Brett Lee in test team

[Richard]

Richard,

How many of these games did you actually see?

Im guessing none.

Then - not surprisingly - you're guessing wrong.
I've seen every single game he's played in 2004\05.

If that is the case, you would not have a clue as to whether Lee bowled well, averagely or poorly in those games.

Given the fact that he is still in the team, and being consistently praised for his performances, wouldnt you think that it's fair to say that these performances were, at worst, anomalies in an otherwise very good ODI season to date?

The point remains that Brett Lee has, in ODIs, improved markedly this year. Whether this translates into improved test performances is yet to be proven.

No, he hasn't - almost all his ODI career he's bowled mostly rubbish, and sometimes he's been hammered, sometimes he's got 3 or 4 for 40-odd, every now and then 2 or 3 for 20-odd, and occasionally he's bowled well and deserved the good figures he's got.
This season has conformed to EXACTLY the same pattern.
Which suggests that precisely nothing has changed.

However, TO COMPARE HIM TO ORDINARY MEDIUM PACERS FROM ALL POINTS OF THE GLOBE SHOWS COMPLETE IGNORANCE AS TO BOTH HIS ABILITIES AND OF WHAT IT TAKES TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN INTERNATIONAL CRICKET.

Wrong, it shows a rather better understanding than those who assume pace is a must and if you've got pace you must be successful.
Apart from the fact none of those I compared with are medium-pacers, they're all far more accurate than him - so therefore they all have a better chance of being successful than he does.

 

[Richard]

Richard, your labelling of those bowlers as 'rubbish' shows your ignorance of domestic Australian cricket (not your fault; you're not in the country after all) so I think you should, in this case, stick to that which you know. All you've done is list the bowlers whose stats don't reach some arbitrarily defined standard.

The fact is, there's never been a good bowler with poor averages. There's just no getting away from that.

Cullen, for example, is a very promising off-spinner who's only just finishing his first season of FC cricket in a country where off-spinners generally don't succeed so naturally his numbers will be higher.

True, I'd forgotten he was a spinner - you might notice all the rest are seamers. Still - if he can't get good figures, he's not that good. If Australia's not a good place to bowl fingerspin, the best idea is to not pick any.

And listing Cleary indicates you're speaking of this season only - how can you just label his as rubbish when you clearly haven't seen him bowl? Cleary averages about 44 with the ball this season but he's only played 4 matches and Dorey is averaging 23 with the ball this season. Cleary's overall number are high (around 31 per wicket) but he's not a rubbish bowler I promise you. Denton, Noffke and Griffith - all talented pacers, ALL injury-prone (and that includes Cleary this season too).

You want to compare Lee to other international bowlers that's fine but leave the domestic bowlers out of it because (all due respect) you don't know what you're talking about in this instance.

OK, let's get one thing straight - I wasn't comparing them to Lee, I was comparing them to Terbrugge, Dawson, Willoughby, Langeveldt, Kirtley, Ngam and suchlike.
The fact is I wasn't saying anything - anything whatsoever - about the potential or otherwise of any of these bowlers. I'm perfectly willing to bow to your superior knowledge given that you've almost certainly seen the lot of them and I haven't seen any except Cleary and Griffith. However, I'll repeat - there has NEVER been a good bowler who doesn't have a good average over the long-term, and all the bowlers I listed as better than these DO have good long-term averages.
And as far as I'm concerned that dispells the notion that the bowlers I listed above would struggle to get a game in Australian domestic-First-Class-cricket.

 

[social]

Then - not surprisingly - you're guessing wrong.
I've seen every single game he's played in 2004\05.

Given some of your statements, that's hard to believe.

No, he hasn't - almost all his ODI career he's bowled mostly rubbish, and sometimes he's been hammered, sometimes he's got 3 or 4 for 40-odd, every now and then 2 or 3 for 20-odd, and occasionally he's bowled well and deserved the good figures he's got.
This season has conformed to EXACTLY the same pattern.
Which suggests that precisely nothing has changed.

Very good one-day series
Player of the finals.
Most economical bowler in 20/20
Australia's best bowler over first 2 games.

Do you see a pattern emerging here?


Wrong, it shows a rather better understanding than those who assume pace is a must and if you've got pace you must be successful.
Apart from the fact none of those I compared with are medium-pacers, they're all far more accurate than him - so therefore they all have a better chance of being successful than he does.

How many bowlers are there in the world that can consistently bowl over 150 ks?

3 - Lee, Akhtar, and Harmison.

On any given day, they are a chance to take wickets on pace alone.

When you combine that pace with the movement and accuracy shown by Lee in recent ODIs, then you are a substantially better bowler than any of the others you have mentioned.

 

[chaminda_00]

And Lee has averaged 40 for far, far more than a small section of his career - currently it makes-up 81%.

You do forget the fact that their has only been one calender year where has averaged 40, which was in 2002 and in the rest he averaged under 20 or in the mid 30s. An average of mids 30s is nothing special but their are many bowlers that average in the mid 30s and keep their spots in their sides.

He's played 3 ODIs FCOL! And if you'd seen him bowl you'd realise that he's extremely accurate - more accurate than Lee will ever be - and that in domestic cricket he swings the ball. If he could swing it at intl level he'd be some bowler.

So because someone's never had a chance to play Test-cricket you write him off - and I'd hardly say that, at 35, it's very surprising someone's not being picked for an A-side.

If these two bowlers were as good as u think they are then at least one of them would have cemented that open 3rd seamers spot for SA. Ok they might bowl well at domestic level but so does Brett Lee, it doesn't make a difference u bowl at domestic level if u can't convert it to the interantional stage. Brett Lee may have not convert the pace and swing he gets at domestic level fully to the test stage yet but unlike these other two bowlers he converted his abilities to international stage in ODI cricket. Both Dawson and Williogby are ok bowlers but their is a reason why they get overlooked by the national selectors, becuase their not good enough to take that extra step and they don't have the tools to trouble top batsmen.

Err - perhaps because he's only recently started to bowl like he bowled before 1998 when he suffered a serious ankle injury (pre-injury he averaged 32.02, since his injury he's averaged 44.42).

Well i saw Klusener bowl in New Zealand live about a month ago and he no where near as good as he was in 1998. Klusener back in 1998 also isn't as good as Brett Lee now.

Because Hall has by-and-large bowled every bit as poorly as Lee in his Test-career - doesn't really make sense, because he could be a very good bowler if he bowled in Tests with the accuracy he bowls with in domestic-First-Class-cricket - but it's happened nonetheless.

Domestic cricket again mate, i wonder how good Brett Lee would be if he bowled as good as he does in domestic cricket and ODIs in Test Cricket.

 

[Richard]

Given some of your statements, that's hard to believe.

Well it's true - like it or lump it.

Very good one-day series
Player of the finals.
Most economical bowler in 20/20
Australia's best bowler over first 2 games.

Do you see a pattern emerging here?

Forget Twenty20, for a start, that's totally meaningless.
Australia's best bowler in the 1st game? Really? I'd say McGrath completely smote him.
So basically he had 2 good finals, benefited from West Indies chasing huge totals twice, and bowled well in the Second ODI of the current series.
I hardly see that that's anything different whatsoever to what had been happening previously.

How many bowlers are there in the world that can consistently bowl over 150 ks?

3 - Lee, Akhtar, and Harmison.

On any given day, they are a chance to take wickets on pace alone.

Total and utter nonsense - no good batsman are troubled by pace alone. Instances where you see top-class batsmen simply beaten for pace are once-in-a-blue-moon.

When you combine that pace with the movement and accuracy shown by Lee in recent ODIs, then you are a substantially better bowler than any of the others you have mentioned.

And how often does Lee combine it with accuracy? Very rarely - as attested by the fact that in just 26 out of his 91 ODIs has he gone for 4-an-over or less.
Even in this recent band, it's 5 out of 12 - hardly compelling, at a rate of less than half.
How often, indeed, does he combine it with swing? Except when the ball is very new, he doesn't often swing it.

 

[Richard]

You do forget the fact that their has only been one calender year where has averaged 40, which was in 2002 and in the rest he averaged under 20 or in the mid 30s. An average of mids 30s is nothing special but their are many bowlers that average in the mid 30s and keep their spots in their sides.

Lee's average since 2001 is 38.42 - in that time he's had 7 good Test-matches out of 30 (1 against Bangladesh, and 1 thanks to picking-up 4 wickets just before declarations).
If you get rid of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe matches, it's 39 exactly.
There might be some convenient coincidences that make the figures look better than they are, but the fact is little or nothing has changed in that period and it's perfectly fair to take it as a whole.

If these two bowlers were as good as u think they are then at least one of them would have cemented that open 3rd seamers spot for SA.

Not if the like of Dale Steyn get picked ahead of them, no - and, as I say, in Dawson's case, the fact that he's 35 and there's no value in picking him now.

Ok they might bowl well at domestic level but so does Brett Lee, it doesn't make a difference u bowl at domestic level if u can't convert it to the interantional stage. Brett Lee may have not convert the pace and swing he gets at domestic level fully to the test stage yet but unlike these other two bowlers he converted his abilities to international stage in ODI cricket. Both Dawson and Williogby are ok bowlers but their is a reason why they get overlooked by the national selectors, becuase their not good enough to take that extra step and they don't have the tools to trouble top batsmen.

In Dawson's case we'll never know whether he does or not, because he's never played a proper Test-match. And with Willoughby, I repeat: FCOL, he's played 3 ODIs! How the hell can we be so certain he's not got what it takes to convert onto the ODI stage if he's only been given 3 chances (and all have come as stopgaps, not with him being picked as first-choice).
As for Brett Lee at the domestic level - I think I'm right in saying he hasn't played in the Pura Cup this season, and that he was pretty poor last.

Well i saw Klusener bowl in New Zealand live about a month ago and he no where near as good as he was in 1998. Klusener back in 1998 also isn't as good as Brett Lee now.

Hmm - well I only saw him briefly in 1998 he looked, to me, far better than Lee has ever looked.

Domestic cricket again mate, i wonder how good Brett Lee would be if he bowled as good as he does in domestic cricket and ODIs in Test Cricket.

Not very good, if the last 2 seasons are to be judged by.
Even in 2002\03 and 2001\02, when he got wickets at 16 or something like that, he was still very, very expensive, which suggests to me that it was simply poor batting rather than exceptional bowling.

 

[marc71178]

Yes the post injury looks awful at the moment doesn't he....no pace, no wickets, no swing... Is that right??

Again you're confusing the Tests with ODIs.

 

[marc71178]

I know allot of bowlers that average near 40 thoughout their career not just a small section of their careers (some of those u have named as better then him).
- Willioughby 1 wkt @ 125 and one of his test was aganist BD. ODI record isn't much better
- Dawson played two test aganist BD and hasn't been back since, struggles to make the SA A too. His ODI record isn't that flash too either (ave=34, E/R=4.76)
- Klusener: Test Ave of 38, specks for itself and in his last full season of Test Cricket averaged 40.
- Hall: ave of 35 and s/r of 67 not better then Brett Lee even at his worst

A whole 4 players, 2 of whom aren't a direct comparison (as all rounders) and 2 who aren't anywhere near a Test side.

 

[Richard]

Again you're confusing the Tests with ODIs.

Well, he's got pace in Tests, he can swing the new-ball in Tests... just his lack of accuracy is reflected rather better in his average than it is in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

A whole 4 players, 2 of whom aren't a direct comparison (as all rounders) and 2 who aren't anywhere near a Test side.

Don't worry, that wasn't directed at anything to do with Flintoff.

 

[tooextracool]

That'd be because he can actually swing the ball.
Bracken might well be twice as accurate as Lee and if you could combine Lee's swing with Bracken's accuracy you'd have some bowler.
And I'd say Bracken can learn swing (or rather how to swing it at Test-level) easier than Lee can learn accuracy.

doubt it, learning how to swing it requires hving to modify your action and then learning to bowl with it,which is infinitely harder than just becoming more accurate. bracken is the modern version of mullally, and if he ever goes on to succeed in tests, id be extremely surprised

 

[tooextracool]

No, he wouldn't - but equally if he were to bowl more often like he bowls on a good day he'd smote the lot of them. And as for Lee...
When has Lee produced a 13-wicket Test-match, then? (The way Martin has against SA)

and when has martin ever had bowlers of the quality of mcgrath and gillespie bowling besides him? id like to see martin come close to getting 13 wickets, the way he did, with mcgrath and gillespie destroying the opposition before he even comes into bowl. AFAIC lee has had a couple of match winning spells, which is far more than martin and the rest will have in their entire career.

No, Martin hasn't done anything apart from that, but he's no more mediocre than Lee and if Lee was bowling in an attack as p*ss-poor as NZ's I'm pretty sure he'd be doing as poorly. Same applies to Zoysa and Sri Lanka.

bowling for a worser bowling attack has its advantages, i can assure you.

As for Maharoof, he's bowled an occasional decent spell - which is about what Lee has done. I don't really think he'll amount to anything, but you never know - and hell, you never know with Lee either.

rubbish maharoof has never looked anywhere closed to what lee looked at the start of his career, and hes never even taken more than 2 wickets in an inning let alone win a game.

 

[tooextracool]

If a bowler can get into the Australian lineup, they can get in any lineup.

which is why ive said time and time again,australian selectors are stupid. i really wonder how many other sides would have picked symonds ahead of katich.

Langeveldt (sorry Rich), Klusener, Jones and Anderson better than Lee?

wow klusener who isnt even in the side, and is an all rounder as opposed to lee, anderson who too isnt in the side, and jones who already looks a far better bowler than lee and you think b.lee can make other sides in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah right. Is that a Tui ad?

even though jones' test average is below lee's average in the last 5 years.

 

[tooextracool]

Wrong, Gough found himself, having missed 2 years of Test-cricket, coming back and getting 1-222 or something in his 2 comeback Tests, on incredibly flat pitches when everyone else got hammered too... had he come back 2 Tests later I wouldn't be surprised if he was still playing now.

quick question, who are these bowlers you talk about? all the decent ones including pollock, ntini and aj hall had far superior figures than he did in both those tests. yes anderson and harmison(who was ordinary at the time) bowled just as poor, gee what an achievement, he bowled marginally poorer than those 2.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally, I'd answer yes to the original question. It's very hard on Kasprowicz, but Lee is worth a shot against New Zealand. If he can transfer his new-found accuracy over to the longer format he will offer something to the Australian attack that Kasprowicz can't. I fully expect Lee to be picked as the third seamer at some point (probably from the start) of the coming series against New Zealand, and if he performs well he will be the third seamer in the Ashes as well. He might even be given the new ball with McGrath.

And honestly, however well Kasprowicz has done, I can't fault the Australian selectors for wanting him in the side. He simply has a higher capacity for bowling wicket balls than any other Australian quick aside from McGrath. His other problems (low, slinging action early in his career, tendancy to be wayward in line & length etc) have always hindered his performances in test cricket, but he has clearly done a good job in ironing out these faults, and will be a major element in the Australian attack in the future if he continues to improve.

 

[social]

jones who already looks a far better bowler than lee and you think b.lee can make other sides in the world.

I assume you're talking about lawn bowls because, as a cricketer, Jones is not even in the same county (let alone suburb or street)

He is less accurate, no movement and slower.

 

[twctopcat]

He is less accurate, no movement and slower.

The only correct one there regards pace.

 

[Richard]

doubt it, learning how to swing it requires hving to modify your action and then learning to bowl with it,which is infinitely harder than just becoming more accurate. bracken is the modern version of mullally, and if he ever goes on to succeed in tests, id be extremely surprised

Yep, me too, because I don't really think he'll get another Test.
Thing is, Bracken swings it, he can swing it - he just hasn't, really, in his Test-career to date.
Sometimes learning to swing the ball can require just a tiny tweak in an action; sometimes wholesale reconstruction.

 

[Richard]

and when has martin ever had bowlers of the quality of mcgrath and gillespie bowling besides him? id like to see martin come close to getting 13 wickets, the way he did, with mcgrath and gillespie destroying the opposition before he even comes into bowl. AFAIC lee has had a couple of match winning spells, which is far more than martin and the rest will have in their entire career.

Pre-injury, yes.
Since 2001 I'd like to see a match Lee has played a significant part in winning - which Australia would likely not have won otherwise.

bowling for a worser bowling attack has its advantages, i can assure you.

Yes, and it also has it's disadvantages.
You don't get others giving you a new batsman all the time, mainly.

rubbish maharoof has never looked anywhere closed to what lee looked at the start of his career, and hes never even taken more than 2 wickets in an inning let alone win a game.

Yes, but he has bowled well in a couple of ODIs. Very well, in the case of a 10-19 spell.