How does being a bowler of short spells excuse that? It's a poor economy-rate - there's no two ways about that. That doesn't mean he's unworthy of a place in the side, no, because there is more to one-day bowling than pure economy, but there's no two ways about the fact that Brett Lee's economy-rate is poor.And that's terrible for a strike bowler.
The fact is that Lee takes wickets far more consistently than any of the bowlers you named there, so he shouldn't be the one being criticized. If the other bowlers are going for runs and not taking wickets, and Brett Lee is going for runs and taking wickets, why is it Lee who you decided to come down on? He's the one who's doing something right. Surely it should be everybody-but-Lee who you tackle.
It's a good economy rate for a strike bowler in this day and age. Lee's role in the side is to take wickets primarily.
Have I even mentioned any of them here? No. Lee is the only subject of conversation. Yes, those other 4 are all far worse, but I haven't had any reason to mention their cases, have I?
What is more accurate to say IMO is "a poor economy-rate can be forgiven for a bowler who takes that many wickets".
You're criticizing Lee - the strike bowler - for having a poor economy rate, when his economy rate is what is to be expected from a bowler striking so often. And then you brought Tait, Johnson, Hogg et al into the discussion stating that if they did their jobs, Lee wouldn't be a problem. I really don't see how Lee is a problem at all. Yes, there are games when he's totally off, but for the large part I really don't see a problem with my strike bowler taking 2-3 wickets for less than 50. Simply because he has substandard bowling all around him shouldn't take away from his achievements as a strike bowler.
Or rather, an economy rate of 4.80 is not poor when a bowler is taking wickets at such a rate.
Except that that's not how it works and you know it.
ER and SR do not have to be linked! They can, and in Lee's case should, be treated independently of one another!
Context usually dictates that that's quite an effective spell, ignoring of course that Lee usually goes for less than 60 runs when taking wickets. The Australian bowling attack also looks far more potent when he's taking wickets... for some... strange... reason...
Wow...I knew Bond was up there, but I didn't realise he had the best strike rate of all time
You have a link to that? Not saying it's not true, but I don't remember the conversation, and I'd have thought I'd remember calling you biased for saying something completely reasonable.Wow...I knew Bond was up there, but I didn't realise he had the best strike rate of all time
I remember last year I suggested that IMO bond was as good if not better an ODI bowler than Lee, and i got hammered for it from the likes of Faaib and even Blaze (a fellow kiwi) called me biased.
It was blaze that suggested i was biased, not you. And for the record I just looked back and it was for the Oneday team of 2005 thread, so apologies, I wasn't 100% correct. Sorry dude. Anyways for the record its was....http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=16289You have a link to that? Not saying it's not true, but I don't remember the conversation, and I'd have thought I'd remember calling you biased for saying something completely reasonable.
Bond is every bit as good as Lee IMO, and in fact could have been better, the main difference between the two is that Lee's managed to stay on the park a lot more, so obviously he's been tested over longer periods of time and deserves higher ranking as a bowler. I don't think you can really rate someone like Bond as one of the greatest ODI bowlers unless he plays a few solid seasons without injury, but he's certainly been very good in the games he's played.
Oh right, that makes more sense to me, as it was based on a single year, rather than an outright comparison between the bowlers. FWIW, my opinion is that Bond is probably the more talented bowler in ODIs, but he simply hasn't played consistently enough to be rated as one of the greats, whereas Lee has IMO. Bond's stats are tremendous though, and he might still have another year or two in him. He's really not that old, relatively speaking, though he probably isn't someone who'll play on that long.
Ntini >>> Lee in terms of fitness.