Brett Lee's final Test wicket tally

[Streetwise]

Maybe a few Australians who can see only good in Australian players might remember him as that, but most will likely remember him as, largely, a passenger whose team-mates were almost always good enough to carry him and not allow his marked inferiority to most\all of them to affect the team's success.

And a passenger who occasionally broke free from the depths of woefulness to achieve very brief spells of true excellence.

Sorry Richard that is how most cricketers will remember him, you on the other hand will just have to get over it.

 

[Richard]

I very much doubt most cricketers will remember him as such - as it stands neither you, me nor anyone else can comment with authority on how they'll remember him as such a consensus is yet to be built-up.

 

[Furball]

I very much doubt most cricketers will remember him as such - as it stands neither you, me nor anyone else can comment with authority on how they'll remember him as such a consensus is yet to be built-up.

IMO, the fact that his Test career ended with Lee more or less in his prime (he was ill in India and injured vs South Africa) will help his legacy.

 

[Streetwise]

I very much doubt most cricketers will remember him as such - as it stands neither you, me nor anyone else can comment with authority on how they'll remember him as such a consensus is yet to be built-up.

Actually I know better than you Richard, you are guessing and I'm quoting facts.

 

[Richard]

You're doing nothing of the sort, because quoting facts requires facts to exist.

 

[Streetwise]

You're doing nothing of the sort, because quoting facts requires facts to exist.

We have been down this track before Richard, just because you dont know something does not mean that it didnt happen. You really need to learn that you are not the sole authority on anything cricket.

'It is very sad to hear the news that Brett is to retire from Test cricket," Flintoff said last night.

"Everyone will remember our little moment we shared after the Edgbaston Test in 2005, but for me the great battles with bat and ball against Brett will live with me for a long time.

"I have always found him a really tough competitor every time I have played against him but I know he has been struggling with injuries in recent months.

"From my own experience, I know how hard it is to keep performing at the highest level when you have a series of injuries but I am sure Brett will be remembered by cricket-lovers everywhere as an outstanding athlete, great fast bowler and a key part of Australias success."
Dennis Lillee, Andrew Flintoff sing Brett Lee&squo;s praises | The Courier-Mail

Now I dont expect an apology as I guess your ego would be far to large for that.

 

[Pothas]

Streetwise v Richard is already becoming about as painfull and monotonous as repeatedly hitting your head against a very hard surface.

 

[DaRick]

Just off the top of my head, Australian seam bowlers I'd place comfortably ahead of Lee, of those who've played since the 1930s... (not to mention the Nobles, Cotters etc.)

Lindwall
Miller
Johnston
Davidson
McKenzie
Hawke
Lillee
Thomson
Walker
Alderman
Lawson
Hughes
McDermott
Reid
Reiffel
McGrath
Gillespie

The likes of Fleming, Kasprowicz and, it now seems, Clark might also be able to be said to be better had they gotten more of a chance and been ignored by diabolical selectors less frequently.

Agree with all of these bar maybe Hawke and Lawson. Hawke quit in his prime because he was displeased with Bill Lawry's behaviour as captain and spent the next seven years playing in the Lancashire League. He could swing the ball but despite being almost hyper-masculine in appearance, he didn't generate much pace. I don't know whether Australian pitches were covered during the 60's (they were almost certainly crappier than today's, though), but I doubt that a bowler like Hawke would've made much of an impression in most places in Australia, bar Brisbane and perhaps Melbourne and Hobart (though Hobart's invariably flat deck wouldn't help him). The main reason why his average is as low as it is was because he wasn't made to bowl whilst over the hill - he has also taken far too few wickets to be compared comfortably with Lee.

Lawson was like Lee in many ways - he was talented, aggressive and quick (though not as much as Lee). Lawson was more intelligent than Lee, but also had an extensive injury record. Despite getting to bowl during the 1980's, in an era of frendlier decks (and despite taking some large hauls), he tended to struggle overseas, had a mixed record as the leader of Australia's attack and statistically loses out to Lee. On the other hand, whilst he did have an all-time great in Lillee and some very good bowlers (Hughes, Alderman) alongisde him, he never had the security blanket of a Warne/McGrath/Gillespie attack, nor a consistently excellent batting lineup to give him something to bowl at. It's a tough call between the two.

And of course with the likes of Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, McKay even, we wait to see how their careers will pan-out - all are merely starting right now.

I personally would take Johnson over Lee. Put it down to pro-Queensland bias if you wish, but Johnson (despite not having the same command over all of his deliveries as Lee) has had to lead a crappier attack with a lesser batting lineup onside. Whilst his worst is truly diabolical, he has the 'gift' of taking wickets when bowling poorly - Lee doesn't. His best is also enviable, although Lee's is not far off.

 

[Top_Cat]

Agree with all of these bar maybe Hawke and Lawson. Hawke quit in his prime because he was displeased with Bill Lawry's behaviour as captain and spent the next seven years playing in the Lancashire League. He could swing the ball but despite being almost hyper-masculine in appearance, he didn't generate much pace. I don't know whether Australian pitches were covered during the 60's (they were almost certainly crappier than today's, though), but I doubt that a bowler like Hawke would've made much of an impression in most places in Australia, bar Brisbane and perhaps Melbourne and Hobart (though Hobart's invariably flat deck wouldn't help him). The main reason why his average is as low as it is was because he wasn't made to bowl whilst over the hill - he has also taken far too few wickets to be compared comfortably with Lee.

Hawke was better where it counted - on the football field.

Haha, love your designation of him as 'hyper masculine'; is built like a steroid addicted Irish potato farmer. Met him a few years ago, one of those guys who holds court at a pub.

 

[slippyslip]

Just off the top of my head, Australian seam bowlers I'd place comfortably ahead of Lee, of those who've played since the 1930s... (not to mention the Nobles, Cotters etc.)

Johnston as in Bill? Is he really a seam/swing/ace bowlers of the likes of others in the list?

These are just plain wrong.

Hawke - Who? Bob Hawke?
Alderman - Only good in English conditions.
Lawson - Had some great series but fell away badly in the late 80's.
Reiffel - Are you serious?

I'd put these in the "about equal category". Thommo had a very similar career path to Lee. Tangles' career was interrupted by World Series Cricket.

Thomson
Walker

Reid - Definitely had more potential than Lee as a test bowler but potential does not make a player great. Shane Bond had potential oozing out of him and when he did player he was awesome. Sure, injuries ruined their careers but its not like Lee hasnt had to battle with injuries.

The likes of Fleming, Kasprowicz and, it now seems, Clark might also be able to be said to be better had they gotten more of a chance and been ignored by diabolical selectors less frequently.

Fleming never had enough to be a top test bowler. Kasprowicz failed too often after been given many opportunities. Sure he had that great tour of India but other than that, meh.

And of course with the likes of Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, McKay even, we wait to see how their careers will pan-out - all are merely starting right now.

Johnson is definitely very good. The rest time will tell.

But Lee's forte was always ODI's and I hope hes at least in the squad in India in 2011.

 

[Craig]

Brett will be remembered by cricket lovers everywhere as an outstanding athlete, great fast bowler and a key part of Australia's success.

Not in Tests though. Sure he would have had plenty of Test caps and so on if he played for New Zealand etc., but that is also a sign of the depth in New Zealand and other countries compared to Australia in terms of quality and quantity of fast bowling.

 

[Richard]

We have been down this track before Richard, just because you dont know something does not mean that it didnt happen. You really need to learn that you are not the sole authority on anything cricket.



Now I dont expect an apology as I guess your ego would be far to large for that.

So Andrew Flintoff is "sure" something will happen - that of course now means that it's even remotely likely to.

If he's honest with himself, I imagine he'll probably realise such a thing is very unlikely. That speech you quoted from is more a heat-of-the-moment soundbyte than a serious assessment, even of his own, never mind the perceptions of others.

 

[Richard]

Hawke was better where it counted - on the football field.

Haha, love your designation of him as 'hyper masculine'; is built like a steroid addicted Irish potato farmer. Met him a few years ago, one of those guys who holds court at a pub.

Must've been quite a few years ago - he died nearly a decade back now!

 

[Richard]

Agree with all of these bar maybe Hawke and Lawson. Hawke quit in his prime because he was displeased with Bill Lawry's behaviour as captain and spent the next seven years playing in the Lancashire League. He could swing the ball but despite being almost hyper-masculine in appearance, he didn't generate much pace. I don't know whether Australian pitches were covered during the 60's (they were almost certainly crappier than today's, though), but I doubt that a bowler like Hawke would've made much of an impression in most places in Australia, bar Brisbane and perhaps Melbourne and Hobart (though Hobart's invariably flat deck wouldn't help him). The main reason why his average is as low as it is was because he wasn't made to bowl whilst over the hill - he has also taken far too few wickets to be compared comfortably with Lee.

Some of this is news to me - I'd always thought Hawke retired early because of his illness, the one which he fought manfully against for much of his life before it finally took him at the age of 61. Also the footage I've seen of Hawke tends to suggest he was sharp enough - probably about the pace of for instance Andrew Caddick or Damien Fleming.

Australian pitches from memory were first covered in the early-1950s. I don't tend to take any notice of a few matches in which a bowler is made to bowl while over the hill anyway, so the fact that he did not have to doesn't matter to me. The point that he did not have a Test career of tremendous length has something going for it but the fact that Lee was only any good for a couple of very brief periods counts sincerely against him.

Lawson was like Lee in many ways - he was talented, aggressive and quick (though not as much as Lee). Lawson was more intelligent than Lee, but also had an extensive injury record. Despite getting to bowl during the 1980's, in an era of frendlier decks (and despite taking some large hauls), he tended to struggle overseas, had a mixed record as the leader of Australia's attack and statistically loses out to Lee. On the other hand, whilst he did have an all-time great in Lillee and some very good bowlers (Hughes, Alderman) alongisde him, he never had the security blanket of a Warne/McGrath/Gillespie attack, nor a consistently excellent batting lineup to give him something to bowl at. It's a tough call between the two.

Lawson had a relatively extended spell of excellence early in his career - a time when he was bowling alongside the likes of Lillee, Pascoe, Hogg and Alderman. This period, though interrupted by injury, was longer than any sustained period of excellence Lee enjoyed. Lawson then had a very bad time against West Indies, dropped-out shortly afterwards (after performing in the meantime no worse than Lee for most of his career) and returned at the age of nearly 32 and enjoyed a decent finish to his career - which, while not anywhere near as good as Lee at his best, was miles better than Lee at his (overwhelmingly majority) worst.

 

[Richard]

Johnston as in Bill? Is he really a seam/swing/ace bowlers of the likes of others in the list?

These are just plain wrong.

Hawke - Who? Bob Hawke?
Alderman - Only good in English conditions.
Lawson - Had some great series but fell away badly in the late 80's.
Reiffel - Are you serious?

I'd put these in the "about equal category". Thommo had a very similar career path to Lee. Tangles' career was interrupted by World Series Cricket.

Thomson
Walker

Reid - Definitely had more potential than Lee as a test bowler but potential does not make a player great. Shane Bond had potential oozing out of him and when he did player he was awesome. Sure, injuries ruined their careers but its not like Lee hasnt had to battle with injuries.



Fleming never had enough to be a top test bowler. Kasprowicz failed too often after been given many opportunities. Sure he had that great tour of India but other than that, meh.

I really can't be bothered pointing-out the flaws in each of these arguments - suffice to say that the fact you don't even know who Neil Hawke was, and the fact that you don't think Bill Johnston is worthy of comparison with the rest of them apparently just because he bowled spin as well as seam (seam was his overwhelmingly favoured style BTW) says it all.

The argument that Terry Alderman was only any good in England, if true (which it isn't), might have a bit going for it if Lee at his very best was as good as Alderman in England, or if he was less than diabolical when not at his very best. But neither of these are the case either. Bruce Reid's career may have been damaged but he played easily enough to show that he was miles and miles better than Lee.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Reiffel - Are you serious?

Unduly harsh on Reiffel I think. Absolutely flourished in English conditions, admittedly, so I probably saw the best of him, but I think one could make a decent case he was a better bowler than Lee. At worst it's a marginal call.

 

[L Trumper]

I thimk most people thinking lee as a great bowler is looking at odi performances.
In tests he is on par with lawson,yardley, rieffel et al.

If we put aussie bowlers in levels :
Mcgrath,lillee, lindwall etc are the greats.
Mcdermott,Thompson,Gillespie are good bowlers and perform well over a long period.
Lee,lawson,Reiffel etc are good but inconsistent for one reason or other.

Just as a test bowler , lee is more or less the weak link in aussie attack for most part of his career

 

[Richard]

Inconsistent and injury-prone though Reiffel was, he was good far, far more often than Lee was. And when he was bad he wasn't as bad as Lee was, never mind bad for as long. Reiffel only ever had pretty damn short periods of poor performance - Lee was terrible for 4 whole years and terrible on several other occasions thereafter.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

In the 2005 Ashes, for all his bluster and bowling 95mph bouncers at great batsman like Matty Hoggard, Lee averaged over 40 with the ball.

For me this summed up to some extent his career. Somethimes eye catching but readily milked.

 

[Streetwise]

So Andrew Flintoff is "sure" something will happen - that of course now means that it's even remotely likely to.

If he's honest with himself, I imagine he'll probably realise such a thing is very unlikely. That speech you quoted from is more a heat-of-the-moment soundbyte than a serious assessment, even of his own, never mind the perceptions of others.

Perhaps you should contact Flintoff and and tell him what he really thinks.

Its a real gift you have knowing more about a player than they do themselves.