Angry and Hostile

[acker]

Brett Lee

When he gets his "Ashes" opportunity, I am starting to think the Australian selectors are deliberately provoking him with non selection against the kiwi's to fire his nasty streak up against the English batsmen.
By the way he does have a nasty mean side to his nature, even though he keeps flashing that dumb smile of his.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by acker

Brett Lee

When he gets his "Ashes" opportunity, I am starting to think the Australian selectors are deliberately provoking him with non selection against the kiwi's to fire his nasty streak up against the English batsmen.
By the way he does have a nasty mean side to his nature, even though he keeps flashing that dumb smile of his.

Well if that is the case acker, that would be real good news for England, all that non selection will do is sap his confidence(ask James Anderson).

Looking at the New Zealansd match, and the thread"Dads Army", One can only come to the conclusion, that Australia are coming apart at the seam inch by inch, if what to surmise is true.

[Rachael]

Ooooh.. an angry and hostile Brett Lee. I can see the eyes of Strauss, Tresco, Vaughan and Thorpe lighting up at the very thought of it.

Atherton was on Talksport radio this winter and compared Donald (surely as hostile as any bowler in the history of cricket) with McGrath (not really very hostile at all, really). You know what he said? He would rather face Donald every time.. because he might pick up some bruises (which didn't go on the scoresheet).. but he'd also get fed some balls he could score off.

I doubt many batsman look forward to being battered by fast deliveries into the body... but even leaving aside the fact that good players are rarely troubled by pace (and I don't just mean players as good as Viv Richards, I never saw Robin Smith overly concerned about pace).... Atherton makes the key point - it's pressure to score runs that leads to loose shots... and pacemen rarely build that pressure.

Getting back to the point: most batsmen in Test cricket get themselves out... with hardly any ever getting out to unplayable deliveries.... so why would the selectors want and angry and hostile Brett Lee? Surely, if they want Lee at all.. they want a Lee we've never seen before who's as clinical and icy as McGrath....

[acker]

So much helmuts and body armour can be worn these days by batsmen you could chuck a hand grenade at them and not hurt them.

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well if that is the case acker, that would be real good news for England, all that non selection will do is sap his confidence(ask James Anderson).

Well Ern, fair point about the confidence...but James Anderson and Brett Lee are not in the same mould nor is one nearly as good as the other...

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Well Ern, fair point about the confidence...but James Anderson and Brett Lee are not in the same mould nor is one nearly as good as the other...

I trust we're all in agreement that the better bowler is Anderson... The kid might be well and truly out of sorts at the moment... but let's at least acknowledge that in his short but eventful time he did more with the ball (movement in the air, movement off the seam, range of deliveries) than Brett Lee ever has.

What's Lee got to his name? Doesn't shape it in, doesn't shape it out, not known for mastery of reversing it, not known for getting the thing jagging off the seam, not a man you'd trust to bowl one side of the wicket to a 7-2 field - and not known for his cutters and well disguised slower balls either.

Right now I guess neither looks lie getting a first team place and rightly so: international cricket should be dominated by those who can do all of the above... and right now neither can!

[acker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I trust we're all in agreement that the better bowler is Anderson... The kid might be well and truly out of sorts at the moment... but let's at least acknowledge that in his short but eventful time he did more with the ball (movement in the air, movement off the seam, range of deliveries) than Brett Lee ever has.

What's Lee got to his name? Doesn't shape it in, doesn't shape it out, not known for mastery of reversing it, not known for getting the thing jagging off the seam, not a man you'd trust to bowl one side of the wicket to a 7-2 field

I think Lee is a much better and proven performer than Anderson
Lee
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
5 1230 256 4402 139 31.66 5-47 4 0 53.0 3.57
Anderson
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
339 70 1274 35 36.40 5-73 2 0 58.1 3.75
Kasprowicz
O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
962.2 213 2855 94 30.37 7-36 4 0 61.4 2.96
Kasprowicz while being more economical than Lee has a strike rate well behind Lee, hence waht I early said about Lee's ability to blast out batsmen on flat tracks with pace bears some statistical merit.
If you doubt the stats check them on Cricinfo thats where I got them from.
Kasprowicz who bowls 12 - 17 kph slower than Lee should be able to excercise greater control at his lesser pace, much the same when we take corners in our cars when driving at 50kph rather than 150kph.
Incresased speed = Increased risk, but it gets you to your destination quicker.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by acker

Kasprowicz while being more economical than Lee has a strike rate well behind Lee, hence waht I early said about Lee's ability to blast out batsmen on flat tracks with pace bears some statistical merit.

Come on.. top test bowlers do NOT go for more than 2.5-2.8 an over. Period. The only possible exception is Waqar Younis.. and let's face it... he only turned up half the time.

Check here: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TES...MOST_WKTS.html

Single out the guys with top strike rates... like McGrath.. Marshall.. Donald... Imran Khan.. Hadlee.. Willis... all fall in / around that 2.5-2.8 range.

Look further down at the lesser bowlers.. Caddick.. Gough.. Cairns... Thomson.. Ntini... these are the profligate guys and none are as profligate as Lee. In fact.. if you take Lee's first 7 Tests out fo the equasion (look at the 30 most recent ones).. Lee has actually gone for 3.72.. and his strike rate has been 61.9 - no wonder he's not rated!

Of course.. since his recall to international cricket last year.. Kasprowicz has maintained an economy rate of 2.74 (right up there with guys like Lillie, Donald, Willis, Holding and Roberts... and his strike rate has been... 51.8.. which is actually better than Wasim Akram, Curtley Ambrose, Botham, Pollock, Imran Khan, Willis and McDermott - not bad company.

I accept entirely that Kasprowicz has only played a dozen or so games since returning to the Test side.. and that he needs to sustain this sort of class (or something close) for quite a while longer to be worthy of mention in the same breath as some of these other guys... but how about cutting the guy some slack and giving him the chance to prove himself - so far he's been outstanding!

[John]

I think Brett Lee is a better bowler than Anderson more proven. His Test record is better and his one day record is quiet impressive.
Also he is a better batsmen then Anderson.
We really haven't seen enough of Anderson 35 Test wickets its too early to tell. Its up to him to to get his act together.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by John

We really haven't seen enough of Anderson 35 Test wickets its too early to tell. Its up to him to to get his act together.

Absolutely. It seems entirely possible that the guy has already played his last game for England (and perhaps even in first class cricket: who knows how screwed up he is now). One hopes he'll bounce back and return in due course... but if he didn't he wouldn't be the first prospect to just vanish.

Thing with Anderson is that he should never have been let near International cricket in the first place: he hadn't got a clue what he was doing.... he'd technical problems from hell... and there was just NO experience whatsoever.

All of which makes real comparison to Lee pretty tough.. but even as a raw kid who didn't have a clue.. Anderson could do things with a cricket ball that Lee has (as far as I know) never even begun to master. Not much use to anyone unless developed (and allied to an action that let's him bowl without running down the wicket and getting banned).. but hell - at least there was something pretty special to work with!

I guess the thing with Lee is that he just looks so bad that it's hard to see merit in him: he made some sense in the context of an attack based around the sort of pressure exerted by Warne, McGrath and Gillespie.. but then so does just about anyone (as the batsmen feel compelled to take huge risks against the "weak link").

Take away that special trio and ask Lee to leed an attack and what do you get? Uninspiring rubbish.