Best cricketer right now.

[Ikki]

Lee is not a better bowler than those two - those 2 just aren't better than Lee.

 

[Ikki]

Bowling that many overs he was always likely to get a reasonable number of wickets.

Like Murali?

 

[PakPowered]

Freddie is the best among all the cricketers, mine fav too.

Others, Dravid, Warne,Ponting and Munaf patel.

 

[Jono]

Patel's promising, not the best cricketer around. Not even close yet. Give him a year or something.

The rest you mentioned are definitely up there, along with Inzy.

 

[marc71178]

Well ignoring Flintoff, I would be happy to rotate him in for any of the other 3. Why? The England bowlers hunt as a pack.

Yes, and they each add something to the bowling unit - if Lee replaces any of them, he'd need to be able to replace what they add to the unit, so which would he replace?

 

[Richard]

If you're going to inform someone of something, you really should make sure you know what you're talking about.

Mind you, the number of times you "assure" us of something that is wrong makes this just another case amongst many.

So... how many times have I assued someone of something that can be shown to be clearly untrue, then?
I'm very careful with my words and I never say "x won't score runs \ x won't get good bowling-figures" because there's no gurantee.
I'm always careful to preface it with something - ie "if he's not dropped loads" etc. - because then, while people can whine all they like about how drops supposedly don't matter, they can't say something I've said "won't" happen has done so.

 

[Richard]

What the hell? So, you claim his strike rate isn't good enough, and that he only took so many wickets because he bowled more overs than anyone else, and when I point out that his strike rate was 50 (which is world class) and that he bowled less overs than most of the players who took a comparable number of wickets, you say point proven?

Well, how could I possibly argue with that? Good job.

I don't give a damn if the strike-rate was God if the economy-rate was as terrible as it mostly was.
And he took the wickets at a high average, for the most part.
50, incidentally, is hardly a superb strike-rate. It's good, yes, but over a year it's nothing more. His 2001-2005 strike-rate is over 60, which is very poor indeed for it's economy-rate (3.8).
Point proven.

 

[Richard]

It's for the fact that when Warne is compared to his closest rival the balance sways and so do the important variables.

Sorry, what?

 

[Richard]

Like Murali?

Ah, now I see.
Sorry, you won't drag me into that.
Warne and Murali cannot be divided and, as the infinate debates on this forum have shown, it's utterly stupid to try and do so.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't give a damn if the strike-rate was God if the economy-rate was as terrible as it mostly was.
And he took the wickets at a high average, for the most part.
50, incidentally, is hardly a superb strike-rate. It's good, yes, but over a year it's nothing more. His 2001-2005 strike-rate is over 60, which is very poor indeed for it's economy-rate (3.8).
Point proven.

You've lost it.

You first said Lee didn't take enough wickets. Then you said his strike rate isn't good enough. Now you're saying his economy rate isn't good enough. Well that's obvious isn't it? But it's got nothing whatsoever to do with what you said at first. You realise all you do is antagonise people when you say something completely false and then act like you said something different when they point out that you were wrong? It's called trolling, and we can tell easily enough what you said with use of the quote function.

 

[Richard]

"Taking wickets" is a misnomer.
What is often meant (and was in this case) by "taking wickets" is "getting good figures".
44 wickets at 25 for a year are far, far better than 60 at 35. Whatever the strike-rates and economy-rates.

 

[Jono]

"Had it not been for dropped catches, plumb LBWs not given out and his habit of overstepping, Brett Lee would have had outstanding figures yesterday."

 

[aussie]

You seriously think Lee is better than Patel and Sreesanth.

, you got a lot of jokes..

 

[aussie]

So which English bowler would he replace, and why?

these days Harmiosn, it would be a clear like for like swap, since currently he is bowling much better than Harmison. Added if you want to look at their batting & fielding Lee would offer England more in that area as well.

 

[Ikki]

Ah, now I see.
Sorry, you won't drag me into that.
Warne and Murali cannot be divided and, as the infinate debates on this forum have shown, it's utterly stupid to try and do so.

I really don't wish to get into that either. I just see every thread filled with the same lavish generalisations and inane opinions. Then once those are proved wrong, one seems to jump on another topic and battle that leaving a gaping hole in each argument. I'm just pointing out you're doing it again here .

 

[need4speed]

A close tie between Flintoff and Ponting

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

"Taking wickets" is a misnomer.
What is often meant (and was in this case) by "taking wickets" is "getting good figures".
44 wickets at 25 for a year are far, far better than 60 at 35. Whatever the strike-rates and economy-rates.

Good one. Usually when I say taking wickets, I mean taking wickets. I'd say most people are the same. If I meant "getting a good average", I'd probably say something like that.

Anyway, what about the strike rate thing? When it was mentioned that Lee was high up on the wicket taking lists in 2005, you said it didn't matter because "strike rate is the important thing". I guess strike rate isn't so important now that it's clear Lee had a good one?

 

[Demolition Man]

Right now, the form cricketer (ODI's and tests) is Mike Hussey.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Point proven.

Now who's Mr Grumpy/Uppity/whatfrickinever?

 

[Dick Rockett]

"Taking wickets" is a misnomer.
What is often meant (and was in this case) by "taking wickets" is "getting good figures".
44 wickets at 25 for a year are far, far better than 60 at 35. Whatever the strike-rates and economy-rates.

"Taking wickets" means exactly that, and you know it.

I can certainly respect your assertion that Lee isn't very good, even if I disagree with you. But if you're going to make a statement like that, at least try and back it up with some sound reasoning. In the case of this debate, you've been found to be pretty loose with the facts. Just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Anyway, I'd agree with your point that Lee's test stats leave a lot to be desired, but from what I've seen of him over the current season (and that's a fair bit), I'd say he's been in great form. This thread is about the best player at the moment, so I can totally understand why someone here would mention him.