• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Lee out of the world cup, its confirmed now!!!

Evermind

Evermind

International Debutant
Richard said:
You'd have to very much doubt it.

I can't see him being up to much at 34, personally - he's not the sort of bowler who strikes me as being much good beyond 31-32... not that he's ever been that good anyway...
Click to expand...
ODIs 150 7729 6048 267 5/22 5/22 22.65 4.69 28.94 11 6 0

:shutup:

Yeah, this Brett Lee is one mediocre guy. Can't believe he's still playing ODI cricket.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Its a Deja'vu feeling for the aussies, they lost a big player like warney during the 03 WC and again it has happened to them in this WC with lee missing out.
 
Evermind

Evermind

International Debutant
Richard said:
4.69... what a fabulous economy-rate...
Click to expand...
Dude...

http://eap.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/ODIS/BOWLING/ODI_BOWL_BEST_SR.html

http://eap.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/ODIS/BOWLING/ODI_BOWL_BEST_AVS.html

He's got the third best strike rate in the history of ODI cricket, and an average exactly on par with Glenn McGrath (difference of 0.02). A genuine wicket-taking bowler whose econ rate is pretty ok (nowhere as bad as some of the other bowling "stars"). He's one of the top ODI bowlers any side would KILL to have in their team.

Personal dislike is one thing, but you're digging yourself a hole here. Brett Lee never a good bowler? Gimme a f'ing break.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Come on, then? How many stars are there who've got such poor economy-rates?

Anything over 4.5-an-over is poor, simple as. There are a lot of poor bowlers around at the moment, yes.

And as for all the wickets - come on! Not that many have been taken with good bowling. Most have been the combination of inevitable cashing-in on substandard teams (remove Kenya, Bangladesh, etc. and his SR and ave aren't quite so good), getting gimme wickets at the end of the innings and rubbish deliveries taking wickets.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pup Clarke said:
You think?.I'd hardly call 4.69 economy awful?.Anything between 5.5-6 an over is awful.IMO 4.69 is reseanobly respectable in the modern game.
Click to expand...
No serious ODI bowler (Ajit Agarkar isn't a serious ODI bowler) has ever had an ER over 5. Anything over 5 is a complete and utter joke. Between 4.5 and 5 is poor enough. You won't last too long in that bracket unless your one-day cricket is seriously, seriously piss-poor.
 
P

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
And as for all the wickets - come on! Not that many have been taken with good bowling. Most have been the combination of inevitable cashing-in on substandard teams (remove Kenya, Bangladesh, etc. and his SR and ave aren't quite so good), getting gimme wickets at the end of the innings and rubbish deliveries taking wickets.
Click to expand...
How exactly can you prove any of this?
 
Evermind

Evermind

International Debutant
Richard said:
Come on, then? How many stars are there who've got such poor economy-rates?

Anything over 4.5-an-over is poor, simple as. There are a lot of poor bowlers around at the moment, yes.
Click to expand...
Urgh.

So according to you, the following are dreadful bowlers, since they all have econ rate above or around 4.5 (+-0.1):

Waqar Younis
Shoaib Akhtar
Zaheer Khan
Nathan Bracken
James Anderson
Makhaya Ntini
Jacques Kallis
Monty Panesar
Umar Gul
Lasith Malinga

Far as I know, Waqar Younis lasted plenty long with a bowling econ rate above 4.5, don't you think?

I guess the top 8 are pretty much out of the WC, considering most of these are their strike bowlers...8-)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Evermind said:
Urgh.

So according to you, the following are dreadful bowlers, since they all have econ rate above or around 4.5 (+-0.1):

Waqar Younis
Shoaib Akhtar
Zaheer Khan
Nathan Bracken
James Anderson
Makhaya Ntini
Jacques Kallis
Monty Panesar
Umar Gul
Lasith Malinga

Far as I know, Waqar Younis lasted plenty long with a bowling econ rate above 4.5, don't you think?

I guess the top 8 are pretty much out of the WC, considering most of these are their strike bowlers...8-)
Click to expand...
Waqar certainly didn't - his ER went up dramatically as his skills declined in the latter 2 or 3 years of his career.

Gul, Panesar, Maaaalinga, Kallis of the last 6 years or so, Anderson for most of the time, Ntini and Shoaib sometimes and Zaheer Khan are all pretty rubbish (or at least have been to date).

Bracken's I'm very confident will go down again once he gets a decent monopoly on the attack. And once he stops playing in stupid 350-plus-chased-down games.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pup Clarke said:
How exactly can you prove any of this?
Click to expand...
Well I can conclusively prove on this forum only one part - the remove-substandard-teams part:

Lee against ODI-standard teams: 1156.4, 5547, 237. That's an economy-rate of 4.8-an-over and an average of 23.41.
 
Mr Mxyzptlk

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
Waqar certainly didn't - his ER went up dramatically as his skills declined in the latter 2 or 3 years of his career.
Click to expand...
Waqar Younis was always an effective strike bowler though, in that his average never went over 24. Brett Lee's role in the Australian attack is as a strike bowler, because that's what he's most capable of being. When you're as potent a wicket-taker as Brett Lee, an economy of less than 4.70 is good.

The problem with the Australian attack of late has been lack of a wicket-taking option as much as, if not more than, the lack of an economical bowler.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Waqar Younis was always an effective strike bowler though, in that his average never went over 24. Brett Lee's role in the Australian attack is as a strike bowler, because that's what he's most capable of being. When you're as potent a wicket-taker as Brett Lee, an economy of less than 4.70 is good.

The problem with the Australian attack of late has been lack of a wicket-taking option as much as, if not more than, the lack of an economical bowler.
Click to expand...
If they had someone who could bowl economically, they'd not be in any trouble. But Tait, Johnson, Watson, Hogg et al can't. Nor can they take wickets.

(NO, THAT CHANGING IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE SO DON'T ANYONE EVEN START THERE!!!!!!!!!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top