Brett Lee, an idiot?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by acker

Kasper[...] only can get wickets when their is something in the pitch.

Isn't that true of all bowlers, everywhere?

Warne is neutered on slow and low pitches: without the pace and bounce his variations are easily smothered off the front foot or adjusted to off the back foot. Murali is neutered on very green strips: his flatter, faster deliveries have less air.. can get no bite.. and basically just sail through.

How about Pollock? No bowler in world cricket is as adept at taking advantage of the slightest bit of help that can be gleaned from the conditions... but not even he can get swing and seam movement EVERYWHERE... and in those conditions he's a lot less potent.

Go back a bit: why did world cricket witness endless ball-tampering allegations when Waqar Younis was playing? Because everyone accepted that there was not much that even Waqar Younis could do with a ball that wasn't reverse swinging on a pitch that sucked.

Looking more broadly.. how many of the top English finger spinners ever found bowling in Australia productive? How many of them ever found themselves ina position to give the ball some air and lok for wickets? I believe that even in the days of laker and his chums it became evident that Aussie tracks = few wickets for finger spinners.

I'm with you that the great bowlers can at least "do a job" when conditions suck: McGrath and Warne can just make sure there's nothing loose... and others (Cairns, Gough) can mix up their deliveries so that batsmen can't pre-meditate.. but let's face it - few bowlers in the history of the game take wickets on all surfaces and in all conditions.

[acker]

Speedsters dont allways need conducive pitches Rachel, 150 kph plus bowling tends to disturb batsmen , particualy in their early stages of facing it weather its Lords , Calcutta , Wellington , Adelaide , Edgbaston , Preshawer or Cape Town.

Or the wickets flat as a tack.
I remember going to Sydney with my cousin in the mid 80's stopping at the SCG for one session, watching Greg Ritchie hit Malcolm Marshall for 4 runs on the spin friendly pitch then next ball a fired up and quick Malcolm dig in a bouncer that hit "Fatcat" Ritchie in the head and flattenned him and made him retire hurt.
Shear speed is allways a weapon, mediocre medium pace is'nt.

[Rachael]

Sami is fast.. as is Fidel Edwards.. as is Dale Steyn... and none of them are any good. Most English folk have the same impression of Brett Lee: it might be wrong.. but the perception is that he only ever got wickets because batsmen felt they had to go after him after being bottled up by McGrath, Gilespie and Warne.

Patterson was perhaps the fastest of all the WI quicks... but he's not rated. All he could do was run in and let it go.

Don't knock medium pace, either: Bedser was one of the best bowlers in the history of cricket and was never more than medium pace. Cairns isn't express.. but who'd you rather have on a flat track... a speedster whose short balls just sit up and say "hit me".. or Cairns with his cutters and slower balls?

I'm not saying you cannot be fast and good (compare Roberts, Marshall and Ambrose or Wasim Akram)... but the emphasis, always, has surely got to be on the "good" rather than the "fast".

ps. if a pitch is that flat.. surely 90% of the overs should be bowled by spinners anyway....

[acker]

Jeff Thomson demolished the 74 England team with shear pace.

Your former captain Mike Deness will attest to that as will Dennis Amiss and Colin Cowdrey.

[Rachael]

Hmmmm... one lucky summer with a very, very good partner the other end. Never did anything else that significant in his entire career, did he?

1972 (age: 21y 138d)   1    152   110   0   -      -       -    4.34    -   0  0
1974 (23y 138d)        3    945   386  24  6/46   9/105  16.08  2.45  39.3  2  0
1975 (24y 138d)        9   2027  1062  35  5/38   6/113  30.34  3.14  57.9  2  0
1976 (25y 138d)        4    754   466  21  6/50   9/167  22.19  3.70  35.9  1  0
1977 (26y 138d)        8   2129  1004  39  4/41   8/127  25.74  2.82  54.5  0  0
1978 (27y 138d)        7   1151   671  26  6/77   6/99   25.80  3.49  44.2  1  0
1979 (28y 138d)        2    354   193   7  3/90   4/93   27.57  3.27  50.5  0  0
1981 (30y 138d)        3    414   219   5  2/43   3/95   43.80  3.17  82.8  0  0
1982 (31y 138d)       11   2112  1135  33  5/73   6/174  34.39  3.22  64.0  1  0
1983 (32y 138d)        1    161    80   7  5/50   7/80   11.42  2.98  23.0  1  0
1985 (34y 138d)        2    336   275   3  2/166  2/174  91.66  4.91 112.0  0  0

Nothing to complain about... and most test sides today would love to have him... but compare all those seasons with what Kasprowicz has been doing of late: right now I'd perhaps take Kasprowicz!

season 2004/05         8  230.3   613  27  5/30   7/34   22.70  2.65  51.2  1  0

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by acker

Kasper like his plodding Queensland counterpart Bichel, is just another tailender cleaneruperer, with an inflated average.

He got dropped after that pathetic performance in Calcutta last time, he should have been dropped after that pathetic 26 run over he bowled to the Kiwi's in Melbourne during this season.

He only can get wickets when their is something in the pitch.

Bing can at least blast a few out with pace.

Bing is good for about the first 5 overs of the new ball. Once the ball gets a little older, he gets pasted all over the park. A pure one dimensional bowler and would be considered over-rated except very few actually rate him. Once that ball gets old, you need a craftsman like Kaspa who uses seam, change of pace and his specialty - reverse swing to get something out of that ball. Kaspa has taken 47 wickets at 24 in the last 12 months, Bichel won the state player of the year. Your opinions of them being tailender cleanerupers have no basis and no credibility.

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Bing is good for about the first 5 overs of the new ball. Once the ball gets a little older, he gets pasted all over the park. A pure one dimensional bowler and would be considered over-rated except very few actually rate him. Your opinions of them being tailender cleanerupers have no basis and no credibility.

Hear Hear!!! You just beat me 2 it...Bing in ODI cricket gets wickets because Pigeon can get batsmen bogged down, and the batsmen will feel they need to play shots at Lee...In Test Cricket, their is no such pressure and once Lee comes out again they have no pressure and usually bang him around the park....He gets most of his ODI wickets in the first six-sevem overs, in the last few overs he may bowl the odd pearler....But Kaspa's done nothing wrong, and Lee has cost himself the place...Case in point, 4-201 off 49 overs vs India SCG 2004...Bowled one good ball which got Aakash Chopra

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Rachael 41194

Sami is fast.. as is Fidel Edwards.. as is Dale Steyn... and none of them are any good. Most English folk have the same impression of Brett Lee: it might be wrong.. but the perception is that he only ever got wickets because batsmen felt they had to go after him after being bottled up by McGrath, Gilespie and Warne.

Patterson was perhaps the fastest of all the WI quicks... but he's not rated. All he could do was run in and let it go.

Don't knock medium pace, either: Bedser was one of the best bowlers in the history of cricket and was never more than medium pace. Cairns isn't express.. but who'd you rather have on a flat track... a speedster whose short balls just sit up and say "hit me".. or Cairns with his cutters and slower balls?

I'm not saying you cannot be fast and good (compare Roberts, Marshall and Ambrose or Wasim Akram)... but the emphasis, always, has surely got to be on the "good" rather than the "fast".

ps. if a pitch is that flat.. surely 90% of the overs should be bowled by spinners anyway....

Anybody else seen Brett recently putting 160 km/h balls right on the spot?

Lee would walk into the English Team. So would Kaspa. The only person who might put up a fight would be the Hoggard.

[Chuck Palumbo]

Originally Posted by Beny

Lee would walk into the English Team.

I'm not sure he would Beny. Who would he come in for?

Harmison- Yes he can be wayward, but he's produced match winning spells in his test career, Lee has never done this.

Hoggard- The work horse, will get through 20 economical overs and day and will not waste the new ball...something which can't be said of Lee

Giles- We need a spinner for the balance of the team

That leaves the only slot available being S.Jones place...and going on recent performances, Jones has seemed to develop a decent variety of deliveries...so its not exactly clear cut between them two.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Beny

Anybody else seen Brett recently putting 160 km/h balls right on the spot?

I think this is a key point here: few in the rest of the world have ever seen Brett Lee do anything worthy of note. That's not to say that he hasn't been recently in Australian domestic cricket... but the very fact that his last 30 Tests have seen him go at an average of 3.72 an over suggests that we've all got VERY good reason to doubt him.

By the way.. do you mean one ball in a while in the right spot.. or all but one ball of a session? I trust you mean the latter!

Originally Posted by Beny

Lee would walk into the English Team. So would Kaspa. The only person who might put up a fight would be the Hoggard.

Now on that I'd agree with you. Lee might suck.. but let's get this in perspective: he's currently (from all reports) bowling at something at least close to Test match standard.. and that's certainly not true of Harmsion... and is certainly not true of Anderson.. and if the amount that Vaughan bowls him (and the frequency with which he has been swapped with Anderson) is a fair reflection of what the England captain thinks of him.. it's perhaps also true of Jones.

With all that said... Harmison has at least looked good once.. which is more than Lee ever has... Anderson has shown greater potential than Lee ver has.. and Jones also, to my mind, has far greater promise (the reverse swing looks good.. and I get the impression there's more to come on the orthodox front as well).

Lee might be a better partnership breaker than Flintoff.. and better when his captain needs a very aggressive spell.. but that's once ina blue moon: Flintoff has shown time and again that for all his weakness as a strike bowler he's a damn fine man to throw the ball to when you need to regain control. Vaughan wouldn't trade him.

Hoggard vs. Kaspa, of course, is going to be the interesteing one this summer: could be a close run thing :-)

What's interestng is where Lee would be in other Test sides though.

India wouldn't be interested if they had Pathan, Balaji and Khan all fit (how often has that happened).. South Africa would not be interested if they could get Pollock, Ntini and Langveldt all fit.. but they can't.. and the WI wouldn't be interested if they could miraculously get 4-5 years Test experience under the belts of some of Edwards, Collins, Lawson and so on... Pakistan wouldn't be interested if Shoaib, Shabbir and Gul all fit (none are right now) and some more caps under their belts (or if Sami could get his act together - fat chance). NZ might not be interested if they could get Bond back to form and fitness.. but that's a big if... and of all the major Test sides I'd suggest it's only Sri Lanka.. with Vaas, Zoysa, Maharoof and Fernando that actually look to have a surfeit of guys who look fit and promising and well balanced in terms of romise and experience.