The Great Brett Lee?

[Aurelius]

I just heard Mark Nicholas say something like, "when it gets tough, the greats turn it on, and that's what Brett Lee's done today." So effectively he described Brett Lee as a great.

Now, while this description certainly applies to the ODIs, where he's been a force, does it really apply to the Tests as well? Granting that he's the best new-ball bowler in the world, it just seems a bit funny to hear him described as a Test great, just because he's in the top ten list. I've certainly never heard anyone describe Craig McDermott as a "Great."

So, as far as the Tests are concerned, I think he's got to do a lot more before we can call him "the Great Brett Lee."

[sanketh84]

he has had an outstanding summer.....and he takes his great form from the tests into the first ODI where his figures currently are 8 overs 3-22. he's got some more to do b4 he can be called a gr8 but he's headed in the right direction!!!! but what mark nicholas was trying to imply is... he is performing in the crunch situation like only a great can. true test of a champion is those situations when u need those wickets or crucial runs and a partnership and lee has performed whenever he has been thrown the ball and spearheaded the attack in the absence of the retired warne, mcgrath...i see a gr8 future for him

[Warne]

Mark Nicholas has a tendency to get overexcited, but I'd also think seriously about starting to call Lee a great.
I guess if he goes on like this even for another couple of years, he'd be a great. He's had 40 wickets in the last 6 tests of the Australian summer at a little over 20 & bowled some spells of fearsome & absolute top quality fast bowling. His duel with Tendulkar was a fantastic thing to watch & he got Tendulkar quite a few times. After the omission of Gillespie & retirement of McGrath, Lee has finally come into his own & so far has done the job of leading the pace attack perfectly.

Given his fitness level, I believe he'll be going on for another 4 years at least & end his career as a great.

[Warne]

BTW, I didn't notice it before, but Lee's strike rate of 51 is awesome.

[Nostromo]

Considered purely for his bowling prowess Brett Lee might just fall short of greatness, but if one considers the impact of his overall presence on the field, there is no question that he is one of the all time greats. He gives the impression of 100% commitment all the time, whether bowling, fielding or even batting and this athletic exhuberance has to be considered as a good example of how to approach the game. For a fast bowler, he shows just the right kind of fiercely competitive aggression but without ever going over the top and always with a hint of friendliness to the opponents. He always has had my vote.

[acker]

He's a lot like Alan Donald.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Now, while this description certainly applies to the ODIs, where he's been a force, does it really apply to the Tests as well? Granting that he's the best new-ball bowler in the world, it just seems a bit funny to hear him described as a Test great

I've nothing against Lee as a character, as a no 8 batsman and as a fielder... but the odd series aside... it's only since McGrath retired that he's been anything more than ordinary with the ball - and even looking at his much more impressive recent performances... he's not put daylight between himself and the likes of Clark, Hoggard, Asif and (if reports are to be believed) Steyn.

Lee's played 10 Tests in England and aside from getting carted at 4.22 / over his wickets have been hugely expensive - his average is 45.44! He's never even faced India or Pakistan on the subcontinent... but he did play Pakistan twice in the UAE and manage 3 wickets at an average of 40.66 - in the same matches, Bichel took 8 wickets at 13.25!

Unfortunately for Lee... he actually did far better against Pakistan in the UAE than he did in his one Test in Sri Lanka (2 wickets at 56) or in his 2 Tests in Bangladesh (2 wickets at 93).

Lee's 2001 tour of South Africa was no better: 10 wickets at 41.6 whilst being carted at 4.36 / over.

Playing outside of Australia... Lee has taken 98 wickets... but he's only ever had 2 good series... and they were years apart: 1999/00 in NZ and 2005/06 in SA. These account for a third of those wickets. That leaves 63 wickets he's taken at - wait for it - 41.98.

Though the less impressive days may be behind him... there's no way of avoiding the huge period of his career (roughly 1/1/2001-1/1/2006) in which he was at best ordinary.

(6 ball overs)       Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10
filtered              41 1417.1  5313 146  5/30   8/181  36.39  3.74  58.2  3  0
filtered              21  798.3  2854  85  5/30   8/181  33.57  3.57  56.3  3  0

First is all matches, second is "home" matches. Stacks of "failed" bowlers could match a record like that - even Mullally's wickets came at 31.24 and without getting carted - econ 2.40, aided by occasional spells where the batsmen might have needed steps to reach every other ball .

ps. If Brett Lee is a bowling "great" then so was Gillespie: quite aside from the evidence, over many years when they bowled together, that Gillespie was more accomplished... Gillespie also averaged 26.12 where Lee has managed 29.97, managed a strike rate of 54.9 to Lee's 51.5 and went at a respectable 2.85 / over rather than a disgraceful 3.48!

[draexem]

Is he one of the greats? Hell no. Is Brett Lee one of the best bowlers in the cricketing world today? Definately, but I'm not sure if that's much of an achievement. However, it's unclear as to whether Mark Nicholas has referred to Brett Lee as an all-time great, or as one of the great's of today's game, or as one of the all-time great ODI bowlers. Mark's comment is really very vague, so I'm not going to read too much into what he said.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Though the less impressive days may be behind him... there's no way of avoiding the huge period of his career

What a bizarre extremely contradictory statement Rachael, in a post waffle's on about events and years that are a distant memory.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from your post is

(a) You suspect the first 7 English batsmen are likely to fail against accurate pace bowling even at home in England.

(b) You are trying to either "white ant" or "dumb down" the rightful fear you have of him participating in the 2009 "ashes series"

I suppose it is a bit strange seeing Brett improve, whilst you have watched Harmison, Jones and Flintoff decline

[Rachael]

What on earth gives you the impression that I'd either {a} suddenly start having time for speedsters despite a lifetime of thinking extreme pace (no matter who the bowler might be) is grossly over-rated; or {b} suddenly start caring one way or the other about ANY side's performance (as opposed to the performance of batsmen whose style and manner appeals to me)?

You seem to mistake me for someone else: I may live in the UK and have a long-standing interest in cricket... but please don't upset Flanflinger by writing as if I'm an "England Fan"