OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point? Fine.Just love how you can say "flatterred to decieve" about a guy with over 300 wickets at a decent average, great strike rate and high wpm.
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point? Fine.Just love how you can say "flatterred to decieve" about a guy with over 300 wickets at a decent average, great strike rate and high wpm.
That's right. No one is saying that Lee is in the same league as Lindwall, Lillee, or McGrath - but rather he was an effective new ball ally who took his fair share of wickets.Just love how you can say "flatterred to decieve" about a guy with over 300 wickets at a decent average, great strike rate and high wpm.
Did you watch him bowl between 2001 and 2007? He was crap for the most part. Bouncer/ Yorker and nowt in between. He did well vs India in his debut series and again in the controversial series out here in 07/08. Honestly, he was **** in England in 01 and cod ordinary in 05.My enduring memory of Brett Lee was his ability to 'soften up' the batsman so that they were ready for McGrath and Warne. And this he did remarkably well on Australian pitches. For example, during his 8 Tests against India he took 45 wickets at 27 runs each.
Overall Brett Lee played 76 Tests and finished with 310 wickets at 31. His SR was an excellent 53.
Interestingly enough, this is comparable to Stuart Broad who I see as a similar sort of aggressive fast bowler. So far Broad has played 73 Tests and has 261 wickets at 30. His SR is 59.
So no, I don't think that Brett Lee's skill level or record are as ordinary or dire as you imply Burgey.
thats a blatant lie! he would also throw a beamer once in a while...Did you watch him bowl between 2001 and 2007? He was crap for the most part. Bouncer/ Yorker and nowt in between.
I'd be highly surprised to see the replacement batsman average less than 43ish.Rather bench Ponting than Gillespie? Absurd
Come off it, Ponting and Hayden were much more important than Gilchrist.McGrath, Warne and Gilly the three biggest reasons for their dominance in that order imo. Having Gilchrist was a massive plus... Teams would sometimes get Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh out and then Gilchrist would come in and smash 75 (70) and undo all that work in an hour.
Delta(runs) is likely to be lower replacing either of those. I'm not sure either of them had better intangibles either.Come off it, Ponting and Hayden were much more important than Gilchrist.
I can accept people thinking McGrath & Warne were more important. Especially on CW where bowlers are generally rated as more valuable than batsmen. Gilchrist I wouldn't agree but I could understand. Anyone else is a non-starter though. Bizarre to see it even suggested tbh.My arse.
It's your batsmen that breed consistency and Ponting between 2002 and 2006 went on a run that no batsman not named Don Bradman has ever been on in Test cricket.
Anyone who doesn't think Ponting was top 3 in terms of MVPs to Australia in that era is either on crack or is seriously underestimating him.
True.The whole point was McGrath was the most important player in the best team of the era, which establishes a fair bit of cred if if we're discussing the bowler or the era. Whether Ponting was more important than Gilchrist or Gillespie (he was btw) is irrelevant to the thread.
I'll have 140,000 posts on CW by then. I'll remind ppl how good he was.True.
However, they are going to be talking about Warne and Murali way more than about McGrath 70 years from now.
70 seems a strange amount of years to pick. Why not 60 or 80 years?True.
However, they are going to be talking about Warne and Murali way more than about McGrath 70 years from now.
Fight the good fight Monky!I'll have 140,000 posts on CW by then. I'll remind ppl how good he was.
You don't say.Warne and McGrath.
Not really. MacGill was closer to Kumble than he was to Warne's/Murali's ilk. The closest spinners to Warne and Murali appeared about 50 years prior in Grimmett and O'Reilly. Not likely to see spinners as good as them for a while.McGrath was the irreplaceable.
Warne could be replaced with MacGill.
Ponting could've been replaced by Law, Love, Lehmann and a few others. Obviously he was a cut above them but the disruption caused by him not playing to the team would've been far less than McGrath's loss.
McGrath was the key to the team IMO.