Caddick and his big mouth

[Anil]

Glenn and Gillespie are not strike bowlers in the sense Brett Lee, Shoaib AKhtar and Thomspon are/were. I am sure you can comprehend that. Sure Pollock, Wasim, Murali an co. are strike bowlers for their teams, but their methods are drastically different from those of the aforementioned bowlers. Lee and Shoaib will look to blast oppositions off, whereas Wasim, Vaas, Pollock will depend lagely on swing or seam or both.

With these bowlers, it either heaven or its hell. Rarely are they able to put in a moderate performance. Either way, 5 wickets for 55 perhaps just won you the game, or no wicket for 60 could cost you the game. Thats a gamble you have to put up with men like Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar. You dont have one in your team as of now, I am sure you'll get the hang of things once you get one !

As for the noise, I would have thought you people would get used to all the clamour by now ? Lee's not the first one to do loud talking is he ? Just dont try to dig up excuses to get back at the Aussies ! criticism is welcome but not unfounded. Lee may not be the best Australian bowler at current form, he's certainly better then many other nationals. (Same point I made earlier)

What is the cricketing definition of a strike bowler?
AFAIK, a strike bowler/s is/are the one/s the team looks to take the bulk of the opposition wickets and the supporting bowlers bowl around him/them, get energy off him/them, keep it tight and do the clean-up job. Is there anything wrong or incomplete with my definition? If there is, please let me know. So, moving ahead with that definition, there is no "strike bowler" in a different sense as you put it. That's why Murali inspite of being a spinner is called a strike bowler. That's why Brett Lee can't be called one. I know that he has been taken in the team as a strike bowler, but on the strength of his performances so far, he just doesn't qualify to be one while McGrath does, Warne does, Gillespie is starting to.

Looking at the past, let's take the West Indian quicks of the 80s and early 90s like Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose......They were lightning fast, with aggressive in-your-face attitudes on the field and took wickets by the truckload, blowing away the opposition(as you like to put it). Would they qualify as strike bowlers in your book? Do you know some of the special qualities they shared? Accuracy and consistency. Do you know what Brett Lee lacks? Accuracy and consistency.

Secondly, even if there was one such fast bowler purporting to be a "strike bowler" in the Indian team, my opinion still would not change.

Thirdly, who do you mean by "you people"? What clamour should "we people" be getting used to? Lee is definitely not the only one talking loud and not walking the talk, that's an ever lengthening list. I have no wish to "get back at the Aussies". Where did you get that? I have every respect and admiration for their team. If you still feel that this is unfounded cricticism, well...there is really very little I can say. I have laid as much of a foundation for my criticism as I can. Lee is better than many other nationals?? which nationals? Aussie, Indian or otherwise? I agree that Lee is probably good enough to be in the Indian team or some of the other teams, but my point is that the Aussie pin-up boy just hasn't shown that he is good enough to play for Australia.

 

[Rik]

Yes, every wicket counts Brett, but you don't have to run about like a loony every time!

I celebrate after each wicket but if I get someone really good I give it the full aeroplane and even did Brett's shaking fist one

 

[Rik]

I think I started an arguement that I'm not even taking part in...BOOOM!

 

[Anna]

Hmmmmm......

 

[Anil]

I think I started an arguement that I'm not even taking part in...BOOOM!

Yeah, you sure did!

 

[luckyeddie]

Regarding the Windies quicks of the 1980's, Michael Holding started off most definitely as a strike bowler until he started getting injury problems. He was quick and hostile - the accuracy came with experience. When he came to Derbyshire he had lost much of his pace - but it didn't stop him from taking the greatest-ever haul in a single one-dayer (county game).

Big Bird qualified as hostile because of the bounce he got - a man almost 7' tall has a huge advantage as a quick.

Marshall was definitely a strike bowler for most of his career.

Andy Roberts probably never was, but still an awesome bowler.

When you put the four together, they took hostility to another level. They kept coming at you all day.

The first 3 in my opinion were far better strike bowlers than Brett Lee in their heyday (as was Thommo and John Snow). I will put Brett ahead of Willis by quite a way.

Waqar and Wasim in their heyday weren't exactly strike bowlers in the Shoaib/Brett way - they had, other attributes.

 

[Gotchya]

Well Anil I am too sleepy to talk too much still....

In any case, I wasn't about to nominate Lee for the player of the tournament award. I dont rate him very highly. Still though I would like to see more respect for him. I am not saying that only the fact that he bowls at good pace should mean he should be regarded as a great bowler, but with good pace he is half way there isn't he ? I dont believe that he would go places until he sorts out his line and length.

'you people' includes you and it includes me. Australians loud mouth all the time, there is nothing surprising that Lee is doing it/ will do it. So i see no logic in you or for that matter anyone complaining that he hasn't lived up to his claims. He isn't bad by any standards, and as far as i know, maintaning accuracy and consistency while bowling at 150 + is quite difficult, which is precisely why they say that at good pace the margin of error is much larger. Pace maynot be everything, but its a lot of things.

The west Indian bowlers you mention are timeless, they will remain the ultimate yardstick to measure many coming generations. But at present day all you have is Lee or Akhtar or Bond bowling at tear away speeds. For me a strike bowler is intimidating, and full of aura. Once he gets the ball in his hands something has to happen. Or maybe we could introduce a new term for bowlers bowling over 150-155 kph ?

As for you saying that he's not good enough to play for Australia, well lets just settle with "there may not be any better atm" shall we ?

 

[krkode]

Waqar Wasim and Pollock Donald were just plain good in their good days...

Lee is more of a third bowler for Aus at the moment, behind McGrath and Gillespie and I think more rests on their shoulders than does on Lee's.

 

[Gotchya]

Regarding the Windies quicks of the 1980's, Michael Holding started off most definitely as a strike bowler until he started getting injury problems. He was quick and hostile - the accuracy came with experience. When he came to Derbyshire he had lost much of his pace - but it didn't stop him from taking the greatest-ever haul in a single one-dayer (county game).

Big Bird qualified as hostile because of the bounce he got - a man almost 7' tall has a huge advantage as a quick.

Marshall was definitely a strike bowler for most of his career.

Andy Roberts probably never was, but still an awesome bowler.

When you put the four together, they took hostility to another level. They kept coming at you all day.

The first 3 in my opinion were far better strike bowlers than Brett Lee in their heyday (as was Thommo and John Snow). I will put Brett ahead of Willis by quite a way.

Waqar and Wasim in their heyday weren't exactly strike bowlers in the Shoaib/Brett way - they had, other attributes.

I agree. The West Indies pace attack was known for its hostile nature. Accuracy and consistency were a second memory. Still though Brett Lee doesn't come near this lot.

 

[krkode]

Originally posted by Anna
Yes, every wicket counts Brett, but you don't have to run about like a loony every time!

People are always saying this, but they don't really know how it feels to take a wicket at that level. I don't think you'd say the same thing once you've taken some international wickets, because at that level getting some of the great batsman of all time out is quite an achievement and joy is something one cannot hide. You can't really judge him based on his reaction to a wicket unless you have been in the same situation and reacted differently.

 

[Eclipse]

I also never said he had had a great world cup infact he has disapointed me but I just think people should wake up to the facts If you are a fast bowler then you are going to be expensive at times no matter what.

And Lee is a genuine strike bowler his strike rate is somthing like 28!! thats about as good as you will get in One day cricket Infact its better than players like Gillespie Mcgrath Murili almost everyone I can think Of.

Not to mention he has a One Day bowling avrage of 22 and under 20 in the last 12 months.

Despite these stats I can and do see why people dont like him there are times when he loses it and bowls some total trash witch drives us all mad but that case with most quick bowlers.

 

[marc71178]

I think I started an arguement that I'm not even taking part in...BOOOM!

You could start an argument in an empty room

 

[Rik]

You could start an argument in an empty room

You already have...

 

[Bazza]

As I said, wait until you get a Akhtar or a Lee, u'll understand what all the hype is all about.

Well we kinda have. This time 6 months ago there was an awful lot of excitement surrounding Simon Jones, just as there will be for years to come if he makes any kind of career for himself.

I know what you mean.

Brett Lee's overall record is good. Averages 29 in tests with a SR of 50. Pretty amazing SR there and ok average. In ODIs average 23, SR 29. Again amazing SR and a very good average.

Even if Australia are carrying him he'd walk into any other side in the world, whether you like it or not.

 

[marc71178]

You already have...

Touché