Brett Lee's final Test wicket tally

[andruid]

I thought he was one of the stand out players in both the last two Ashes series, even more so the one England actually won, than the 5-0 whitewash in Australia that followed thereafter.

 

[Matt79]

But that's all about your criteria for when Lee has been good vs. when he's been tripe and I, and many others, simply don't agree with your selections. He's been decent since getting back into the team, if not as good as he has been in the last 2 years, and in that period was comparable to similar years from McDermott or others...

Players have ups and downs. Lee's certainly had those. But you can't ignore the fact that compared to McDermott, over a very similar number of tests, he's taken a very similar number of wickets, at a very similar average, having played against some very good opponents and often in conditions that have done him no favours. His peaks and troughs have probably been more extreme than someone like McDermott, but I don't consider that to take away from him.

 

[aussie]

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.

Not accurate.

On Garth McKenzie having once had a look at his career in full in the second tier of Australia pacemen i'd personally put him 1st, given the pitches world-wide he had to bowl on in the 60s.

 

[Richard]

But that's all about your criteria for when Lee has been good vs. when he's been tripe and I, and many others, simply don't agree with your selections. He's been decent since getting back into the team, if not as good as he has been in the last 2 years, and in that period was comparable to similar years from McDermott or others...

Players have ups and downs. Lee's certainly had those. But you can't ignore the fact that compared to McDermott, over a very similar number of tests, he's taken a very similar number of wickets, at a very similar average, having played against some very good opponents and often in conditions that have done him no favours. His peaks and troughs have probably been more extreme than someone like McDermott, but I don't consider that to take away from him.

As I've said ad infinitum, overall careers mean little to me. Lee was woeful for a long time; McDermott, while far from outstanding for a while, was certainly better '84/85-'88/89 than Lee was 2001-2006/07.

And you can argue that Lee was better in 2005/06 than at any time since 2000/01 - sure, he was, no questions about that, but I was less than convinced by him and certainly he was out-and-out poor in 2006/07 IMO. And it's only since 2007/08 that he's been really what I'd call convincingly Test-class (though I presume he would've been 1999/2000-2000/01 too).

 

[Furball]

Richard's seperation of Lee's career into good vs rubbish immediately falls on it's face when you consider how well Lee bowled in the last 2 Ashes series, and his actual stats for those series.

His stats don't do him any justice whatsoever from those series, particularly in England.

 

[Richard]

Not accurate.

It is everso slightly inaccurate true, as he had a decent 2005/06 which was certainly far more than he did at any point 2001-2005, but it was followed-up by a very poor 2006/07, which rather undid any move toward being convincing for my money.

On Garth McKenzie having once had a look at his career in full in the second tier of Australia pacemen i'd personally put him 1st, given the pitches world-wide he had to bowl on in the 60s.

I've not taken a hell of a lot of a look at McKenzie, ever, but I've never considered there to be all that much between him and McDermott and Gillespie. And of course Merv Hughes too.

Paul Reiffel is another you could possibly throw into the mix, though he was never an out-and-out fixture in the side, he got injured too often.

 

[Woodster]

In the last 3 years Brett Lee averages an outstanding 25.87, in that time there is only quick bowler that has taken more than his 132 wickets (Ntini 137). He has certainly been consistent for at least this length of time.

 

[Richard]

Richard's seperation of Lee's career into good vs rubbish immediately falls on it's face when you consider how well Lee bowled in the last 2 Ashes series, and his actual stats for those series.

His stats don't do him any justice whatsoever from those series, particularly in England.

I'd actually say the opposite - Lee's figures flattered him ridiculously in 2006/07 (in the last two Tests at least), and they pretty well accurately reflected how he bowled in 2005. True, he had the odd catch go down and the odd decision not go his way in the latter, but he bowled a load of crap very often and also benefited from England's poor batting as much as Warne on occasion (Edgbaston second-innings; Trent Bridge second-innings). That's not to say he never once bowled well - his spells on the opening morning at Old Trafford in 2005 and the final afternoon at Adelaide in 2006/07 were both excellent, and he cashed-in on the extremely friendly surface at Lord's in 2005 well enough, though obviously nowhere near as well as McGrath on the first afternoon did. But good spells from him were a rarity in both recent Ashes series'.

 

[Matt79]

As I've said ad infinitum, overall careers mean little to me. Lee was woeful for a long time; McDermott, while far from outstanding for a while, was certainly better '84/85-'88/89 than Lee was 2001-2006/07.

And you can argue that Lee was better in 2005/06 than at any time since 2000/01 - sure, he was, no questions about that, but I was less than convinced by him and certainly he was out-and-out poor in 2006/07 IMO. And it's only since 2007/08 that he's been really what I'd call convincingly Test-class (though I presume he would've been 1999/2000-2000/01 too).

Overall career stats don't mean everything in isolation, but there comes a point where you simply look foolish or unwilling to objectively examine a cherished theory when you insist on disregarding them. And career stats are not the only thing I'm basing my opinion on.

 

[Richard]

The only time I ever take much notice of career figures is if there is little to no change over a career.

And for players with careers of any great length, you can count cases like this on one hand. Players who take immediately to Test cricket, who go through their careers without any serious loss of form or injury problems, and retire or are dropped without having had any end-of-career comedown.

Both Brett Lee and Craig McDermott's career averages tell you little to nothing about them. Ditto Jason Gillespie. There's just too much that happened, that changed, over their careers for them to do so.

I don't think a constant stance (ie, under no circumstance these days do I ever talk much about a career record for any player - haven't done for several years) amounts to "being unwilling to objectively examine a cherished theory when I insist on disregarding them". I've examined any theory I have objectively - else it wouldn't have been formed! Virtually no theory of mine is based on career averages.

 

[SJS]

Australia are going to play the following matches after this

2008-09

- 3 more in India
- 2 against NZL att home
- 3 against SAF at home
- 3 agaainst SAF away​

2009

- 5 in England​

That is 16 more Tests in the next one year. At 4.5 wickets per Test, that should give him another 72 wickets taking his tally to 363 and he will be in his 33rd year. That is assuming he will be fit and perform at his normal level. There are no weak teams in this period remember and his tally could be lower by at least ten wickets maybe 20. Remember he has never played more than 11 Tests in a calender year and only once taken 40 wickets or more in a calendar year. I would say sixty wickets in the next one year could be closer to the facts. That just gives him 350 wickets `by this time next year.

He should play another year after that and at the very best two years. That will give him another 40 to 70 wickets. So we are looking at his ending his career at between 400 and 420 wickets.

 

[sledger]

Am honoured...had no Idea Gelman felt this way..

 

[Richard]

Australia are going to play the following matches after this

2008-09

- 3 more in India
- 2 against NZL att home
- 3 against SAF at home
- 3 agaainst SAF away​

2009

- 5 in England​

That is 16 more Tests in the next one year. At 4.5 wickets per Test, that should give him another 72 wickets taking his tally to 363 and he will be in his 33rd year. That is assuming he will be fit and perform at his normal level. There are no weak teams in this period remember

Hmm, I'd say NZ's batting is pretty weak and England's certainly potentially is (as well as being potentially fairly strong).

India and SA should be more of a challenge.

 

[Furball]

Lee was awesome in the second dig at Trent Bridge 2005. His ball to get Flintoff was an absolute beauty.

That Australia got so close to stealing that Test was everything to do with Warne and Lee. They carried the side that Test.

 

[Manee]

Brett Lee is a total gun, can see him lasting up to 400+ wickets.

 

[aussie]

It is everso slightly inaccurate true, as he had a decent 2005/06 which was certainly far more than he did at any point 2001-2005, but it was followed-up by a very poor 2006/07, which rather undid any move toward being convincing for my money.

Very picky indeed. Lee has stepped it up since the Gabba test of 05, yea he probably didn't do as well vs England as some expected but i wouldn't read too much into that one bit.

I've not taken a hell of a lot of a look at McKenzie, ever, but I've never considered there to be all that much between him and McDermott and Gillespie. And of course Merv Hughes too.

Paul Reiffel is another you could possibly throw into the mix, though he was never an out-and-out fixture in the side, he got injured too often.

Pitches in the 60s were pretty docile & McKenzie was almost a one-man bowling attack for the majority of that period (all due respect to Neil Hawke). I reckoned if he played in the 70s partnering Lillee, he would averaged far less the 29..

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lee's been more or less consistently good in test cricket since the home summer following the '05 Ashes. Can't really see how anyone who watched the matches could think otherwise.

Anyway, he'll land somewhere close to the 400 mark, on one side or the other. He wouldn't play on much after 33-34 unless he makes some significant changes to his game, I shouldn't think.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Interesting. He is shouldering far more of a workload since McGrath gave it away and is all-but 32 now, but he does still look like an absolute athlete & seems to bowl within himself more nowadays, so I'd think he's got 3 years in him. Could see him carrying on until the 2010/11 Ashes, form and injury permitting. 35-40 wickets per year seems reasonable judging by his recent form (HowStat), so that'll put him over 400 for mine.

 

[Richard]

Lee was awesome in the second dig at Trent Bridge 2005. His ball to get Flintoff was an absolute beauty.

That Australia got so close to stealing that Test was everything to do with Warne and Lee. They carried the side that Test.

The Flintoff ball was a good-'un. The ones to get Bell and Pietersen were both simply very poor batting indeed.

The reason they got as close as they did to winning it was because of England's over-haste to reach the target and their poor batting, something which was a common sight that series.

 

[Richard]

Lee's been more or less consistently good in test cricket since the home summer following the '05 Ashes. Can't really see how anyone who watched the matches could think otherwise.

It'd be a bit more accurate I think to say that anyone who looked purely at the figures without watching the matches would think he'd been consistently good. He was extremely poor, as ever, in the 2006/07 Ashes having bowled pretty reasonably the previous summer. And of course he was exceptional in 2007/08.