test wicket tally

[Craig]

Given that he is on 291 Test wickets, he is, unless struck by lightening or goes to turn his car on and it explodes for no apparent reason ( ), he will get 300 Test wickets this summer, so have a punt at how many wickets he will end up with.

Given that he is 31, and has played only 69 Tests, he does have a fair way to go, but then again, anything could happen.

 

[Goughy]

I think he will hang around until 400.

 

[Craig]

That said I'm going between 376-400. It is pretty funny to recall an old TEC post a few years ago stating that Lee would not make any Test team apart from your four Asian Test teams, Zimbabwe and West Indies. ITSTL.

 

[Craig]

I think he will hang around until 400.

That is an interesting question, if he does indeed reach that milestone, where would that rank him in his place among Australian fast bowlers and fast bowling in general? To get 400 (presuming he does) is obviously a great achievement and would deserve his place in history, but would it make him a 'very good' fast bowler or a 'great'? What I'm trying to say and think of a bowler like Courtney Walsh, who with 519 Test wickets was clearly not a hack, but wasn't in the same bracket as your Malcolm Marshall or Michael Holding, judging by the countless books on West Indian fast bowlers that I have read.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Really surprised to see that he is now the 4th highest wicket-taker for Australia. Thought Gillespie would be well in front, TTYTT.

 

[Indipper]

That is an interesting question, if he does indeed reach that milestone, where would that rank him in his place among Australian fast bowlers and fast bowling in general? To get 400 (presuming he does) is obviously a great achievement and would deserve his place in history, but would it make him a 'very good' fast bowler or a 'great'? What I'm trying to say and think of a bowler like Courtney Walsh, who with 519 Test wickets was clearly not a hack, but wasn't in the same bracket as your Malcolm Marshall or Michael Holding, judging by the countless books on West Indian fast bowlers that I have read.

400 is just a number you get to sooner or later if you play a lot of games. Lee still has an average of over 29. Even if he continues to improve and keeps taking the next 109 wickets at 25 apiece, his average would still be 28 and not much below that if he gets them at 23. So while I'm not in the stats brigade, it's a good general indicator and Brett Lee is somewhere in the upper middle classes, so to say, with Alderman et al.

 

[Goughy]

Fair to say he will be 2nd tier.

No matter what he does he will not be a Lillee, Lindwall or McGrath.

He will be in there with the best that are not the greatest. McDermott, Hughes, McKenzie etc

 

[pasag]

I think he has a lot less time then people think and if he's not managed well he could be bowled into the ground by this time next year.

 

[Richard]

Really surprised to see that he is now the 4th highest wicket-taker for Australia. Thought Gillespie would be well in front, TTYTT.

No matter what happens for the rest of Lee's career, Gillespie > him. Gillespie's best was every bit as good as what Lee's achieved the last year, and Gillespie did so much better under "normal" circumstances than Lee ever did.

As to Lee, well... my guess would be that he'd have another couple of years at best of being a good bowler (presuming that he manages to do such a thing as it'd currently be logical to do). He's surprised us before now, so he might do again, but right now I'd not be expecting to see him in the side too far beyond 2010/11, if not out sometime that season. Not entirely sure exactly how many Tests Australia play in that time and wouldn't really want to guess at a wicket tally without doing so. I suppose 400 would probably be a decent estimate.

 

[pup11]

I think 400 is the minimum for him now, given he can maintain the kind of form and fitness he has showed over the last two seasons, but as Gelman said for a bowler like him who puts in so much effort into every ball he bowls, turning him into a workhorse (like the Aussies have) is probably streching things a bit too far, his body could wilt under all that workload, so he needs to used wisely by Australia to make sure he plays for some more years to come.

 

[Jnr.]

I think he has a lot less time then people think and if he's not managed well he could be bowled into the ground by this time next year.

I agree, but not because he's been bowled into the ground. We all know that he's going through separation from his ex-wife, who has primary custody of their son. If Lee is the family man that he has been portrayed to be in the media, that might well be a factor for retirement.

I think about 350 wickets.

 

[Matt79]

Think he'll stick around to try and pass Lillee's 355 before he thinks about calling it quits, and with the changes in recent times that we've already been through, coupled with his excellent last couple of years, I can't see any likely move to force him out, barring a Gillespie-style absolute loss of form.

I think he'll sit comfortably just outside the very top bracket of Aussie quicks (eg. Lillee, Lindwall, McGrath, Davidson), in the next tier of guys like Gillespie, McDermott, McKenzie etc. I'd say there's a case for saying that Lee currently = Gillespie and may end up being better, but it's close enough to be a matter of opinion, and I'm not going to try to change other's opinion on that.

 

[Richard]

I'm flabbergasted anyone would seriously put Lee up with McDermott, Gillespie and McKenzie, right now. Truly flabbergasted. It's unlikely enough that he'll end-up being as good IMO, never mind being so yet.

This is a bowler who accomplished pretty well nothing of note for most of his career. Only the first 7 Tests and the 10 in 2007/08 were good performance (admittedly that good performance was truly excellent).

McKenzie, McDermott and Gillespie all performed extremely well for a good few years, though McDermott took some time to get going (and struggled with injury) and McKenzie and Gillespie had utterly woeful ends to their careers which kinda moved to hide their excellence for most of it.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Richard should be banned from Brett Lee threads. **** me, broken record much? You're a ****ing joke.

 

[Matt79]

I'm flabbergasted anyone would seriously put Lee up with McDermott, Gillespie and McKenzie, right now. Truly flabbergasted. It's unlikely enough that he'll end-up being as good IMO, never mind being so yet.

This is a bowler who accomplished pretty well nothing of note for most of his career. Only the first 7 Tests and the 10 in 2007/08 were good performance (admittedly that good performance was truly excellent).

McKenzie, McDermott and Gillespie all performed extremely well for a good few years, though McDermott took some time to get going (and struggled with injury) and McKenzie and Gillespie had utterly woeful ends to their careers which kinda moved to hide their excellence for most of it.

Think he'll stick around to try and pass Lillee's 355 before he thinks about calling it quits, and with the changes in recent times that we've already been through, coupled with his excellent last couple of years, I can't see any likely move to force him out, barring a Gillespie-style absolute loss of form.

I think he'll sit comfortably just outside the very top bracket of Aussie quicks (eg. Lillee, Lindwall, McGrath, Davidson), in the next tier of guys like Gillespie, McDermott, McKenzie etc. I'd say there's a case for saying that Lee currently = Gillespie and may end up being better, but it's close enough to be a matter of opinion, and I'm not going to try to change other's opinion on that.

What part of the bolded section of my post was unclear to you Rich?

Out of interestm how much of McDermott you actually seen? His statistical record isn't that far superior to Lee's - the overall average is within a run or two and he had similar mix of good and bad years - to prove alone the case that he's much better than Lee. Not to mention that Lee has achieved his success in this era of 'flat tracks' that we all love to whinge about, whereas McDermott was playing back when men were men and pitches were green.

 

[Woodster]

Still looks a total athlete, so it wasn't surprise me if he went on for longer than you may imagine, but how long will he maintain his pace ? Think his record number of wickets for a calendar year is 49, so with all the cricket coming up and if he maintains his form of the last couple of years, think he is going to be touching around 400, which will be a fantastic effort. Obviously barring any serious injuries.

 

[Matt79]

His pace hasn't seriously deteriorated over the near decade of his career to date - barring injury is there any reason to assume it will suddenly desert him? And as with most long term successful quicks, he's shown he is still learning as he's going and what he'll lose in raw pace, he'll gain in guile, and other aspects of his bowling arsenal.

 

[Woodster]

Well that will be the challenge for Lee, whether he can continue to improve despite diminshing pace. No, I'm not suggesting his pace is on the wane, although as he gets older his pace will drop, but he is still very athletic so you hope his pace will be maintained in the 140's for some time yet.

 

[Richard]

Richard should be banned from Brett Lee threads. **** me, broken record much? You're a ****ing joke.

Birthday or not, you're a ****ing joke of times.

 

[Richard]

What part of the bolded section of my post was unclear to you Rich?

None of it. Realising something is an opinion =| not disagreeing with it.

Out of interestm how much of McDermott you actually seen? His statistical record isn't that far superior to Lee's - the overall average is within a run or two and he had similar mix of good and bad years - to prove alone the case that he's much better than Lee. Not to mention that Lee has achieved his success in this era of 'flat tracks' that we all love to whinge about, whereas McDermott was playing back when men were men and pitches were green.

Lee's success in the flat-pitches era amounts, though, as I say, to 10 Tests. That's it. Impressive as this is, it's not a patch on the 40 or 50-odd (can't remember precisely) games that McDermott was successful over, even if McDermott had better bowling conditions. Lee has indeed been more successful in his short period of time than McDermott was (he averaged 26-and-a-half to Lee's current 22) but it's so far a period of no more than a season's length. This is nothing to be jumping around about, the way some people are. Lee needs to do the job for far longer than he so far has before he can really be called a bowler of excellence for any notable length of time.