The King is dead. Long live the King!

[Manee]

Brett Lee didn't just wake up one day and decide to be a world-class bowler.

If he did, one wonders why he didn't do it a bit earlier

 

[Top_Cat]

As I say, though, I don't think there were any particularly reliable signs pointing to the success of this season. Yes, undoubtedly plenty of people thought it was building, but people think that about players ATT, and they're wrong as often (if not more) than they're right.

I agree people get it wrong as often as right but I don't agree there weren't reliable signs. Statistically, his RPO was improving from after the 2005 Ashes series. That's a big sign for a bowler like Brett; his biggest problem was always the lack of ability to build pressure. He'd bowl a few good balls in a row, beat the batsman a few times possibly, bowl a few rank balls and get dispatched, pressure is released. See, his junior career, initial state and Test careers, he was the sort of bowler who would rely on bowling the unplayable ball and would apparently not worry too much about how many runs he went for. Changing this style took a monumental effort and took time.

I personally saw certain intangibles starting to change a couple of years ago in his game. I noticed he started hitting the seam more and bowling with a 'heavier ball'. He'd not so quickly revert to yorker-bouncer mode after a wicket and would seem to keep his head and concentrate on putting the ball into the right areas more often rather than trying to bowl a bazillion km/h to the new batter. But once the RPO started to drop, I knew it was a matter of time before the wickets came.

 

[Swervy]

Well, no, I don't think they have been. And that's why I don't think any predictions of how well he'd do this summer were particularly stuff-of-genius, regardless of the fact that they turned-out to be correct.

Is anyone claiming that their predictions were the stuff of genius?

 

[Richard]

I agree people get it wrong as often as right but I don't agree there weren't reliable signs. Statistically, his RPO was improving from after the 2005 Ashes series. That's a big sign for a bowler like Brett; his biggest problem was always the lack of ability to build pressure. He'd bowl a few good balls in a row, beat the batsman a few times possibly, bowl a few rank balls and get dispatched, pressure is released. See, his junior career, initial state and Test careers, he was the sort of bowler who would rely on bowling the unplayable ball and would apparently not worry too much about how many runs he went for. Changing this style took a monumental effort and took time.

I personally saw certain intangibles starting to change a couple of years ago in his game. I noticed he started hitting the seam more and bowling with a 'heavier ball'. He'd not so quickly revert to yorker-bouncer mode after a wicket and would seem to keep his head and concentrate on putting the ball into the right areas more often rather than trying to bowl a bazillion km/h to the new batter. But once the RPO started to drop, I knew it was a matter of time before the wickets came.

Oh, that's true, undoubtedly so. Outswing + good accuracy at 140kph+ is rarely going to fail to do the job. And kudos for finally providing some sort of stuff that is actually an indication of improvement (ie, seam-hitting more often and losing less pace off the pitch - though have you actually noted that in HawkEyes or is it just a guess because batsmen appear to be more hurried?).

However, for me, as I say, there were plenty of times in 2006\07 when Lee, frankly, bowled no more accurately than normal. And England, when their batting was still in half-decent shape, played him with virtually no difficulty in five of the first six innings.

 

[Richard]

Is anyone claiming that their predictions were the stuff of genius?

Stuff-of-genius is just a catchphrase, really, but yes, plenty of people are claiming they could know almost beyond doubt that this summer's performances were coming, when, well, they couldn't. As I say, plenty of players are perceived to be improving all the time, have the figures just around the corner, etc. and it never happens. Vikram Solanki is always one of the first who comes to mind in that department.

People could do no more than hope it was going to come for Lee, and fortunately for them, it did.

 

[Swervy]

Stuff-of-genius is just a catchphrase, really, but yes, plenty of people are claiming they could know almost beyond doubt that this summer's performances were coming, when, well, they couldn't. As I say, plenty of players are perceived to be improving all the time, have the figures just around the corner, etc. and it never happens. Vikram Solanki is always one of the first who comes to mind in that department.

People could do no more than hope it was going to come for Lee, and fortunately for them, it did.

You are right in a way, no-one knew for certain how Lee would improve, people made educated guesses, based on their knowledge of the game. You are making out that they have just randomly said that Lee should start seeing the results come in, without any real rational thought. I think it is quite obvious that the people who said this understand the game, and genuinely could see the signs. Richard, give people some credit for a change...its not going to make you look worse.

 

[Richard]

I haven't said people have just randomly said that Lee should start seeing the results come in, without any real rational thought. Not at all. And clearly, above, I credited Corey with his spots of a better seam-position, less loss of pace off the pitch (ie, that phenomenon known as bowling a heavy ball). I'm not exactly likely to credit guys like Fuller who've, in essence, been saying "you're an idiot for calling Lee rubbish" though am I?

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes, Fuller's got that one pretty bang on. I take care to say as little as possible which can be conclusively "wrong". It's the sensible thing to do.

I was wrong to think Lee would never get better, which I did (though I'm pretty sure I never actually said it - might be wrong there too mind), and full credit to him for doing so. But I was not wrong to say he was rubbish when he was.

Why?

FFS gow a spine and take a stand on certain issues. If you thought that Lee was a bowler who poor and unlikely to improve in any significant manner then theres no reason to have veiled said thoughts. Even if its an incorrect opinion, there are so any worse things than having said types of cricket opinions pointed out to be wrong, and the sooner one realises that the sooner one can open up and improve the quality of the discussion by arguing ones real thoughts. And when it turns out that he has improved significantly the least you can do is give his supporters some credit.

 

[irfan]

Lee has been absolutely sensational this summer. I think the major change for Lee came when he decided to change from being an all-out attacking option bowling 150+ to a very accurate 145 kph line and length with a tad of outswing bowler.

Most of the credit should go to Lee for making some major overhauls in his bowling tactics but I think a little bit of credit has to go to Tait.

Why ?

Because when Tait came onto the scene he wanted to be the out and out strike bowler. Lee and Punter knew they're can't be two out and out strikers in the team so Lee started working at being more consistent and now he is reaping the rewards, big time.

Obviously the responsibilty of being spearhead without McGrath and Warne has certainly channelled and focussed his energies to being a fantastic line and length bowler. In 12 test match innings he hasn't been outbowled by any of his bowling colleagues. The problem for Australia now is - what will happen if Lee gets injured ? Johnson and Clark are always good for a coupla wickets but don't look like taking a bag and Hogg has been rather ordinary. The big test for Australia will come when they're without Lee or when they're faced with a dusty turning subcontinent track without a spinner.

 

[Richard]

Why?

FFS gow a spine and take a stand on certain issues. If you thought that Lee was a bowler who poor and unlikely to improve in any significant manner then theres no reason to have veiled said thoughts. Even if its an incorrect opinion, there are so any worse things than having said types of cricket opinions pointed out to be wrong, and the sooner one realises that the sooner one can open up and improve the quality of the discussion by arguing ones real thoughts.

Haha WTF? What makes you think I'm "veiling" thoughts, or arguing anything more or less than what I think?

My thoughts have always been "don't completely write any player off". It's a downright stupid thing to do, as I say. By thinking this, I'm not veiling anything. I talk of what players are at the time I'm doing the talking, and sometimes what I think there's a chance of them doing in future. Saying "he'll never be any good" or "he will get better" are both, IMO, completely stupid things to say, because we've seen a wealth of evidence that you can never, ever say never in cricket.

And when it turns out that he has improved significantly the least you can do is give his supporters some credit.

I said "they can and deserve to enjoy it" didn't I?

 

[Ikki]

Richard, most of us have watched this game enough and know enough about it to see when a player is gradually improving. Enough so that it will be eventual that he'll reap the rewards of his efforts.

I, personally, along with a good handful of others when arguing this with you, have backed him for the past two years. Just hack the fact that you didn't see it and others did to an extent. No one here came here and gave guarantees that it'd happen but gave enough reasoning as to why it could. As Faaip has said here, you've pretty much replied strictly-negatively at even the suggestion. I remember you saying Brett Lee had no "right" to start bowling well. It sounds, almost, as if you've got something against him.

 

[Richard]

No I didn't say "he has no right to bowl well". Not even close, actually.

 

[Swervy]

No I didn't say "he has no right to bowl well". Not even close, actually.

...what, now that you have probably editted what you originally said?

 

[shortpitched713]

"he will get better" are both, IMO, completely stupid things to say

I fail to see how someone having watched a certain bowler in action throughout his career could be called stupid for making such an assessment, unless of course they are perpetually wrong in that regard.

 

[Nate]

Why?

FFS gow a spine and take a stand on certain issues. If you thought that Lee was a bowler who poor and unlikely to improve in any significant manner then theres no reason to have veiled said thoughts. Even if its an incorrect opinion, there are so any worse things than having said types of cricket opinions pointed out to be wrong, and the sooner one realises that the sooner one can open up and improve the quality of the discussion by arguing ones real thoughts. And when it turns out that he has improved significantly the least you can do is give his supporters some credit.

Word and snap.

EDIT: Don't feed the troll guys.

 

[Richard]

...what, now that you have probably editted what you originally said?

Posts can only be edited in the 24 hours after they were made.

 

[Richard]

I fail to see how someone having watched a certain bowler in action throughout his career could be called stupid for making such an assessment, unless of course they are perpetually wrong in that regard.

If you do get it wrong, certain people can try to make you look stupid. Why give them the chance? Why not just make a more equivocal statement?

 

[shortpitched713]

If you do get it wrong, certain people can try to make you look stupid. Why give them the chance? Why not just make a more equivocal statement?

Because you're hedging what you truly think, and most of the time thats pretty useless in a setting where your trying to put forward your views on the game. Unless you put much stock in the opinion of the people who are trying to make you look stupid, I wouldn't bother to be too equivocal in that regard.

I mean its clear who has a vendetta against you and who doesn't, so obviously things put forward by them in an attempt to disparage you are going to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't see why you'd worry about it so much.

 

[Richard]

Because you're hedging what you truly think

No, what I truly think is a hedging. Big difference.

I'm not just saying I'm uncommitted - I actually am uncommitted. I never, ever believe, not just say so, that a player should be completely written-off.

 

[Swervy]

No, what I truly think is a hedging. Big difference.

I'm not just saying I'm uncommitted - I actually am uncommitted. I never, ever believe, not just say so, that a player should be completely written-off.

Harmison? Saj Mahmood???