Newsflash: Hayden is arrogent

[FaaipDeOiad]

I was just in utter shock. I could not believe you would come out with such comments after you defended him to the ends of the earth when I was critisising his performances during the Ashes series (which was justiftied).

I never said that Lee bowled brilliantly in the Ashes, or anything of the sort. What I said was that he bowled well at times, and he did, including some key spells which had a big impact on a couple of games, and that he as a better selection than Kasprowicz for the test side, dating back to the tour of New Zealand, and I think results since bear that out pretty well.

Overally however his performance in the Ashes was average at best, and he lacked the consistency necessary to take pressure off Warne, as Warne basically went into every innings with the burden of having to take all the wickets on him.

 

[honestbharani]

I'd say Australia are far too good a team to rely entirely on Warne. It's true of course that in the Ashes they did, but Warne's form since hasn't really been that great, just about average by his standards, and Australia have still won all but one test in that time, with the other being a draw. The issue in the Ashes was that McGrath was injured and Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz weren't performing, and MacGill didn't play and Tait was in his first series. Along with the unusually lacklustre batting, it left a huge burden on Warne.

Since then, we've seen Hayden, Ponting and Hussey carry the batting back to an acceptable level, McGrath come back, and after he lost form and then left the team again Lee had come good as a replacement. Then there's Clark and Gillespie, who had one good series each. Basically, when Warne doesn't perform, Australia usually still win, because there's not a serious reliance on him as a player.

I don't think England totally rely on Flintoff either, and they are a much better side when he gets good support, but there's no doubt it's a more serious issue when he doesn't play well, particularly with Jones almost never being in the side, and Harmison being so poor in the last couple of years. It's basically Hoggard, Trescothick and nothing else in terms of consistently fit and performing players for England, when you take Flintoff out of the team.

And, more to the point, if you took both Warne and Flintoff out of the teams for the Ashes, I would think Australia would suffer less due to an able replacement in MacGill, while England would have to alter their entire gameplan.

I meant in the context of the last Ashes. They were severely dependent on Warne in that series.

 

[Mister Wright]

I never said that Lee bowled brilliantly in the Ashes, or anything of the sort. What I said was that he bowled well at times, and he did, including some key spells which had a big impact on a couple of games, and that he as a better selection than Kasprowicz for the test side, dating back to the tour of New Zealand, and I think results since bear that out pretty well.

Overally however his performance in the Ashes was average at best, and he lacked the consistency necessary to take pressure off Warne, as Warne basically went into every innings with the burden of having to take all the wickets on him.

That's strange, because I remember you and others telling me I was being far too unfair on Lee when I said he was very average during the Ashes.

 

[Matt79]

(shouts) Richard, I think he's talking to you

How did you break my code!!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's strange, because I remember you and others telling me I was being far too unfair on Lee when I said he was very average during the Ashes.

As you were suggesting he didn't deserve to be picked, that he wasn't good enough for test cricket and that he was bowling just as badly as Kasprowicz and Gillespie, yes you were being unfair on him, as you are when you say he's a club standard bowler on flat pitches and so on as well. Nevertheless, Lee's performance in the Ashes wasn't as good as would be expected from a front-line test bowler, at least not enough of the time, and therefore it placed more pressure on Warne.

Basically, Lee bowled well at times in the Ashes... he bowled well at Lords generally, he bowled well in the second innings at Edgbaston, and he bowled well at Trent Bridge. His performance throughout most of the series was okay, but it was dragged down by some shocking periods like the first innings at Edgbaston and the entire final test.

As far as I recall, pretty much everyone who defended Lee after the Ashes simply said that he bowled well at times and it was his first series back, but that he needed to improve if he was going to be a good test bowler. As it happened, he did.

 

[marc71178]

As I said, they relied on Warne in the Ashes, that doesn't mean they rely on him all the time.

Silly me, Pietersen was clearly talking about the South Africa series wasn't he?

 

[Francis]

Trust me Marc, Warne wasn't at his best in South Africa. He played well in one game where he won it for Australia when it would have gone toward a draw. But I still don't understand why people are talking about Warne as if he's playing the way he was last year. At times in SA he looked old and worn.

I don't know what to think of him right now. His last domestic game in Australia he got 7-100 and he got 7-99 the other day for Hampshire, so he's bowling great at times. But in international games he's looked overcooked to me.

Ntini > Warne right now.

 

[marc71178]

That wasn't my point Francis.

 

[Francis]

my bad. sorry!

 

[pasag]

Trust me Marc, Warne wasn't at his best in South Africa. He played well in one game where he won it for Australia when it would have gone toward a draw. But I still don't understand why people are talking about Warne as if he's playing the way he was last year. At times in SA he looked old and worn.

I don't know what to think of him right now. His last domestic game in Australia he got 7-100 and he got 7-99 the other day for Hampshire, so he's bowling great at times. But in international games he's looked overcooked to me.

Ntini > Warne right now.

He didnt need to be at his best though, with Clark taking all those wickets, as I think he said something like, ill take 0-40 and win the match by 10 wickets anyday. Warne is best when we have our backs to the wall and since that only happened really once in SA, he was only at his best once. I think.

 

[Mister Wright]

As you were suggesting he didn't deserve to be picked, that he wasn't good enough for test cricket and that he was bowling just as badly as Kasprowicz and Gillespie, yes you were being unfair on him, as you are when you say he's a club standard bowler on flat pitches and so on as well. Nevertheless, Lee's performance in the Ashes wasn't as good as would be expected from a front-line test bowler, at least not enough of the time, and therefore it placed more pressure on Warne.

Basically, Lee bowled well at times in the Ashes... he bowled well at Lords generally, he bowled well in the second innings at Edgbaston, and he bowled well at Trent Bridge. His performance throughout most of the series was okay, but it was dragged down by some shocking periods like the first innings at Edgbaston and the entire final test.

As far as I recall, pretty much everyone who defended Lee after the Ashes simply said that he bowled well at times and it was his first series back, but that he needed to improve if he was going to be a good test bowler. As it happened, he did.

Saying Lee "bowled well at times" is a bit of a cop out. Hell, Gillespie (hey! there was at least one or two balls), Kasprowicz (a couple of overs here and there) & Tait (he did swing one in to Trescothick) all bowled well at times. Overall for the Ashes Lee was pathetic, bowling poorly and going at over 4 an over.

 

[Top_Cat]

Saying Lee "bowled well at times" is a bit of a cop out. Hell, Gillespie (hey! there was at least one or two balls), Kasprowicz (a couple of overs here and there) & Tait (he did swing one in to Trescothick) all bowled well at times. Overall for the Ashes Lee was pathetic, bowling poorly and going at over 4 an over.

Will you get off your hobby-horse? Myself, Faai and a bunch of other people have said that although Lee wasn't brilliant in his first Test series in 18 months, there was a distinct improvement in his bowling which wasn't reflected in his figures. It wasn't as if he was eased back into a series against Bangladesh, either; he was thrown into the most competitive series in ages against a side with an in-form and aggressive batting line-up in an attack with one bowler getting spanked and one injured for most of it. Just about everyone has seen the improvement which has resulted in the bowler we're seeing right now yet you continue with this line. It's so blinkered. I mean, a far superior bowler (in my opinion, Gillespie) was made to look club-standard; against the English line-up in that series, looking below-par like Lee did look a lot of good work. At least there were, in between the bad spells, several spells where Lee looked dangerous and troubled the English. That's crux of the matter for me; to me he looked underdone, not out-of-form. I mean, how many more series in his career is he likely to play where just about every loose-ball, every slight mistake is punished with four or six? Not many.

Call him inconsistent but calling him pathetic does a gross disservice to him and his efforts. He tried his guts out and we're now seeing the results (which makes me wonder why we're even still talking about this!). Yes his average was above 40 but he still took 20 poles. Considering it was a losing series, his first Test series in ages, against excellent batting, etc. that's at least a pass-mark. Wanna talk pathetic? There are plenty more examples in the Aussie line-up. And, I might add, your line gives absolutely no credit to the ultra-attacking and very, very smart batting by the English. They played him pretty well too, y'know.

 

[Mister Wright]

Will you get off your hobby-horse? Myself, Faai and a bunch of other people have said that although Lee wasn't brilliant in his first Test series in 18 months, there was a distinct improvement in his bowling which wasn't reflected in his figures. It wasn't as if he was eased back into a series against Bangladesh, either; he was thrown into the most competitive series in ages against a side with an in-form and aggressive batting line-up in an attack with one bowler getting spanked and one injured for most of it. Just about everyone has seen the improvement which has resulted in the bowler we're seeing right now yet you continue with this line. It's so blinkered. I mean, a far superior bowler (in my opinion, Gillespie) was made to look club-standard; against the English line-up in that series, looking below-par like Lee did look a lot of good work. At least there were, in between the bad spells, several spells where Lee looked dangerous and troubled the English. That's crux of the matter for me; to me he looked underdone, not out-of-form. I mean, how many more series in his career is he likely to play where just about every loose-ball, every slight mistake is punished with four or six? Not many.

Call him inconsistent but calling him pathetic does a gross disservice to him and his efforts. He tried his guts out and we're now seeing the results (which makes me wonder why we're even still talking about this!). Yes his average was above 40 but he still took 20 poles. Considering it was a losing series, his first Test series in ages, against excellent batting, etc. that's at least a pass-mark. Wanna talk pathetic? There are plenty more examples in the Aussie line-up. And, I might add, your line gives absolutely no credit to the ultra-attacking and very, very smart batting by the English. They played him pretty well too, y'know.

I've admitted to his improvement in the recent Australian summer, after the first innings against the Windies in Brisbane. However, he didn't bowl that well in the Ashes overall, yes he had a couple of fine spells, but overall he was pathetic, especially the first innings of the second test match. I fail to see how a player who averaged over 40 for a series could have been bowling well for the whole series. And I am yet to be convinced he has the brain power or ability to bowl well on dead flat pitches as shown in Bangladesh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He certainly wasn't anything like "pathetic" over the whole series. He was consistently the best bowler after Warne, looked far more dangerous than the rest of the seamers post-McGrath injury, and in a couple of tests bowled significant spells which had an impact on the match. He had a couple of very bad points (Edgbaston first innings, Oval test), and a couple of very good ones (Edgbaston second innings, Trent Bridge second innings, Lords test). Yes, he averaged 40+ over the series, but it wasn't until the final day when he had Pietersen put down and then got smashed everywhere by him that his average went that high. For most of the series it sat around the 30+ mark, which wasn't pathetic at all when you compare it to the other bowlers.

The whole point with Lee is that it was obvious he had the tools to be successful in test cricket from around the 04/05 VB series, after he came back from injury and worked on his action. What he needed was an opportunity to acclimatise to the game, and some adjustments to his attitude. The experience of the Ashes, some re-thinking before the next summer and the absence of McGrath conspired to give him the responsibility and experience he needed, and he came good in a significant way. He was the correct selection decision all the way through the Ashes and showed glimpses of ability along with some crap, and he should in fact have been picked in New Zealand beforehand as well. Who knows what he might have done with a good series behind him before the Ashes kicked off.

As far as his flat pitch bowling is concerned, look at how he bowled at the WACA against South Africa, and in the second test in Bangaldesh. Lee's been a quick learner in the last year or so, and it was visibly obvious that he was learning as he went in Bangladesh, as he changed his approach significantly between the first and second tests. In the first ODI, he was reversing a ball that was 17 overs old, which is something I've never seen him do before, and in the second test he was mixing it up constantly to try and keep the batsmen off-guard, as opposed to the first test where he was just bowling quick and on a length and getting belted everywhere. He's not ever likely to be a great subcontinent bowler, but next time he goes there I'd expect him to do better.