Brett Lee's final Test wicket tally

[Richard]

Haven't heard that one from anyone apart from Marc (and not since about 2004). Either way, I'm more capable of commenting accurately about how good Brett Lee was(n't) than Flintoff does, that much is clear. Whether he wises-up with his comments in a less heat-of-the-moment scenario remains to be seen.

 

[Streetwise]

Haven't heard that one from anyone apart from Marc (and not since about 2004). Either way, I'm more capable of commenting accurately about how good Brett Lee was(n't) than Flintoff does, that much is clear. Whether he wises-up with his comments in a less heat-of-the-moment scenario remains to be seen.

I'm glad you cleared that up. I hope Flintoff retracts his comments and brings them into line with what you want him to think.

 

[Sanz]

For the record only myself and SoC had predicted that Lee will end up between 301 - 325 wickets.

Please close this poll.

 

[Furball]

For the record only myself and SoC had predicted that Lee will end up between 301 - 325 wickets.

Please close this poll.

In fairness I doubt those of us who thought he'd take more thought he'd be quite so ****ed by injury. UIMM, Lee had a pretty good fitness record throughout his career.

 

[Furball]

Haven't heard that one from anyone apart from Marc (and not since about 2004). Either way, I'm more capable of commenting accurately about how good Brett Lee was(n't) than Flintoff does, that much is clear. Whether he wises-up with his comments in a less heat-of-the-moment scenario remains to be seen.

Faced Brett Lee in the pressure of an Ashes Test often have you?

 

[Streetwise]

Faced Brett Lee in the pressure of an Ashes Test often have you?

Has Flintoff made 79000+ posts on CW.

 

[Furball]

Has Flintoff made 79000+ posts on CW.

Fair point.

 

[DaRick]

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.

Barry Richards said that his pace was quite gentle compared to today's bowlers (and even contemporaries), though - he said his greatest gift was his swing.

His illness began in 1980, after his return from England (including his long stint in the Lancashire League), when he ate a packet of peanuts and then endured a blockage of the bowel. He then became a medical guinea-pig, having his liver cut into pieces, amongst other things.

I was also under the impression that Caddick was a bit quicker than Fleming, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's because Caddick cantered to the wicket and fired it down, whilst Fleming's run-up was comparatively gentle and he wasn't really striving for pace.

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.

Lee was excellent early on (7 Tests), was mostly poor from 2001-2005 with a couple of good Tests, was good to OK in 2005/06, inconsistent in 2006/07, excellent in 2007/08 and a has-been by 2008/09, when it started to become clear that his body could not hold up anymore. He could therefore be said to be over the hill. That is significiant in Lee's case, because he averaged nearly 50. If Hawke was made to bowl under such conditions, he may have ended with a much higher average.

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.

Well, he was excellent whenever England showed themselves early on. He had a very good home series against Pakistan too. From then on, he faded (with the notable exception of a home series against WI), sometimes doing even worse than Lee against some fairly crappy opponents (England in 1985 only looked good compared to AUS, who were utter ****). Whatever else can be said about Lee, even when he was bowling poorly, he did manage to take wickets against lower-end Test-class teams. Lawson then experienced a renaissance against England in 1989, but that was his last hurrah. After that, he was more or less over the hill as a Test bowler.

It is hard to say who is better - Lawson had to lead the attack for longer and never did have bowlers or batsmen as good as what Lee had beside him, but got to bowl on friendlier decks against generally less resistant tailenders. He still had some very good (even world-class, where Lillee's concerned) bowlers alongside him. I don't think Len Pascoe played alongside him - much of his career was spent in WSC.

 

[Craig]

Barry Richards said that his pace was quite gentle compared to today's bowlers (and even contemporaries), though - he said his greatest gift was his swing.

His illness began in 1980, after his return from England (including his long stint in the Lancashire League), when he ate a packet of peanuts and then endured a blockage of the bowel. He then became a medical guinea-pig, having his liver cut into pieces, amongst other things.

I was also under the impression that Caddick was a bit quicker than Fleming, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's because Caddick cantered to the wicket and fired it down, whilst Fleming's run-up was comparatively gentle and he wasn't really striving for pace.



Lee was excellent early on (7 Tests), was mostly poor from 2001-2005 with a couple of good Tests, was good to OK in 2005/06, inconsistent in 2006/07, excellent in 2007/08 and a has-been by 2008/09, when it started to become clear that his body could not hold up anymore. He could therefore be said to be over the hill. That is significiant in Lee's case, because he averaged nearly 50. If Hawke was made to bowl under such conditions, he may have ended with a much higher average.



Well, he was excellent whenever England showed themselves early on. He had a very good home series against Pakistan too. From then on, he faded (with the notable exception of a home series against WI), sometimes doing even worse than Lee against some fairly crappy opponents (England in 1985 only looked good compared to AUS, who were utter ****). Whatever else can be said about Lee, even when he was bowling poorly, he did manage to take wickets against lower-end Test-class teams. Lawson then experienced a renaissance against England in 1989, but that was his last hurrah. After that, he was more or less over the hill as a Test bowler.

It is hard to say who is better - Lawson had to lead the attack for longer and never did have bowlers or batsmen as good as what Lee had beside him, but got to bowl on friendlier decks against generally less resistant tailenders. He still had some very good (even world-class, where Lillee's concerned) bowlers alongside him. I don't think Len Pascoe played alongside him - much of his career was spent in WSC.

That is why I have a problem with streetwise chucking in the 'great' tag with Lee (even if he is quoting Lillee) in Test cricket. I wouldn't have a problem with such a call if he was talking about ODI cricket. Lee's meant to be a great bloke in all (I can't say for sure since I have never met him), but I don't think that or being a great athlete should have much bearing when we rate a fast bowler.

I think Lillee has a habit of hyperbolic statements.

 

[Richard]

Faced Brett Lee in the pressure of an Ashes Test often have you?

The fact that Lee bowled a good spell on a couple of occasions in Ashes Tests (both of which England dominated anyway BTW, so he was hardly "contributing to Australia's success) really doesn't mean Flintoff is qualified to say that he was doing it with regularity.

 

[Richard]

Barry Richards said that his pace was quite gentle compared to today's bowlers (and even contemporaries), though - he said his greatest gift was his swing.

Swing, if you can bowl it well, is the greatest gift any bowler can possess. Anyway Barry Richards' interpretation is probably better than that of some moderate-quality B&W film shot from the sidelines (which is all I've ever seen of Hawke), but the fact that someone is a quality swing bowler doesn't neccessarily say anything about their pace.

His illness began in 1980, after his return from England (including his long stint in the Lancashire League), when he ate a packet of peanuts and then endured a blockage of the bowel. He then became a medical guinea-pig, having his liver cut into pieces, amongst other things.

I see. Rather unfortunate.

I was also under the impression that Caddick was a bit quicker than Fleming, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's because Caddick cantered to the wicket and fired it down, whilst Fleming's run-up was comparatively gentle and he wasn't really striving for pace.

If anything TBH I think Fleming was a teeny bit quicker - pretty sure I saw him manage the occasional 90mph ball, while the best I ever saw Caddick produce was 86. Either way both were for most of their careers comfortably what I'd class as fast-medium rather than medium-fast; it sounds like Hawke might've been more the latter.

Lee was excellent early on (7 Tests), was mostly poor from 2001-2005 with a couple of good Tests, was good to OK in 2005/06, inconsistent in 2006/07, excellent in 2007/08 and a has-been by 2008/09, when it started to become clear that his body could not hold up anymore. He could therefore be said to be over the hill. That is significiant in Lee's case, because he averaged nearly 50. If Hawke was made to bowl under such conditions, he may have ended with a much higher average.

Personally I'd rate Lee as excllent in 1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08, decent in 2005/06, and very poor elsewhere (including 2006/07 and 2008/09). I don't think injury had anything to do with his poor performance in 2008/09, I think he just regressed to his normal standards - he'd bowled as he did that season plenty beforehand. If Lee ever returns to ODIs maybe we'll see whether he's still the same.

Well, he was excellent whenever England showed themselves early on. He had a very good home series against Pakistan too. From then on, he faded (with the notable exception of a home series against WI), sometimes doing even worse than Lee against some fairly crappy opponents (England in 1985 only looked good compared to AUS, who were utter ****). Whatever else can be said about Lee, even when he was bowling poorly, he did manage to take wickets against lower-end Test-class teams. Lawson then experienced a renaissance against England in 1989, but that was his last hurrah. After that, he was more or less over the hill as a Test bowler.

It is hard to say who is better - Lawson had to lead the attack for longer and never did have bowlers or batsmen as good as what Lee had beside him, but got to bowl on friendlier decks against generally less resistant tailenders. He still had some very good (even world-class, where Lillee's concerned) bowlers alongside him. I don't think Len Pascoe played alongside him - much of his career was spent in WSC.

What you say about Lawson is pretty much fair enough - though I'm fairly sure he bowled, a bit, alongside Pascoe in his debut season, 1980/81. May only have been a single game actually.

 

[Richard]

I think Lillee has a habit of hyperbolic statements.

He certainly does, and long has done so - just like his good friend Rodney Marsh. Both are very prone to heaping praise on players who are very hard workers who have had stints under their tenure. Being a hard worker is an admirable trait and the two of them are very right to value it, but I've seen so many cases where one of them has come-out with a hyperbolic statement about a player's talent based on his work-ethic.

 

[Streetwise]

He certainly does, and long has done so - just like his good friend Rodney Marsh. Both are very prone to heaping praise on players who are very hard workers who have had stints under their tenure. Being a hard worker is an admirable trait and the two of them are very right to value it, but I've seen so many cases where one of them has come-out with a hyperbolic statement about a player's talent based on his work-ethic.

That is why I have a problem with streetwise chucking in the 'great' tag with Lee (even if he is quoting Lillee) in Test cricket. I wouldn't have a problem with such a call if he was talking about ODI cricket. Lee's meant to be a great bloke in all (I can't say for sure since I have never met him), but I don't think that or being a great athlete should have much bearing when we rate a fast bowler.

I think Lillee has a habit of hyperbolic statements.

The quote was from Flintoff who played against Lee and he is not Australian.

I know it is an opportunity to run down another Australian but its just not Lillee that made the statement.

 

[DaRick]

Swing, if you can bowl it well, is the greatest gift any bowler can possess. Anyway Barry Richards' interpretation is probably better than that of some moderate-quality B&W film shot from the sidelines (which is all I've ever seen of Hawke), but the fact that someone is a quality swing bowler doesn't neccessarily say anything about their pace.

No, but swing and pace do tend to be inversely proportional, so to speak.

If anything TBH I think Fleming was a teeny bit quicker - pretty sure I saw him manage the occasional 90mph ball, while the best I ever saw Caddick produce was 86. Either way both were for most of their careers comfortably what I'd class as fast-medium rather than medium-fast; it sounds like Hawke might've been more the latter.

Eh, fair enough.

Personally I'd rate Lee as excllent in 1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08, decent in 2005/06, and very poor elsewhere (including 2006/07 and 2008/09). I don't think injury had anything to do with his poor performance in 2008/09, I think he just regressed to his normal standards - he'd bowled as he did that season plenty beforehand. If Lee ever returns to ODIs maybe we'll see whether he's still the same.

Lee was pretty poor in 2008/09 (not as bad as his series against SA would indicate, but he was down on pace and struggling with his line and length by Melbourne), but it later turned out that he was carrying injuries. Since then, he's struggled to get on the pitch. That leads me to believe that his body couldn't take the riguors of Test cricket anymore. ODI cricket is a different business.

Either way, he should not have taken to the cricket field during the 2008/09 season. We'd have been better served trying our luck with Hilfenhaus or Bollinger.

What you say about Lawson is pretty much fair enough - though I'm fairly sure he bowled, a bit, alongside Pascoe in his debut season, 1980/81. May only have been a single game actually.

Yeah, you're right - AUS vs NZ at Brisbane 1980.

 

[Richard]

The quote was from Flintoff who played against Lee and he is not Australian.

I know it is an opportunity to run down another Australian but its just not Lillee that made the statement.

I never said it was Lillee who made that particular statement which you quoted from Flintoff - Lillee has however made hyperbolic statements about Lee in the past. For instance, he voted for him over McDermott and Gillespie in an Australian post-1990 team in 2007.

 

[Richard]

No, but swing and pace do tend to be inversely proportional, so to speak.

Hmm, have heard people say that before - don't agree TBH. There are easily enough high-pace swing bowlers in history to suggest that it's quite possible to swing the ball plentifully regardless of how quick or slow you bowl. What often counts is how much you try to do it - and by nature slower bowlers tend to try harder because they need swing even more than quicker ones do.

But no bowler, 75mph or 90mph, will get far unless he can do something with the ball - and swing through the air is always better than movement off the pitch, because it doesn't depend on what the deck is playing like (though it does depend on having a decent-quality cricket ball which at the present time is often not forthcoming).

Lee was pretty poor in 2008/09 (not as bad as his series against SA would indicate, but he was down on pace and struggling with his line and length by Melbourne), but it later turned out that he was carrying injuries. Since then, he's struggled to get on the pitch. That leads me to believe that his body couldn't take the riguors of Test cricket anymore. ODI cricket is a different business.

Either way, he should not have taken to the cricket field during the 2008/09 season. We'd have been better served trying our luck with Hilfenhaus or Bollinger.

Well if he hadn't it's a safe bet for sure that he'd be perceived differently to how he is. I'm certainly not sorry he did - though obviously it would be better if he had taken the field fit rather than not taken it at all.

 

[Streetwise]

I never said it was Lillee who made that particular statement which you quoted from Flintoff - Lillee has however made hyperbolic statements about Lee in the past. For instance, he voted for him over McDermott and Gillespie in an Australian post-1990 team in 2007.

I would never suggest that Lillee being an international fast bowling coach would have a better understanding of fast bowlers than someone with 79000+ posts on CW.

 

[Richard]

I would never suggest that someone who has the technical expertise and know-how to improve the quality of pace bowlers - and was an outstanding pace bowler himself - is any better at assessing how good the performance of a pace bowler was than anyone who watches a decent amount of the game.

Because it isn't true, however much some might like it to be.

 

[Streetwise]

I would never suggest that someone who has the technical expertise and know-how to improve the quality of pace bowlers - and was an outstanding pace bowler himself - is any better at assessing how good the performance of a pace bowler was than anyone who watches a decent amount of the game.

Because it isn't true, however much some might like it to be.

I've watched a decent amout of cricket so my opinion would be just as good at assessing Lees bowling as you, can we agree on that.

I have posted Flintoffs views which are the same as mine and you have posted Lillees and several cricket identities have echoed my views so thats about everyone agreeing with me and disagreeing with you. Could you post some quotes from anyone that agrees with you.

 

[DaRick]

Hmm, have heard people say that before - don't agree TBH. There are easily enough high-pace swing bowlers in history to suggest that it's quite possible to swing the ball plentifully regardless of how quick or slow you bowl.

I'm not disputing this, per se. I just feel that slower bowlers tend to swing it more than quicker bowlers, not that express quicks cannot swing it or fallacies like that.

What often counts is how much you try to do it - and by nature slower bowlers tend to try harder because they need swing even more than quicker ones do.

I dunno about this. Bob Massie has said that trying too hard to swing the ball ("putting too much into it" were his exact words) will ironically result in the ball swinging less. That sounds bizarre, but there you go.

But no bowler, 75mph or 90mph, will get far unless he can do something with the ball - and swing through the air is always better than movement off the pitch, because it doesn't depend on what the deck is playing like (though it does depend on having a decent-quality cricket ball which at the present time is often not forthcoming).

Yep, agreed - though the amount of swing you get does depend on the level of humidity and cloud.

Well if he hadn't it's a safe bet for sure that he'd be perceived differently to how he is. I'm certainly not sorry he did - though obviously it would be better if he had taken the field fit rather than not taken it at all.

Well he was one of the main factors in us losing that series (i.e - not being able to take the field half the time). As soon as he was gone, the AUS bowling attack looked much more complete.