How many wickets has Brett Lee taken with un-called no-balls so far in his career?

[Richard]

Honestly, I've lost count of the number there've been down the years - the latest one the day before this post highlighted it again.

Is there something about his action or bowling stride that means Umpires struggle to call him for no-balls more often than other bowlers? Or is it just coincidence.

 

[Burgey]

The latter, I suspect.

 

[Johnners]

I suspect it's due to the fact that it's extremely difficult for umpires to call close no-balls.

 

[andyc]

I'm sure that if you analysed it enough, you'd see that every bowler gets their fair share of wickets off no-balls that weren't called. I remember it coming out that Shane Warne's 99 ended on a no-ball, and that was off Daniel Vettori IIRC, so it wouldn't have much to do with the bowler himself, more just the fact that it's pretty hard for umpires to call close ones as Clapo said.

 

[NUFAN]

How many wickets has Brett Lee taken with un-called no-balls so far in his career?

14 times unless proven otherwise.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Well he did take the wicket of Wasim Jaffer in the second test of a no-ball that wasn't called...so that's one taken back.

 

[social]

Honestly, I've lost count of the number there've been down the years - the latest one the day before this post highlighted it again.

Is there something about his action or bowling stride that means Umpires struggle to call him for no-balls more often than other bowlers? Or is it just coincidence.

Big slide with front foot after landing - many supposed no-balls are in fact legitimate because part of foot has landed in right area but ends up over line on completion

 

[Manee]

Well he did take the wicket of Wasim Jaffer in the second test of a no-ball that wasn't called...so that's one taken back.

And Sehwag in Adelaide.

 

[Richard]

I'm sure that if you analysed it enough, you'd see that every bowler gets their fair share of wickets off no-balls that weren't called. I remember it coming out that Shane Warne's 99 ended on a no-ball, and that was off Daniel Vettori IIRC, so it wouldn't have much to do with the bowler himself, more just the fact that it's pretty hard for umpires to call close ones as Clapo said.

That's one wicket. There might possibly be one or two others. Likewise for other bowlers. I'd reckon there'd be no more than 2 or 3 at best of instances of uncalled-no-ball-wickets for pretty much other bowlers. Unless there are some that haven't been mentioned.

There are at least 10 instances I can think of with Lee - and no, I couldn't name OTTOH more than 1 or 2 of the most recent ones - of him getting wickets with no-balls. There's almost no doubt he's done it more than other bowlers in his career. Or at the very least, it's been spotted more times with him than other bowlers, though I find that extremely unlikely.

 

[Richard]

Big slide with front foot after landing - many supposed no-balls are in fact legitimate because part of foot has landed in right area but ends up over line on completion

Those writing match-reports and doing commentaries are rarely if ever ignorant of the no-ball rules.

 

[Debris]

Those writing match-reports and doing commentaries are rarely if ever ignorant of the no-ball rules.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to accuse someone of something or just pointing out an interesting fact?

P.S. I am a little surprised that someone has not mentioned Murali. This board might be a bit more mature than I thought (excepting me).

 

[Richard]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to accuse someone of something or just pointing out an interesting fact?

I'm saying that it doesn't really matter that some less savvy people don't realise the rules; those who mention the fact that Lee has got wickets with no-balls generally do.

 

[Craig]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to accuse someone of something or just pointing out an interesting fact?

P.S. I am a little surprised that someone has not mentioned Murali. This board might be a bit more mature than I thought (excepting me).

Maybe because the issue has been done to death? And generally it involves the virtual start of WWIII on here.

 

[Debris]

Maybe because the issue has been done to death? And generally it involves the virtual start of WWIII on here.

Good to hear

 

[Debris]

I'm saying that it doesn't really matter that some less savvy people don't realise the rules; those who mention the fact that Lee has got wickets with no-balls generally do.

Hmm must say I don't see the link but OK.

 

[Richard]

How is it possible not to see the link? I have spotted the fact that Lee has taken a few wickets with no-balls because commentators (and TV pictures) and match-reports have pointed it out. Therefore, it doesn't really matter that some ignoramuses don't know what is and isn't a no-ball. It's highly unlikely that anyone has incorrectly stated that Lee has taken a wicket with a no-ball.

 

[Debris]

How is it possible not to see the link? I have spotted the fact that Lee has taken a few wickets with no-balls because commentators (and TV pictures) and match-reports have pointed it out. Therefore, it doesn't really matter that some ignoramuses don't know what is and isn't a no-ball. It's highly unlikely that anyone has incorrectly stated that Lee has taken a wicket with a no-ball.

I'm sure he has taken wickets off no-balls, quite possibly more than most. Umpires are human, after all.

I still don't get what you are trying to say. How does this show that some people do not know what a no-ball is? Has someone said that he has never got a dismissal with a no-ball?

 

[Richard]

I wasn't the one that raised the issue, that was social. I was simply replying to what social said.

 

[Debris]

You read a bit more into Social's reply than I did.

Anyway, to get back to your original post I think the reason that Lee may get away with more no-balls than most is the speed he bowls at. I have a sneaky suspicion that the faster you bowl the more random the no-ball calls become.

 

[Matt79]

He seems less able to remove no-balls from the equation by bowling further back than most bowlers - when he does move his mark back his rhythm seems to get disrupted, no doubt a mental issue for him. Hence he bowls more no balls. He also has an excellent strike rate. Simple probability takes those two factors and says, yes, he's likely to take more wickets off no-balls than most.

Besides that, maybe the fact he's so quick means the umpires are feeling pressured to cheat a bit and raise their eyes towards the batsman a little bit early, and hence miss more no-balls. It would be interesting to see, but probably impossible to find out, whether other 150kph+ bowlers get away with more no-balls than your average 130kph bowler.