The "new" Brett Lee

[Zainub]

I would be inclined to go with the 20.4% of the public here. Brett Lee has rarely inspired confidence in me as being a consistent test bowler. He averages in the 40s with the ball in test cricket, that isn't good.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Beny

This is what the public has to say.

From what point of view is that question being answered though?

If Milo, an ENG supporter and long-time Lee critic answered the question he could well have said "Yes - Lee will get caned all round the park if he plays, which would give ENG a massive advantage compared to if Kasprowicz plays"!

[Goatman]

Has anyone else looked up BL's test history against ENG (averages are in bold)?

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
Aus 5 120.5 496 9 2/37 2/60 55.11 4.10 80.5 0 0

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 2002/03 [Series]
Aus 3 144.4 536 13 3/78 5/150 41.23 3.70 66.7 0 0

The former occurred in a run in which his series averages were 14, 17, 16, 55, 25. Even when he was in his best form, he blew it when he came over to Europe.

His averages per calendar year read 16, 16, 55, 33, 33, 36, 32, 69 (only one test in that last one).

You'd have to be a brave man to select him ahead of either Gillespie OR Kaprowicz off that kind of form!

[Beny]

So what did Flintoff and Harmison's averages look like 18 months ago?

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Beny

So what did Flintoff and Harmison's averages look like 18 months ago?

I'm not sure what the relevance of those numbers are? Especially as ENG have just played BAN? Surely the point here is that MK and JG have been averaging in the mid twenties over the past 12 months. JG averages 25.25 in Ashes tests, and 28.11 in England. MK averages 26.25 in Ashes tests, and 22.14 in England. Both men have both the form and the history to suggest they could be high class performers this summer. Lee hasn't played in 12 months, averaged 69 in the last calendar year he played in, 46.9 in Ashes tests and 55.11 in England.

As I say, you'd have to be a brave man to select Lee over them on the basis of his form in ODI cricket in the face of evidence that he is neither so able a competitor in test cricket or so able to bowl in English conditions.

As you've asked though, I looked the lads numbers up. In 2004+2005 (18 tests, 2 against BAN) Fred averages 24.26. If he didn't bat, I'd still probably take Fred ahead of Lee. Harmison averages 29.35 in the same period (18 tests, 2 against BAN), which includes the entirity of his South African Nightmare. And if Harmison can collect better figures in a period in which he has bowled so badly it was an embarrassment than Lee has managed in 3/4 of the calendar years in which he has played Test cricket, I'd be utterly insane to drop him in favour of the Australian.

Lee probably would not displace Hoggard either, whose career average is slightly lower (29.63) but more relevently has shown more consistency through the years and better recent form (per calendar year 30.20, 35.47, 26.22, 30.06, 20.45).

Lee might just displace SP Jones, whose career average is similar (31.41 compared to 31.66) but whose performances has been improving recently (per calendar year he has given us 32.20, 35.39 and in 2005 he averages 24.07). It would be a bit of a toss up.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Goatman, I think the point that Beny might have been trying to make was more that Lee hadn't played test cricket in the last 18 mths, so judging Lee on 'old' test form may not be representative of current ability.

At the beginning of 2004 (approximately 18 months ago):

Flintoff: Bowling 45.55 Batting 25.72
Harmison: Bowling 29.63

I'm confused about introducing averages for the Ashes (the other bizzare criteria discussed):

Flintoff: never played
Harmison: Bowling 50.55

Well, on those grounds, both were rubbish and neither have done anything against Australia; so let's be joyous as Aussies that these no-hopers are the best England's got. Mind you, if the Lee of 2 years ago is the best of the Aussies, it might be an even match

[Goatman]

Past Ashes performances are regularly used, both by ENG supporteers and other supporters, to argue why X or Y, usually batsmen, are likely to be "found out" by the Australians in the run up to an Ashes series. I have seen a couple of posts by Australians saying that Tresco got found out by the AUS new ball bowlers last time, and will be this time. Effectively, I'm saying Lee has now been hammered by ENG twice - once at home, once away. If Tres will be found out by McGrath and Gillespie, then it is equally valid to say that Lee will be found out by Vaughan and Strauss.

Is a players average 18 months ago as relevent as thier average over the last 18 months? I wouldn't think so. Particularly as the 4 ENG seamers had, at that time, played 69 test between them! They were - and actually still are - fairly green. Harmison had played 13 tests. Flintoff was the attacks veteran with 30. That Harmison's average has improved since 18 months ago is expected; every player has to learn his trade and find his feet in testmatch cricket. 13 tests, and those interrupted by two injuries, are by no means a lot for a bowler to achieve that. That Flintoff's average has improved so much is much less expected; he was a very slow learner.

Lee has already played 37 (more than Harmison has played in his enitre career; had Lee not been dropped, he would have played more than 50). In 2004, at the age of 27, Lee should have been well past the learning stages and be in his prime as a fast bowler. However, rather than showing signs of being a "slow learner" his average, bizarrely, has increased with almost every single innings he has bowled in. Far from being a slow learner, he appears to be far more a one trick pony; he came on the seen, he was fast (very fast!), he was new. Opponents got hold of some footage, cranked the bowling machine up to 100mph and soon Lee was looking pretty ordinary.

I'm not saying that "Lee will get caned all summer if he plays in the tests". History is no guarantee of future performance. However, I feel very safe to say that it is unlikely that he will significantly influence the Ashes in the Aussies favour. And, therefore, I think you would be brave to select him.

[Beny]

Past Ashes performances are regularly used, both by ENG supporteers and other supporters, to argue why X or Y, usually batsmen, are likely to be "found out" by the Australians in the run up to an Ashes series. I have seen a couple of posts by Australians saying that Tresco got found out by the AUS new ball bowlers last time, and will be this time. Effectively, I'm saying Lee has now been hammered by ENG twice - once at home, once away. If Tres will be found out by McGrath and Gillespie, then it is equally valid to say that Lee will be found out by Vaughan and Strauss.

So Harmison's due for a pasting huh?

As you say, It would be brave to pick him but despite his average against the English last time we still won comfortably. I think we could give him one test. His control, at least to my eyes, has gotten much better in the ODI's and it's much harder to control the white ball than the red.

[Rachael]

You could see a case for resting McGrath for the warm up game(s)... and giving Lee a chance to lead the attack with Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Only thing is... the opposition is likely to suck: not a great basis for judging between the three!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You could see a case for resting McGrath for the warm up game(s)... and giving Lee a chance to lead the attack with Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Only thing is... the opposition is likely to suck: not a great basis for judging between the three!

But the only basis you have, so i agree. They should also play McGill as many games as possible too. We may just need him.