Brett Lee (whose largely unmerited Test career suggests someone in his camp has compromising photos of Aussie selectors) appears in Warne's 50 top crickets he's played with / against... and Andy Caddick (amongst many with better records) does not: seems a bit crazy to me.

Check their bowling out on Cricket RatingsCaddick wins hands down: consistently the more highly rated player... and by a considerable margin... and that in a team that was struggling (and so not bagging the bonus points that inflated Aussie ratings during Lee's career).

Checking out the stats confirms this impression:Almost identical number of tests and wickets... but (leaving aside that Caddick actualy had to bowl AGAINST the Aussies at their best where Lee bowled at some fairly ordinary England sides)... only one of the pair averaged the right side of 30... and whilst neither were Stalhamesque... Caddick was the only one of the pair to be even remotely respectable on that front!

Well considering Shane Warne has the right to chose his own top 50, with his own criteria, what's your point?

It includes 53 players instead of 50.
It also has Tim May and Steve Harmison ahead of Waqar Younis.

As if Warne would pick an English New Zealander over a mate.I agree it is daft that Lee is rated above Caddick but it is only Warnes opinion.Others will have a different one,that is the beauty of us all being individual.

At least you gave Caddick as an alternative and not Langeveldt.

From their Test records, Lee's SR is better than Caddick, and he takes more wickets per Test.

Now a briek look at their ODI careers:
Lee 157 m, 273 w, average of 23, SR of 29.
Caddick 54m, 69 w, average of 28, SR of 42.

Lee averages 21 with the bat in Test cricket, Caddick does not.

Lee is one of the best fielders in the world, Caddick isn't.

You can make a case for Caddick being a better Test bowler than Lee, but given that it's Warne's 50 Greatest Cricketers, I think Lee wins hands down.

Nothing in it: 234 wickets from 62 Tests at a SR of 57 or 231 from 59 at 53.Caddick was a decent ODI bowler: with the the new ball (bowling 10 overs in a row to get through the powerplays)... but for Lee had the pace and variations that made getting slogged less likely at the death). Fortunately for Lee... death bowling (even very ordinary death bowling) tends to be rewarded with sackfulls of wickets.. so the stats are better... Now we get to the crucial point: the most significant difference between the two is, as you note, that despite Caddick being competent as a batsman... Lee was better... which is what I've long said: Brett Lee has been Australia's Ashley Giles... the bowler who is selected for his batting

Fully agree here. This is Warne's choice and really if it is that frustrating for you Rachael, then maybe you should take it up with him?

Personally, I would take Lee. His pace is such that he will always cause problems. But Caddick, in his prime, was a good bowler...

As an aside, Caddick's record against Australia (i.e. when Warne would be most interested) was fairly average

Cricinfo - Statsguru - AR Caddick - Test Bowling - Innings by innings list

The fact that he bowls at 90+MPH and has 231 Test wickets has nothing to do with his selection then?

Rach

Your trying to defend a New Zealand born English player

Please show a bit of decorum.

Exactly! A player like that's always worth taking. Maybe some batsmen may score runs off of him, but rarely will they be comfortable about it.

Right again. 231 Test wickets is nothing to sneeze at, no matter who you are.

A couple of other things (since I don't know how to quote from two sources in one post); 1) Maybe bowlers at the death do get more one day wickets. But death bowling is still an important job, one which not everyone can do effectively. Lee gets wickets at the death because he's good at it. 2) Comparing Lee to Giles is absurd (no offense). Giles was a competent bowler who could contribute a few runs, but not many wickets compared to his English bowling contemporaries. Lee contributes a few runs, and takes wickets at a rate comparable to several of the other Australian bowlers, such as Gillespie, Bichel and Kasprowicz (threebowlers that I'm sure we agree are high class), and even McGrath and Warne. Or, to put it another way, Lee wasn't humiliated by the other bowlers he played with, in terms of the wicket-taking stakes.

I don't even know why you guys are bothering with perusing the statistics.

She's still to answer the first question in response to her thread starter i.e. What is your point?

When Lee's strikerate is mentioned as superior, there is nothing in it between his and Caddick's

There is also, nothing in it with regards to the difference between their averages.

In fact, Caddick's strikerate is 9% more balls than Lee but Lee's average is only 5.6% more runs than Caddick.

Yet. only Caddick is "remotely respectable" because his average is a fraction just below an artificially imposed criteria of 30.

Add to that the dismissive way Lee's superior ODI bowling is treated. I doubt had it been the other way around, that would be the case.

I'm tired of seeing bowlers at the death get it marginally wrong and the last 10-15 overs give away 100+ runs.

How fortunate for Brett Lee.

She's a Caddick fan and doesn't care much for Lee.

I notice Adam Gilchrist is ranked above Darren Berry. I'm surprised we have not been treated to another debate about Gilchrist being merely a "backstop".

I've just glanced through the career 1st class stats... and confirmed my recollection that Lee has been systematically carted in domestic cricket as well as in Test cricket.

Comparing Lee with McGrath is a little unfair: bit like comparing Symonds and Bradman. There's no disgrace in failing to match McGrath's 21.64 Test average and 20.85 domestic average or his miserly 2.5 / over in both Test and First Class cricket. Fortunately, Gillespie - a mere mortal rather than a great - played enough in both forms to be a good benchmark...Not a "great" by any means... but he did take his test wickets at 26 rather than 32 and just about offer the level of control (2.8 or fewer) exhibited by virtually all top bowlers in the history of the game.

I've never been overly struck by Bichel... but he's always seemed a handy rather than world class. He somehow missed out on Warne's list of greatest cricketers... but his career bowling figures suggest he's got grounds for some bitterness when it comes to caps: his record is at least as good as Lee's but he's had none of the "golden boy" treatment.I've no objection to the guy being rated as a decent cricketer... but I do find the notion that he's anything special pretty risible.

ps. I'm as aware as anyone of Caddick's limitations... but he's still (at a grand old age in cricketing terms) a better bowler than many currently involved in Test cricket (including Lee). Fortunately, he's more likely to get unfairly criticised than to get (as Lee routinely is, not least by Warne) over-hyped.