Brett Lee in test team

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

He has played a few domestic games this year, but he has missed most of them because, you guessed it, he has been on tour with the best international side the world one injury away from being in the side. Funny that.

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.

What a ridiculous assumption to make. It's often the case that express pace bowlers go for a few more runs in return for a higher strike rate. It has nothing to do with poor strokes, it has to do with the fact that a quicker pace means you tend to go for more boundaries but have a higher likelyhood of bowling wicket balls. That's not to say Lee, Shoaib or Harmison can never be economical, but they will never be McGrath.

 

[Richard]

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.

Pollock and Hall had better conditions to bowl in; the pitch moved off the seam for the first 50 overs or so. Ntini just bowled poorly and benefited from a stack of poor strokes. If Gough had has as many poor strokes he'd have got some wickets too. Sadly for him Graeme Smith didn't play many poor strokes (except one - off Anderson) - nor did Kirsten.
He bowled poorly, yes - he'd have had a job to bowl poorly on the 2 pitches in the next 2 Tests.

 

[Richard]

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.

You quite clearly haven't seen him.
He doesn't swing the new-ball as much, no, but he knows more about reverse than Lee will probably ever know.
And he's wayward - but he's not as wayward as Lee.

 

[Richard]

He has played a few domestic games this year, but he has missed most of them because, you guessed it, he has been on tour with the best international side the world one injury away from being in the side. Funny that.

Just says how keen everyone in high positions is to get him in.
Doesn't say anything about how fantastically he's doing.
Incidentally, I've not noticed him being on tour in November, December, January or the first half of February.

What a ridiculous assumption to make. It's often the case that express pace bowlers go for a few more runs in return for a higher strike rate. It has nothing to do with poor strokes, it has to do with the fact that a quicker pace means you tend to go for more boundaries but have a higher likelyhood of bowling wicket balls. That's not to say Lee, Shoaib or Harmison can never be economical, but they will never be McGrath.

Nonetheless I'd like to have seen the deliveries that took those wickets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just says how keen everyone in high positions is to get him in.
Doesn't say anything about how fantastically he's doing.
Incidentally, I've not noticed him being on tour in November, December, January or the first half of February.

In parts of November and December he played domestic cricket, excluding the time when he was 12th man in the tests and played in the Chappell-Hadlee series. In January and February he has been playing in the VB series, and now he is in New Zealand. Basically, excluding the small time frame in which he played a few domestic matches he has been busy with the international side.

 

[Richard]

I'm nonetheless amazed he hasn't played a single Pura Cup game, when he's only been playing ODIs or on tour for about 2\3 of the time at the most.

 

[social]

You quite clearly haven't seen him.
He doesn't swing the new-ball as much, no, but he knows more about reverse than Lee will probably ever know.
And he's wayward - but he's not as wayward as Lee.

Saw him get dropped from the team in SA

And the reason he doesnt swing the new ball and sometimes swings the old ball is because of a deficiency in his action - he does not get the wrist behind the ball.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

Don't rule it out though. Look at Pedro Collins. He was exceedingly ordinary for most of his career, then he learned to consistently swing the ball both ways and now he's a MUCH improved bowler and IMO Test quality.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i recommend that you watch jones bowl first, because you really have no clue what you are talking about. jones in SA was easily more accurate than b.lee has been at any point of his career, and he certain can move the ball, and has always been an excellent reverse swinger. yes hes slower so what? pace alone has never made anyone successful, and its not like jones is particularly slow either.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

how can you swing it in one form and not in another? thats just stupid, you can just forget how to swing it when you play at the international level. and really how much aussie domestic cricket have you watched, for you to make such bold claims, when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Sometimes learning to swing the ball can require just a tiny tweak in an action; sometimes wholesale reconstruction.

no it doesnt, it almost always requires a major change in the action, certainly nowhere near the change thats required for accuracy- if theres any change at all.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

what is your point? hes put in several match changing performances, even if they havent won the game. martin has put in about 2 in his entire career. only a fool would consider someone who puts in 1 match winning spell followed by rubbish in the next 20 tests as better than someone who puts in 4-5 good spells in every 10 tests.

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

you get the chance to do it yourself. in lees case you dont get the chance to bowl at any batsmen until they are actually set, because the captain would only take mcgrath, gillespie or warne or whoever it is thats taking wickets out, if the batsmen are set and playing them comfortably.

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

even though you yourself have said that tests and ODIs have no relation to each other? and please dont even start comparing maharoof's ODI record to lees ODI record.

 

[tooextracool]

Pollock and Hall had better conditions to bowl in; the pitch moved off the seam for the first 50 overs or so. Ntini just bowled poorly and benefited from a stack of poor strokes. If Gough had has as many poor strokes he'd have got some wickets too. Sadly for him Graeme Smith didn't play many poor strokes (except one - off Anderson) - nor did Kirsten..

clearly, i mean in the first test, the pitch started off flat, then turned seamer friendly, and then turned flat again. and in the 2nd test 2nd inning when england got 417, clearly the pitch was seamer friendly.

He bowled poorly, yes - he'd have had a job to bowl poorly on the 2 pitches in the next 2 Tests.

he looked nowhere near test class. hence he retired, cause he himself knew he wasnt good enough. to use anderson and harmison in 2003 as comparisons as to how good he is, is the stupidest thing ive ever heard.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

how can you swing it in one form and not in another? thats just stupid, you can just forget how to swing it when you play at the international level. and really how much aussie domestic cricket have you watched, for you to make such bold claims, when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Well, he is right, pretty much. Bracken is primarily a swing bowler and relies on it in the face of minimal seam movement and average pace to get his wickets. He managed plenty of swing early in his ODI career, but didn't do anything particularly well in his limited test opportunities.

 

[social]

no it doesnt, it almost always requires a major change in the action, certainly nowhere near the change thats required for accuracy- if theres any change at all.

Not really, it's all about wrist position.

 

[social]

i recommend that you watch jones bowl first, because you really have no clue what you are talking about. jones in SA was easily more accurate than b.lee has been at any point of his career, and he certain can move the ball, and has always been an excellent reverse swinger. yes hes slower so what? pace alone has never made anyone successful, and its not like jones is particularly slow either.

I have seen much of his career live on pay tv including SA - probably more than the average English fan.

BTW, he was so accurate in SA that he was dropped because his line was so poor that he wasted some good opportunities.

 

[Richard]

how can you swing it in one form and not in another? thats just stupid, you can just forget how to swing it when you play at the international level. and really how much aussie domestic cricket have you watched, for you to make such bold claims, when you know absolutely nothing about it.

I've seen Bracken bowl at the domestic level 3 or 4 times (and in ODIs, too) and he's never failed to swing the ball. Why he didn't at Test-level I don't know - possibly just nervousness\poor temperament. But he's definately capable of swinging the ball.

no it doesnt, it almost always requires a major change in the action, certainly nowhere near the change thats required for accuracy- if theres any change at all.

Some changes in action can help accuracy - but the main thing is you just have to have the skill to hit where you're aiming at.
Similarly, all you need to get swing is a good seam-position, and to a much lesser extent the right trajectory. Sometimes you need to completely reconstruct your action because you're miles off; sometimes you just need to slightly change your wrist-position.

 

[Richard]

I have seen much of his career live on pay tv including SA - probably more than the average English fan.

I can assure you I've seen every single Test Jones has played except the 7-over one where he was injured so horribly (even that I saw highlights).

BTW, he was so accurate in SA that he was dropped because his line was so poor that he wasted some good opportunities.

Yet he still did well enough to average under 27.
Him being dropped simply said they had the stupidity to select Anderson, just because The Wanderers is renowned as "a swinging ground". It was folly, and it showed in the way he bowled.
No, Jones hasn't been an exceptional bowler so far, but he was certainly better sometimes in South Africa than he has been for most of the rest of his Test-career.

 

[Richard]

Don't rule it out though. Look at Pedro Collins. He was exceedingly ordinary for most of his career, then he learned to consistently swing the ball both ways and now he's a MUCH improved bowler and IMO Test quality.

He's close, certainly, but nonetheless he's not been exceptional since his return. He's only had 1 poor game, though, and he certainly bowled far better than I've ever seen in The VB Series. If he could just cut-out no-balls that'd help, too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's close, certainly, but nonetheless he's not been exceptional since his return. He's only had 1 poor game, though, and he certainly bowled far better than I've ever seen in The VB Series. If he could just cut-out no-balls that'd help, too.

When he's fit he has been exceptional actually. Mind that he was injured the first ball of the Test series in England, yet bowled with that injury. Every game that he has been fit, he's looked like taking wickets regularly and in most of them, he has.

 

[Richard]

what is your point? hes put in several match changing performances, even if they havent won the game. martin has put in about 2 in his entire career. only a fool would consider someone who puts in 1 match winning spell followed by rubbish in the next 20 tests as better than someone who puts in 4-5 good spells in every 10 tests.

Martin's played 17 authentic Tests and bowled well in 4 of them (SR 4.25); Lee post-injury has played 28 Tests (including Zimbabwe ones, which wouldn't be included if he'd done well) and bowled well in 4 of them (SR 7).
I know who I think's the better bowler, though they're both rubbish enough.

you get the chance to do it yourself. in lees case you dont get the chance to bowl at any batsmen until they are actually set, because the captain would only take mcgrath, gillespie or warne or whoever it is thats taking wickets out, if the batsmen are set and playing them comfortably.

Lee's bowled at new batsmen often enough.
In my experience being a poor bowler amongst good ones has more advantage than being a poor one in among even more poor ones.

even though you yourself have said that tests and ODIs have no relation to each other? and please dont even start comparing maharoof's ODI record to lees ODI record.

No, Maharoof is very average. I don't think he's enormously worse than Lee. Lee's bowled similar spells to the 10-19-1, too.