Brett Lee, an idiot?

[Pete]

Jeff thinks so..

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...09MAR2005.html

Originally Posted by Cricinfo.com

"Lee's bowled well in one-day games against a team of no-hopers,"
Thomson said. "One-day cricket is a joke. Kasper has done the hard
yards, done nothing wrong. An idiot can get wickets in one-day
cricket."

Thomson said Lee was dropped because he "doesn't do the job" in Tests
and he was not impressed with his limited-overs performances. "Why
should he get picked again? It's not as if he is taking a bagful of
one-day wickets. If Brad Hogg, Andrew Symonds and Darren Lehmann take
wickets in one-day cricket then what does that tell you about bowling
in one-day cricket?"

[acker]

Kasper got flogged when he tried to throw his cream pies down the wicket

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by acker

Kasper got flogged when he tried to throw his cream pies down the wicket

Mate, your being extremely harsh on Kasper here. He has put one foot wrong in the last 18 months, and he took the wicket of Cumming....Besides IMHO Brett Lee isn't a test bowler, he has proven that and after a stellar start, he hasn't taken a five-fer since the NZ tour 5 years ago...His average has ballooned to 31.66 as well

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Mate, your being extremely harsh on Kasper here. He has put one foot wrong in the last 18 months, and he took the wicket of Cumming....Besides IMHO Brett Lee isn't a test bowler, he has proven that and after a stellar start, he hasn't taken a five-fer since the NZ tour 5 years ago...His average has ballooned to 31.66 as well

I totally agree with Paoli on this one

[Rachael]

It's surely instructive that on a day dominated byt eh New Zealand batsmen.. the core Aussie bowlers ensured that the game did not get away from them: McGrath went at 2.36... Gillespie at 2.67... Warne at 2.4.

Kasprowicz was found out.. and went at 3.56 an over.. and in all likelihood Brett Lee would have gone at nearer 4.56 (assuming he was havinga good day).

The gulf in class between the three main bowlers and the rest is quite scary...

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Not neccessarily Rachael, and having not watched niether of us can definatley say why kspa went for more. Perhaps he tried to mix it up a bit and search for a wicket (which was rewarded to be fair) or perhaps he bowled pants form the off and got lucky. Any aussies shed any light on this ??

[Chuck Palumbo]

And maybe Gillespie or Mcgrath were bowling too wide so that the NZ batsman didn't have to play at it.

Good economy doesn't always mean the bowler is bowling well. I remember a number of times where Harmison was bowling maiden after maiden in SA but this was only because he was bowling so wide that the batsman couldn't play at it.

Although you need a steady bowler, you also need a bowler that is going to go for wickets...in test matches, figures like 4-90 off 20 overs is much better than 0-40 off the same amount...wickets are paramount in test matches whereas in ODIs economy is the most important thing.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Very true, and the main thing NZ was making sure that they make a game of it and send to 4 or 5 days just to save face rather than actually win the damn thing. Players might say different but thats the reality I think.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

Good economy doesn't always mean the bowler is bowling well.

Absolutely. When you want wickets you want to see your bowlers make the batsmen play every single ball... and guys like Mullally who just blast them through high and wide are a waste of space.. .but when the opposition is taking the game away from you there's pressure to be gained from drying them up - as Giles famously did to SRT.

No sane bowler tried anything fancy when Viv Richards was in full flow: he'd murder every error and before you knew it the game was gone. Damage limitation has it's place!

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

wickets are paramount in test matches whereas in ODIs economy is the most important thing.

Wickets are only paramount when you're in with a sniff of getting any.. but that's about stepping up a gear when the new ball comes your way.. or when conditions suddenly turn in your favour... or a wicket has fallen and there's a nervous looking newbie at the crease.

Good test cricket should include long spells when you cannot see where a wicket is coming from.. and in those situations only the guys with poor judgement go searching for them - the rest go to plan 'B'.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

And maybe Gillespie or Mcgrath were bowling too wide so that the NZ batsman didn't have to play at it.

Gillespie & McGrath bowling too wide? McGrath's interpretation of giving a batsman width is 10cm outside the off.

I must admit to not having watched much other than highlights, but a couple of dropped catches featured - from the (admittedly biased) local news reports, the Aussie bowlers probably did just about enough on a 'batting haven' but were (unusually) let down by Aussie fielding. There's talk here of 400 being the minimium competitive score on this wicket, although heard some radio discussion that the wicket may turn early.