Disgraceful Lee

[eddiesmith]

Good to see some writing what most people think

Lee must be bounced for bowling bean-balls
Comment
By Peter Roebuck
February 28, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Brett Lee tries to appease an angry Brendon McCullum after a bowling a high full toss to the Kiwi in Saturday's one-day international.
Photo: AP
Brett Lee's beamers should force his omission from the Australian team for the rest of the NZ tour.

Brett Lee must be dropped from the Australian side for the rest of this tour of New Zealand. His bean-ball directed at Brendon McCullum was merely the latest in a series of violent deliveries sent down by a pace bowler at best reckless in his approach and at worst utterly unwilling to remain within long-accepted parameters governing conduct on the cricket field.

If the Australian captain, coach and manager did not have sharp words with Lee after the match, then they stand in dereliction of their duties.

No team seriously seeking to improve its reputation for sportsmanship can tolerate the brutal beamers sent down in recent times by the supposedly amiable competitor. Unfortunately, the signs are not promising. After the match, Ricky Ponting talked about dew and slippery run-ups. In his heart, he knows better. Maybe he has been frustrated by the nonsense spouted by New Zealanders eager to distract attention from the lame performance of their side.

Lee's head-hunter was the nastiest ball seen on a cricket field since, well, the beamer the same player directed at Abdul Razzaq in the one-day final in Sydney. Moreover, the circumstances were similar in that both opponents had irritated the fast bowler. Previously, Razzaq had sent two disgraceful beamers to Lee, whereupon the umpire had removed him from the attack. Not that he had many more overs to bowl, or chances to nail a fierce opponent.

Lee duly greeted the Pakistani with several scorching bumpers. Then he sent down a bean-ball, a delivery that became the talk of grade cricket. Apparently, Tony Greig condemned the ball on television, in which case more power to his elbow. Others defended the local man, saying he would not hurt a fly. Odd, though, that Razzaq was the victim of this "accidental" delivery. Odd that the ball was not merely a yard higher than usual but also directed at a batsman standing outside his leg stump.

McCullum had done nothing wrong except introduce himself as a dangerous and confrontational opponent with a suspected weakness against rising deliveries. Lee welcomed him with a bumper and was justifiably dismayed when the delivery was deemed to be illegitimate, even though it barely passed over a ducking batsman. Lee continued with a flyer that was cut over cover for a couple of runs.

Then came the beamer that hurled at the batsman's chest and clearly capable of breaking ribs. It was a deplorable and ugly delivery whose timing was bound to raise eyebrows even among members of the cheer-squad. Although he had been bowling admirably, Lee had been having another bad day in the field, with overthrows and other mishaps indicating a distracted state of mind.

On television, Michael Slater defended his former colleague, saying that he is not the sort of man to try to harm an opponent with an unfair delivery. Slater is a fine commentator but on this occasion may have erred on the side of generosity. Beamers can indeed be sent down accidentally - Glenn McGrath once struck Mark Ramprakash on the ear with one that appeared out of the blue and everyone sensed that it was a mishap. Most beamers, though, are deliberate. Context is crucial.

Lee immediately expressed regret for his beamers but his credibility has been worn to the bone. Apologies are easy and it is extraordinary that so much significance is attached to them.

Wasim Akram apologised after delivering the nastiest beamer seen in 20 years at Englishman Chris Adams, a county batsman who had accused him of ball-tampering. Astonishingly, no action was taken against him. At the lunch break, the pair almost came to blows. Akram is charming and overrated.

Beamers are a blight on the game. Exchanges between batsmen and bowlers are built on trust. Batsmen understand that bouncers may be directed at them and prepare accordingly. Otherwise, they may as well take up marbles. No one blamed Lee for the rearing deliveries that struck Matthew Papps. Not that his action has always been above suspicion. His bumper that removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth was sent down from wide of the crease and with an open chest, a ruse now in abeyance. At least the ball bounced.

Bean-balls are incomparably more dangerous because they elude detection by avoiding the usual channels studied by batsmen awaiting a delivery.

Besides telling Lee that Australians do not bowl beamers, officials might also point out that court cases can result from incidents on the field. If a spear tackle can become a matter of litigation and damages, then so can a beamer. Since McCullum was not hurt, he might not be able to start a civil case. His refusal to accept Lee's apology indicated his view of the matter. Nor was he alone in his opinion.

Lee's beamer spoilt an otherwise superb fightback by an Australian side that contains several brilliant fieldsman, some doughty operators and many fine sportsmen, a side that ought to rise above the sort of viciousness witnessed on Saturday night. Apart from anything else, they are representing the nation.

Cant wait for the rubbish to come from the Brett Lee Fan Club

[Bombers_Forever]

Roebuck actually writes something I agree with. It is about time someone in the media did not make excuses for him.

And now some media think this bloke should gets Kaspa's spot in the Test 11 :mad: . What a joke.

[Becker]

Roebuck's a tool. It's amazing how nobody pointed fingers at the West Indians when the odd "bean ball" flew from their hands, and the Pakistan quicks have bowled more than their fair share of beaners, and yet the moment an Aussie quick bowls one everyone gets upset about it.

Reading all the stupid comments about Lee and his bowling makes me realise how little people understand about quick bowling and how difficult it is trying to control a delivery at express pace.

You bowl enough deliveries at express pace and the odd one is bound to slip out, especially when going for the inswinging yorker. All quick bowlers over the years have bowled bean balls, just because it happens doesn't mean it's deliberate.

I was never as quick as lee, and I used to pride myself on my ability to land a ball around the spot I was aiming for, but now and then a ball gets away from you. That's life, it happens. Same as a batsman trying to belt a ball over mid on, mistiming the shot and holing out to cover. We are all human, as much as we try not to be.

Lee is not a robot, he cannot put the ball wherever he wants 100% of the time. There has never been a bowler who could.

I find Roebuck's comments about Lee as offensive as he finds the "bean ball", and I've always found his "holier than thou" attitude better valuethan a box of laxettes.

[LarryLong]

You bowl enough deliveries at express pace and the odd one is bound to slip out, especially when going for the inswinging yorker. All quick bowlers over the years have bowled bean balls, just because it happens doesn't mean it's deliberate
Although I do agree with you on Roebuck's holier than thou attitude, I think he does have a bit of a point here.

I'd be interested in knowing how often Lee bowls full tosses that go under waist level - that might be an indication of whether or not he actually has a control issue.

[likka]

Roebuck's a tool.
No, you are a tool.

Lee has proved over the years that he has a brain the size of a split pea. His decision making ability and self discipline on a cricket field is appalling. He is like a precocious child that regularly does and says stupid things when he doesn't get his own way.

There have been a number of occasions where Lee has deliberately tried to hurt players. Anyone remember the last tour of NZ where Lee nearly knocked Parore's block off whilst deliberately no-balling by over 1 foot! And lets not talk about the Razzaq incident, the retaliation excuse is only viable when playing U12s.

As Peter Roebuck pointed out, context is the key here. Lee doesn't seem to get this, or is too stupid to realise. His apologies and excuses are hollow and transparent, his motivations within the context of the game totally obvious. Don't think anyone told him of the boy who cried wolf, maybe "spots for my mates" Punter should let him know.

[Fritz_the_Cat]

You bowl enough deliveries at express pace and the odd one is bound to slip out, especially when going for the inswinging yorker.I agree... it can & does accidentily happen.. i've had a few slip when trying to bowl inswinging yorkers BUT i'm not an international bowler....what i don't like about Lee is how he squeeled like a stuck pig when he had a couple bowled at him recently but yet he has been bowling them before & after that event with gay abandon... weak as ******** IMO especially the one to Harry with a busted shoulder.

[Bombers_Forever]

Accidents DO happen in all sports, but how many of them has he bowled? Plenty of them. Not all could possibly be accidents.

Then again that beamer to Razzaq (deliberate of course) was ignored and swept under the carpet.

[Jaymin]

Good to see some writing what most people think



Isn't this the same guy who you gave an almighty spray too a week or so back?
You are strange...


John Bracewell, the New Zealand coach, has warned that Brett Lee might face legal action if he delivered a beamer on Australian soil. In the third one-day international between New Zealand and Australia Lee bowled a beamer to Brendon McCullum. "It is the fourth time this season that he's beamed one of our guys. He's been apologetic every time he's done it," Bracewell is quoted as saying by the ABC website.

John Bracewell has some issues....

[Stafford678]

i wish brett would bowl a beamer straight at bracewells mouth and shut that idiot up

[likka]

i wish brett would bowl a beamer straight at bracewells mouth and shut that idiot up
Is that you Brett?

[Freo Big Fella]

How many articles has he written about Wasim and Waqar? They revolutionised the use of the opportunistic beamer.

[- PC -]

Yes sometimes a beamer can '' slip'' but as Roebuck pointed out, it seems to come directly after there is a confrontation between the batsman and Lee. I think Roebuck is pointing to the coincidence and not the action.

I do think Brett Lee thinks he can get away with it. I would hope as Roebuck said the selectors take him aside and have a quiet word about the right time to show agression.

[Stafford678]

Is that you Brett?

bracewell has whinged about everything, said we used the crowd throwing things at us as a ploy, what is that guy on

[Blues_Man]

what a load of garbage ..the full toss Lee bowled was just above waist height ..if he wanted to knock his head off wouldn't you think it would have been aimed at his head ??
Bracewell and roebuck are self righteous morons who both have agendas.

[Stafford678]

what a f ing joke this is, i just saw footage of that so called beam ball and what a joke, it was a waste high full toss that should have been put away, a beamer is a ball that is speered in at the head not the guts

[Punt_Road_Roar]

Its good to see Lee is actually starting to pi$$ people off again, must mean he is getting some much needed form back.

Excellent.


God I love Australia

:D

[Cooldude]

what a f ing joke this is, i just saw footage of that so called beam ball and what a joke, it was a waste high full toss that should have been put away, a beamer is a ball that is speered in at the head not the guts

Someone who bowls at 150+ kphs, and you say it should've been put away?

Beamers/higher than waist level full tosses from quicks are dangerous, because batsmen prepare themselves to look down the pitch for the ball to bounce. Then suddenly a full toss comes out of his hand, you're looking down the pitch, wondernig where the ball is, because the ball went up instead of down. Before you realise where the ball actually is, it would be 3 metres away from you

Beamers are not only dangerous because they can potentially hurt someone, they're dangerous because it's very tough for batsmen to spot them straight away, which increases that potential of them being hurt.

I, quite frankly, don't care if they're accidents or not. Any full tosses that's waist high of above should be a no-ball first up, a second one is the bloke reported to the match ref, and him taken out of the attack straight away. It's not just beamers.

[Blues_Man]

Someone who bowls at 150+ kphs, and you say it should've been put away?

Beamers/higher than waist level full tosses from quicks are dangerous, because batsmen prepare themselves to look down the pitch for the ball to bounce. Then suddenly a full toss comes out of his hand, you're looking down the pitch, wondernig where the ball is, because the ball went up instead of down. Before you realise where the ball actually is, it would be 3 metres away from you

Beamers are not only dangerous because they can potentially hurt someone, they're dangerous because it's very tough for batsmen to spot them straight away, which increases that potential of them being hurt.

I, quite frankly, don't care if they're accidents or not. Any full tosses that's waist high of above should be a no-ball first up, a second one is the bloke reported to the match ref, and him taken out of the attack straight away. It's not just beamers.
theres always tennis or netball if crickets too rough for them :rolleyes:

[Jaymin]

So apparently its ok for people to accidentally bowl beamers at Brett Lee but he's not allowed to accidentally bowl beamers at other batsman?

[bibi01]

mcgrath, gillespie and kaspa have no need to bowl beam balls as they are class bowlers, lee is a hack and a pea brain at that.

[Blues_Man]

mcgrath, gillespie and kaspa have no need to bowl beam balls as they are class bowlers, lee is a hack and a pea brain at that.
I bet you wouldn't say that to him 22 yards from him even with a bat in your hand :rolleyes:

[funkyfreo]

So apparently its ok for people to accidentally bowl beamers at Brett Lee but he's not allowed to accidentally bowl beamers at other batsman?

Not when he goes all sooky la la when it happens to him. And when he does it on a regular basis.

[likka]

So apparently its ok for people to accidentally bowl beamers at Brett Lee but he's not allowed to accidentally bowl beamers at other batsman?
The question is intent and the context of Lee's so called recent "accidents". They were retaliatory in nature and IMO intentional. Someone should tell Brett the "wolf", I mean "accident", excuse is waring a bit thin (I don't think he's smart enough to work it out himself).

Razzaq's was in the same boat as Lee, and he should have been banned also.

[likka]

theres always tennis or netball if crickets too rough for them :rolleyes:
Never played cricket have you?

[- PC -]

I bet you wouldn't say that to him 22 yards from him even with a bat in your hand :rolleyes:
Nope because he would bowl a beam ball because he is a sook. Its not the ball its when and how its bowled after incidents.

[Cassius_Clay]

i wish brett would bowl a beamer straight at bracewells mouth and shut that idiot up
LMAO Roebuck's proves once again how much of a ********er he is.

Does abdul razzaqs ball that nearly hit lee in the head ever come up. NO. Why?

1. Alot of people hate lee
2. Is because lee bowls so fast making it look worse then it is.

[Cassius_Clay]

mcgrath, gillespie and kaspa have no need to bowl beam balls as they are class bowlers, lee is a hack and a pea brain at that.
shutup idiot and get back to your hole

[Cassius_Clay]

Its good to see Lee is actually starting to pi$$ people off again, must mean he is getting some much needed form back.

Excellent.


God I love Australia

:D
you have to love it dont ya......people cant bag him at the moment cos he is bowling too good so they start on silly little issues like this.

Want a tissue anyone??

[likka]

LMAO Roebuck's proves once again how much of a ********er he is.

Does abdul razzaqs ball that nearly hit lee in the head ever come up. NO. Why?

1. Alot of people hate lee
2. Is because lee bowls so fast making it look worse then it is.
I'm sure you'd find that people's opinion of Razzaq's beamer is the same as Lee's many indiscretions. Lee can plead innocence to the press about accidents, but there have been many times on a cricket field where Lee has tried to hurt people.

I agree with Roebuck that a one strike and you're out rule should be introduced. Both Razzaq and Lee should have been banned.

[likka]

shutup idiot and get back to your hole
Very well thought out and articulated response... back to your cave!

[Cooldude]

Never played cricket have you?

He obviously haven't, as he doesn't know that a full toss hitting anyone above waist height can result in an absolute shirtful of broken ribs, and a beamer at head height = a hole in your skull.

It's pretty obivous on who the idiots are, they're the ones defending Brett Lee by using Razzaq as an example. Two wrongs does not make one right, both of them are at fault and both of them should had a reprimand/fine imposed on them.

Aiming full tosses/beamers at someone's chest/neck/head is like a spear tackle or Bryon Pickett's bump in AFL, you can seriously, seriously injure somebody, and don't care if it's accidental or not, a reprimand/fine should be in place. Bowlers at that level should not be bowling this many higher-than-waist full tosses/beamers this frequently.

Seems like too many people are concentrating on the wrong things: This is not about Brett Lee, this is about beamers/full tosses.

[Cassius_Clay]

I'm sure you'd find that people's opinion of Razzaq's beamer is the same as Lee's many indiscretions. Lee can plead innocence to the press about accidents, but there have been many times on a cricket field where Lee has tried to hurt people.

I agree with Roebuck that a one strike and you're out rule should be introduced. Both Razzaq and Lee should have been banned.
where is the thread and bashing of razzaq then?

[Jars458]

The rules are clear and correct in my view.

You can get away with one because its an accident. Any more than that and you get remvoed from the attack because regardless whether they were an accident or not, they become dangerous if they occur that frequently

The only person who knows whether its deliberate is the bowler. Imposbile for anyone else to judge.

Hence the frist one is free. After that you are gone.

[likka]

where is the thread and bashing of razzaq then?
Why do we need one? What Razzaq did was wrong and uncalled for, all agree on that.

Some thought Lee was justified in "returning fire"... that is just crazy.

Now Lee has offended again, and in again retaliatory circumstances. Some, myself include, could consider this intentional. When will he learn? I'm sure he is a nice enough guy, but it looks like white line fever takes over ocassionally. No self control at all.

[Cameron_K]

Don't you love how everyone automatically knows what Lee was thinking and are 100% sure he did it on purpose.

:rolleyes: Never has that smilie been so warranted.

[Stafford678]

Then suddenly a full toss comes out of his hand, you're looking down the pitch, wondernig where the ball is, because the ball went up instead of down. Before you realise where the ball actually is, it would be 3 metres away from you... << that is what cooldude said before

now you tell me if you cannot pick up a full toss at international level then whats the point of playing.. fair enough there is the crowd and under the lights tp contend with but still if your looking down the pitch for the ball and you cannot see it as a full toss then your in big trouble obviusly they didnt have their eyes on the ball anyway??? Isnt the idea of batting watching the ball from the bowlers hand not trying to read it off the pitch, now if you have your eyes on the ball you should see it as a full toss, you might not have the reaction time and you get hit.

I dont like bowlers bowling beamers at the head to people on purpose. But it wouldn't have been on purpose, its pretty easy to get a yorker wrong and end up as a waste high full toss, he apologised so get over it, as somone as said too, give them a tennis ball if they cant handle a cricket ball, mistakes happen and its part of the game, people need to deal with that.

[Cooldude]

Then suddenly a full toss comes out of his hand, you're looking down the pitch, wondernig where the ball is, because the ball went up instead of down. Before you realise where the ball actually is, it would be 3 metres away from you... << that is what cooldude said before

now you tell me if you cannot pick up a full toss at international level then whats the point of playing.. fair enough there is the crowd and under the lights tp contend with but still if your looking down the pitch for the ball and you cannot see it as a full toss then your in big trouble obviusly they didnt have their eyes on the ball anyway??? Isnt the idea of batting watching the ball from the bowlers hand not trying to read it off the pitch, now if you have your eyes on the ball you should see it as a full toss, you might not have the reaction time and you get hit.

I dont like bowlers bowling beamers at the head to people on purpose. But it wouldn't have been on purpose, its pretty easy to get a yorker wrong and end up as a waste high full toss, he apologised so get over it, as somone as said too, give them a tennis ball if they cant handle a cricket ball, mistakes happen and its part of the game, people need to deal with that.

I think you're misunderstood my point, of course batsmen watch it out of the bowler's hand, but they expect the ball to come down, not up, that is why one of the key batting advices in coaching manuals is have your head slightly looking down.

Then suddenly the ball comes right up and above a quick's hand, and to answer your point on international batsmen should be picking them: It has nothing to do with skill levels, this has to do with human reaction time. Being a better batsman has nothing to do with picking up beamers, they are naturally tough to pick anyway for anyone, because it is going up after it leaves the bowler's hand instead of down, and the batsmen will always be forced to look up to see where exactly the ball is, and that split second results in you being very late on a beamer (And also, a beamer's naturally faster than a normal delivery because it doesn't hit the pitch)

To answer your point on international batsmen being good enough to pick them: Then I can just as easily tell you that an international bowler should not be bowling beamers that often at all.

Also, apologies, who gives about apologies? I can beat the crap out of a bloke and even kill him, so if I apologies afterwards, does that make it alright?

The intention of the bowler when bowling a beamer is irrelevant. We can't tell they're doing it deliberately just as we can't tell they're doing it accidentally, only the bowlers themselves know, and many of them lie. All that matters is: beamers, especially from quicks, are extremely dangerous, and action should immediately be taken from the umpires, because they're the ones responsible for the safety of the players out there

[jagx00]

Through Socratic Dialogue Cooldude has now summed it up quite neatly.

[Stafford678]

fair enough points there and i know what ya sayen all as i am tryen to say tho, is the ball was a waste high full toss it wasnt a beamer speered in the head. if all these happened in test matches there should be a lot of concern about the problem, but its one day cricket, where a lot of fast yorkers are to be tried to bowl, and if you bowl at a fair pace its hard to controll yorkers every ball.

[eddiesmith]

There is no way that Lees beamer to Razzaq was an accident, as Roebuck points out, nearly every time Lee bowls a beamer it is at someone he is angry at.

Accident? Not likely

[gerta]

I think people need to realize what a beamer actually is... A beamer is head high full toss...

Beamer Definition (http://www.dragonsports.co.uk/sports-equipment/sport-section-Cricket/cricket-glossary.htm)

I don't think Lee's delivery was a beamer... It was a waist high full toss..

[Cassius_Clay]

I think people need to realize what a beamer actually is... A beamer is head high full toss...

Beamer Definition (http://www.dragonsports.co.uk/sports-equipment/sport-section-Cricket/cricket-glossary.htm)

I don't think Lee's delivery was a beamer... It was a waist high full toss..
see how ppl exaggerate things :rolleyes:

[funkyfreo]

Bloody wide waistline on those NZ uniforms.

[DIG]

There is no way that Lees beamer to Razzaq was an accident, as Roebuck points out, nearly every time Lee bowls a beamer it is at someone he is angry at.

Accident? Not likely
agree. And i don't think Razzaq actually meant his, the look on his face said it all, he basically went pale after he bowled it. I'm not convinced Lee meant the one to the sheepshagger though, but it wasn't at his head anyway. So big deal. Kiwis crying over one thing after another, and as for Roebuck's an absolute puncy imbecile anyway, everyone knows that, i stopped reading his crappy flowery column years ago.

[starz]

Isn't it BEAM ball not bean ball.
Anyway that article is a joke. Brett Lee is bowling beautifully his so-called 'bean-ball' :confused: wasn't even over waist height anyway.

[jagx00]

Isn't it BEAM ball not bean ball.
Anyway that article is a joke. Brett Lee is bowling beautifully his so-called 'bean-ball' :confused: wasn't even over waist height anyway.

Bean ball is a baseball expression where beanz meanz headz, so beamer is probably better for cricket.

I haven't seen the replay for a while, but seem to remember it being about heart level or armpit level. Does anyone remember exactly where it hit?

[Stafford678]

got him on or above the wrist i think? perhaps he should have worn an ARM GUARD

[Blues_Man]

I think you're misunderstood my point, of course batsmen watch it out of the bowler's hand, but they expect the ball to come down, not up, that is why one of the key batting advices in coaching manuals is have your head slightly looking down.

Then suddenly the ball comes right up and above a quick's hand, and to answer your point on international batsmen should be picking them: It has nothing to do with skill levels, this has to do with human reaction time. Being a better batsman has nothing to do with picking up beamers, they are naturally tough to pick anyway for anyone, because it is going up after it leaves the bowler's hand instead of down, and the batsmen will always be forced to look up to see where exactly the ball is, and that split second results in you being very late on a beamer (And also, a beamer's naturally faster than a normal delivery because it doesn't hit the pitch)

To answer your point on international batsmen being good enough to pick them: Then I can just as easily tell you that an international bowler should not be bowling beamers that often at all.

Also, apologies, who gives about apologies? I can beat the crap out of a bloke and even kill him, so if I apologies afterwards, does that make it alright?

The intention of the bowler when bowling a beamer is irrelevant. We can't tell they're doing it deliberately just as we can't tell they're doing it accidentally, only the bowlers themselves know, and many of them lie. All that matters is: beamers, especially from quicks, are extremely dangerous, and action should immediately be taken from the umpires, because they're the ones responsible for the safety of the players out there
I've seen a lot of crap posted on this site but you take the the cake ..have you ever actually played the game ??
at a young age batsmen are taught to watch the ball out of the bowlers hand .not look down at the pitch .
a waist hight full toss (like lee bowled) would come down out of the bowlers hand ..not up ..seriously do you really believe what you are saying ? :rolleyes:

[Blues_Man]

I think people need to realize what a beamer actually is... A beamer is head high full toss...

Beamer Definition (http://www.dragonsports.co.uk/sports-equipment/sport-section-Cricket/cricket-glossary.htm)

I don't think Lee's delivery was a beamer... It was a waist high full toss..
exactly ..anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete moron

[gerta]

I haven't seen the replay for a while, but seem to remember it being about heart level or armpit level. Does anyone remember exactly where it hit?

I believe i may be wrong that it him it flush on the forearm (the person who said he should have been wearing an arm guard was right) and his forearm would have been pretty much level with his waist / lower stomach when the ball hit...

I can remember shoaib aktar doing a similar thing to langer when australia chased down that big 4th innings total to win in hobart a few years back...

Oh and were was the outrage when this one happened???

Adam's Beamer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2830000/newsid_2835500/2835555.stm)

[Cooldude]

I've seen a lot of crap posted on this site but you take the the cake ..have you ever actually played the game ??
at a young age batsmen are taught to watch the ball out of the bowlers hand .not look down at the pitch .
a waist hight full toss (like lee bowled) would come down out of the bowlers hand ..not up ..seriously do you really believe what you are saying ? :rolleyes:

Did you even read my post? Don't think you even did, and if you actually did, then you totally didn't get what I said at all, because if you understood my post, you would not have been asking that questoin of "batsmen watching it come out of the hand" crap.

And also, are you dumb? A waist high full toss goes ABOVE the bowler's head then goes onto the waist, not DOWN then UP again on the waist. That just confirms my point totally, you must not understand the game nor played it.

Let's not even say this on an experience point of view, just a physics point of view. A ball bowled at a higher trajectory (Which a beamer is, it's impossible to bowl a ball of lower trajectory and get it as a waist high full toss) would obviously have to go UP above the hand, than otherwise when you bowl a normal good length delivery (Where the ball is bowled at a much lower trajectory so it hits the ground 6 metres in front of the batsmen).

That is total common sense, unless you're telling me there's a strong wind blowing up from underneath the pitch and got the ball to go up, you're just showing what an ignorant fool you are

[Blues_Man]

Did you even read my post? Don't think you even did, and if you actually did, then you totally didn't get what I said at all, because if you understood my post, you would not have been asking that questoin of "batsmen watching it come out of the hand" crap.

And also, are you dumb? A waist high full toss goes ABOVE the bowler's head then goes onto the waist, not DOWN then UP again on the waist. That just confirms my point totally, you must not understand the game nor played it.

Let's not even say this on an experience point of view, just a physics point of view. A ball bowled at a higher trajectory (Which a beamer is, it's impossible to bowl a ball of lower trajectory and get it as a waist high full toss) would obviously have to go UP above the hand, than otherwise when you bowl a normal good length delivery (Where the ball is bowled at a much lower trajectory so it hits the ground 6 metres in front of the batsmen).

That is total common sense, unless you're telling me there's a strong wind blowing up from underneath the pitch and got the ball to go up, you're just showing what an ignorant fool you are
total garbage go out and get somebody to bowl at you and see where the ball comes from :rolleyes:

[gerta]

Did you even read my post? Don't think you even did, and if you actually did, then you totally didn't get what I said at all, because if you understood my post, you would not have been asking that questoin of "batsmen watching it come out of the hand" crap.

And also, are you dumb? A waist high full toss goes ABOVE the bowler's head then goes onto the waist, not DOWN then UP again on the waist. That just confirms my point totally, you must not understand the game nor played it.

Let's not even say this on an experience point of view, just a physics point of view. A ball bowled at a higher trajectory (Which a beamer is, it's impossible to bowl a ball of lower trajectory and get it as a waist high full toss) would obviously have to go UP above the hand, than otherwise when you bowl a normal good length delivery (Where the ball is bowled at a much lower trajectory so it hits the ground 6 metres in front of the batsmen).

That is total common sense, unless you're telling me there's a strong wind blowing up from underneath the pitch and got the ball to go up, you're just showing what an ignorant fool you are


What the are u talking about... Remember that when people deliver the ball they are delivering it from their hand which is probably coming in from a height well over 2 metres.... probably closer to 2.70 m depending on the height and arm span of the bowler... The ball never goes up.. I don't think the ball needs to go up from 2 metres to pass over a batsmen head... All that is dependant on how high a full toss goes is the release point of the ball.. The ball due to gravity is always on the way down, unless u throw it up in the air...

Anyway thats probably what u been saying... But i'm just trying to clarify it...

[starz]

There has been a lot of talk about Brett Lee's beamers...too much talk i must say. It's been Completely blown out of proportion, hyped up, sensationalised (whatever you want to call it) 1 or 2 of them in his whole career have gone above chest height. Get over it please, It's a non-issue.

[Cooldude]

What the are u talking about... Remember that when people deliver the ball they are delivering it from their hand which is probably coming in from a height well over 2 metres.... probably closer to 2.70 m depending on the height and arm span of the bowler... The ball never goes up.. I don't think the ball needs to go up from 2 metres to pass over a batsmen head... All that is dependant on how high a full toss goes is the release point of the ball.. The ball due to gravity is always on the way down, unless u throw it up in the air...

Anyway thats probably what u been saying... But i'm just trying to clarify it...

Nope, I will rephrase:

Say, when you bowl a normal ball, good length, after the release point of the ball, the trajectory of the ball goes down, so when a batsman faces a bowler, he does look at the bowler's hand, but he expects to see after the release point, that the ball's going straight down right under his eyeline. (Which was what I was on about having the head position slightly looking down, by that I don't mean the batsman not looking at the bowler's hand and looking at the pitch, I mean having the head level being slightly lower towards the batsman, get it?)

Let's use a spinner as an example, yes, spinner doesn't have the pace of a quick, but when they flight a ball, same theory applies, the ball goes above the level of the hand. Just like when they bowl a full toss, unless he bowls quicker, the ball, at release, will go slightly above the hand, be it only cms.

When a quick bowls a beamer, yes, they're quicker than spinners, but as the ball's released, if it's a beamer aiming at above shoulder height, as the ball is released, it WILL go above the hand for a very few cms, but the momentum of the ball immediately goes down, that was what I meant by the ball being "up", as in ball going up above the hand as it leaves the hand, but the ball is still going down towards the batsman, but obviously a whole lot less than a regular delivery, that's why it's a beamer.

When someone throws it, like a baseball pitcher, then of course the ball never really goes above the hand at 140/150 kph. But a bowling action revolves around a person rotating his arm and flinging the ball out of his hand, which is completely different to a throw.

When a beamer's bowled, it means the release point of the fling is slightly behind the normal release point which leads to the ball bouncing on the pitch. Hence why I said it'd go above the hand for a few cms, yet the momentum of the ball's still going down.

But for someone of the pace of Lee, perhaps the perception's different, but it remains a fact that as it leaves the bowler's hand, a higher than waist full toss/beamer and a regular delivery are two very different things to for a batsman to face.

A batsman's always looking for the ball to go down and hit the pitch or at his toes if it's yorker length, so when it leaves the bowler's hand, but then suddenly a beamer/full toss is bowled, you're expecting the ball to come down and hit the pitch, but it never comes down but instead goes straight at your chest. Hence why I say a beamer/very high full toss is "difficult to pick"

Okay, that's a long post, bear with me...

Just to clarify again, when I say the ball "going up", I meant the ball going slightly above the hand as it is released, yet the ball is still going down. Confusing yes, but you bowl a beamer because you can't get your hand over the ball and it slips out and slightly above your hand, instead of getting on top of the ball with your hands/fingers.

[starz]

This is what the general cricket public thinks of it... This is a poll i found with a high volume of traffic.

BINGER'S BEAMERS

Should Brett Lee be banned for bowling too many beamers?

Yes, he needs to control himself
14 %

Maybe, if he keeps on bowling them
18 %

No, they are only accidents
16 %

Just another Bracewell whinge
53 %

[gerta]

I think the main thing about picking up the ball as quite often when the ball is a full toss, the batsmen have difficulty in picking it up is because the line of the ball is above the sight screen...

But the main thing is the ball never went any higher than just below chest high and definitely no where near the batsman head... And i think thats the issue that many people are missing...

[Cooldude]

I think the main thing about picking up the ball as quite often when the ball is a full toss, the batsmen have difficulty in picking it up is because the line of the ball is above the sight screen...

But the main thing is the ball never went any higher than just below chest high and definitely no where near the batsman head... And i think thats the issue that many people are missing...

You just summed up what I roughly tried to say in two short paragraphs while I went a full page :) Thank you

[Fiesty_Feline]

Just a bit of light hearted humour to ease the tension on the thread. Whether you're a fan or hater, you might find this amusing.

A friend of my sister's and brother - in - law's went to a post cricket function one day, shortly after Brett Lee had made his debut. He got into a conversation with Michael Slater, keen to find out what he thought of the new kid on the block. His reply..."Brett Lee? Quick bowler, but dumb as dog ********". So now he's just called 'DADS' for short.


I think some people here are being far too harsh. Binga is in much better touch now, and he's always the first to go up to an opposition batsman to see if they are alright after a stray ball. He is not the only bowler to ever slip up and if you look at others, there are plenty who appear to attack the batter without having the game as their priority.
Lee genuinely doesn't seem like a dirty cricketer to me, his inconsistency and economy rate are concerns, but despite that I cannot fault him.

[Blues_Man]

You just summed up what I roughly tried to say in two short paragraphs while I went a full page :) Thank you
well why didn't you say that in the first place without writing a novel ? :rolleyes:

[- PC -]

I dont mind Brett Lees agression . Yes I do think he is not a test bowler but this doesnt mean I am biased

But I will ask a question and lets see who can answer it.

Someone said ''hey it happens and as a fast bowler controlling the ball is difficult'' Might even have been the coach Buchanan correct?
What a dumb F*** statement. How many beamers have McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa bowled? Answer me that and I will shut my mouth

[usalion]

I dont mind Brett Lees agression . Yes I do think he is not a test bowler but this doesnt mean I am biased

But I will ask a question and lets see who can answer it.

Someone said ''hey it happens and as a fast bowler controlling the ball is difficult'' Might even have been the coach Buchanan correct?
What a dumb F*** statement. How many beamers have McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa bowled? Answer me that and I will shut my mouth


Good point, Perth Crow- it is a matter of learning control- pure speed does not always work, unless you know how to keep it under control. The one that comes to mind is the baseball film, "Bull Durham." For want of a better word, Lee is like Nuke Laloosh- never knows where the ball will go...once he gets it under control, Kevin Costner comes out and tells him to "hit the bull-" the mascot hanging around 10 feet to the left of the batter, and well out of play. Nuke doesn't know why, but does it- Costner looks at the batter and says "I don't know where it is going- honest to God."

Lee needs to get that state where his wild balls are not because he has no control, but because he is sending a message to the batsman.

And no, I would not want to face Lee at a distance of 22 yards, but that doesn't mean he deserves a test spot...it means he is a bowler that scares the batsmen.

Don't have the numbers on the Big Three, but imagine they are fairly low....

[dan warna]

Be interesting to see if the selectors drop a bowler in and out of the top 10 for bowling in the world with an average of 23.74 since his return to test cricket for brett lee who has hardly had a test series under 30 for latter part of his career....

Brett Lee
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 37 593 62* 19.76 0 2 139 5/47 31.66 4 9 0
filtered 15 195 46 16.25 0 0 53 4/63 38.43 0 6 0

Brett Lee = IS A CRAP test bowler

Kaspa
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

unfiltered 30 341 25 9.74 0 0 94 7/36 30.37 4 12 0
filtered 13 107 19 6.29 0 0 47 7/39 23.74 2 6 0

Kaspa USED to be a crap Test bowler, now is an AWSOME test bowler.

Kaspa >>> Lee in tests, stats don't lie therefore lee sucks..

[Dr Who]

The rules are clear and correct in my view.

You can get away with one because its an accident. Any more than that and you get remvoed from the attack because regardless whether they were an accident or not, they become dangerous if they occur that frequently

The only person who knows whether its deliberate is the bowler. Imposbile for anyone else to judge.

Hence the frist one is free. After that you are gone.

Exactly right, the rules of the game take care of this issue. How anyone can know he meant it is beyond me. If I recall correctly there was heaps of saw dust he might have slipped on, and a possible reason for changing around the wicket?

No one can know for sure, what we do know is if he bowls too many of them he’ll be out of the attack, simple.

McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa maynot bowl as many full tosses but how many times have they gone over 150clicks? They are quicks yes, but control bowlers, Lee is a tear away. Its his job particularly in one dayers to bowl short sharp spells at express pace.

[Punt_Road_Roar]

I wonder what Thommo would say about Lee bowling a couple of beamers at batsmen.

I reckon he would be loving it, he has always hated batsmen and probably still does.

I think the kiwi's are a bunch of sooks who know they cant handle his pace so they attack him off the pitch, typical actions coming from a nation with an inferiority complex

:D

[Stafford678]

I dont mind Brett Lees agression . Yes I do think he is not a test bowler but this doesnt mean I am biased

But I will ask a question and lets see who can answer it.

Someone said ''hey it happens and as a fast bowler controlling the ball is difficult'' Might even have been the coach Buchanan correct?
What a dumb F*** statement. How many beamers have McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa bowled? Answer me that and I will shut my mouth

i think this occurs more for brett because of his action, i have a bowling action simular to brett lee's, and its somthing that jaques kallis has started to do that pumping of the arm sorta bit, and i find that in our team out of our 4 pace bowlers im the one who tends to bowl morew full tosses and ive been told its on my action.

Brett Lee struggles in the tests becuase of his line and length but gets away with it in the one day games, IMO its all in his action, with the bowling style he has i reckon its allways full or short, thats what ive found since i had to change my action i re moddled my action on the lee action, it has helped me cope with a back injury i had and ive had no problems, okay im no where near as quick as brett but ive found that i canot bowl the length that you need too , ive found that with the action its eiether full and up there yorker or half volley length or else its short and i mean way to short..

Im probably totaly wrong but i hope somone understands what im tryen to say :o

[OldLion]

Brett Lee struggles in the tests becuase of his line and length but gets away with it in the one day games, IMO its all in his action, with the bowling style he has i reckon its allways full or short.. If his line and length are crap he by rights should be exposed in the one dayers with no field protection. He regularly gets early wickets - bowled, LBW - which really puts the pressure on. Like any bowler, he needs a good partner and experience .. and a good outswinger ! Anyway, the umpires control all that sort ball / head high stuff. I think the NZ line all along is that Australia gets at the umpires - even suggested that Billy was spending too much time with them and not giving his countrymen 'an even break'. The commentators were reduced to abusing him for his 'antics' when the Kiwis were getting rolled. It's like we are with English pitches - paranoia.

[Zyban]

Roebuck should be kicked out of the country, that is a discracful artical full of nothing but hatred, it's almost slander, he actually suggests that he knows what Lee may or may not have been thinking, talk about drawing a long bow :eek: accidents happen... all the haters suggest that Kaspa Mcgrath and Dizzy have better control than Lee...thus making them better bowlers :rolleyes: yet seem to doubt that same fact when it comes to the judgment on whether he may or may not have meant it, hypocrytes!!!

All bowlers of pace have bowled them that includes the most controlled bowler in the world today Mcgrath.

Lee bowled one in the game yes! the rules state you will be dealt with if you bowl 2 yes!

Whats the phuking problem ya whinging pack of ladies?

Roeshmuck wants to change the rule because its Lee because hes Australian, thats the Roebuck MO.

[Bombers_Forever]

Roebuck should be kicked out of the country, that is a discracful artical full of nothing but hatred, it's almost slander, he actually suggests that he knows what Lee may or may not have been thinking, talk about drawing a long bow :eek: accidents happen... all the haters suggest that Kaspa Mcgrath and Dizzy have better control than Lee...thus making them better bowlers :rolleyes: yet seem to doubt that same fact when it comes to the judgment on whether he may or may not have meant it, hypocrytes!!!

All bowlers of pace have bowled them that includes the most controlled bowler in the world today Mcgrath.

Lee bowled one in the game yes! the rules state you will be dealt with if you bowl 2 yes!

Whats the phuking problem ya whinging pack of ladies?

Roeshmuck wants to change the rule because its Lee because hes Australian, thats the Roebuck MO.

When was the last time McGrath, Dizzy or Kaspa bowled one of them? I can't think of even one, not even in the domestic comp. Yes there is a difference in speed but it is not that great.

[Zyban]

You don't think they have??

Contact them through the ACB i think you'll find out different BF.

Everybody has, especially early on, they have better control these days, in part as a result of not trying to bowl out of their skin, Lee's job IS to try to bowl out of his skin, the extra 10% effort makes mistakes not only possible but probable, the haters don't have a problem with this theory when putting the man down, but of course they seem to forget about it when the occasion to Lee bash presents itself.

[likka]

I've seen a lot of crap posted on this site but you take the the cake ..have you ever actually played the game ??
at a young age batsmen are taught to watch the ball out of the bowlers hand .not look down at the pitch .
a waist hight full toss (like lee bowled) would come down out of the bowlers hand ..not up ..seriously do you really believe what you are saying ? :rolleyes:
You seriously have absolutely no idea do you? You have obviously never played the game, or only played it at Kooweerup 4ths level. What Cooldude said was spot on... the dangerous aspect of a beamer is that as a batsman you don't pick it up until it is nealy on top of you, and because it doesn't bounce it gets to you more quickly.

By that last comment you are seriously showing your ignorance.

[likka]

i think this occurs more for brett because of his action, i have a bowling action simular to brett lee's, and its somthing that jaques kallis has started to do that pumping of the arm sorta bit, and i find that in our team out of our 4 pace bowlers im the one who tends to bowl morew full tosses and ive been told its on my action.

Brett Lee struggles in the tests becuase of his line and length but gets away with it in the one day games, IMO its all in his action, with the bowling style he has i reckon its allways full or short, thats what ive found since i had to change my action i re moddled my action on the lee action, it has helped me cope with a back injury i had and ive had no problems, okay im no where near as quick as brett but ive found that i canot bowl the length that you need too , ive found that with the action its eiether full and up there yorker or half volley length or else its short and i mean way to short..

Im probably totaly wrong but i hope somone understands what im tryen to say :o

Fair point, but the fact remains that each beamer that Lee has bowled has been in dubious, retailiatory circumstances. Coincidence ? :rolleyes:

[likka]

Roebuck should be kicked out of the country, that is a discracful artical full of nothing but hatred, it's almost slander, he actually suggests that he knows what Lee may or may not have been thinking, talk about drawing a long bow :eek: accidents happen... all the haters suggest that Kaspa Mcgrath and Dizzy have better control than Lee...thus making them better bowlers :rolleyes: yet seem to doubt that same fact when it comes to the judgment on whether he may or may not have meant it, hypocrytes!!!

All bowlers of pace have bowled them that includes the most controlled bowler in the world today Mcgrath.

Lee bowled one in the game yes! the rules state you will be dealt with if you bowl 2 yes!

Whats the phuking problem ya whinging pack of ladies?

Roeshmuck wants to change the rule because its Lee because hes Australian, thats the Roebuck MO.
Did you even read the article? Lee is developing a history of beamers and given all the evidence he is using the 2 beamer rule to be able to get away with bowling one.

The guy is as dumb as dog ********, and I think he actually believes the rhetoric and hype. He thinks he is so fast and so bad ass and believes he must intimidate at every opportunity.

There have been a number of instances where he has bowled dangerously in the effort to either intimidate or retaliate. The intentional one meter no-ball bouncer to a number 11 in NZ in 2000 is yet another example that he doesn't know where to draw the line.

If he wants to intimidate he should look at some of the West Indies videos from the 70's and 80's.

[Zyban]

If he wants to intimidate he should look at some of the West Indies videos from the 70's and 80's.

What he does is nothing different than what the Windies did how old are you??

Yes i read it did you? he insinuates that he knows what Lee's motives were that it was deliberate and that he knows this..........i ask you how?
i ask you how you know this? for you seem to be able to mind read as well as Roeshmuck.

Developing a history my arse, i would venture a guess at about 5-6 throughtout his whole career not bad considering his pace, once a game or 3 time a series i could see, but once every now and again...? get a grip, better yet.............. let go of it.

His job is to intimidate...do not bring short pitch deliveries into this argument all you are doing is highlighting how weak your stance on the points are, many have done it before him and many will do it in the future.

[likka]

Surely you are not comparing DADS to the Windies greats of the 70's and 80's are you? If so you are delusional.

Lee may be able to intimidate when the conditions suit in ODI as batsmen have to try and score off him, but in test cricket it just doesn't work. The Windies were masters of it... Lee should take a leaf from their book.

Roebuck goes a bit over the top, but his premise of Lee's motives is based on context. So you think it was merely coincidental that his recent "accidents" were directed at batsmen he was irritated at? What about the Razzaq beamers, I suppose that was an accident as well? Come on mate, what recent rain shower did you come down in?

Normal bouncers are fine, but the deliberate 1 meter no ball was just as bad as a beamer, hence I used this as an example. Why try and injure the bloke... is it because he couldn't dismiss him?

[Zyban]

Surely you are not comparing DADS to the Windies greats of the 70's and 80's are you? If so you are delusional.

Lee may be able to intimidate when the conditions suit in ODI as batsmen have to try and score off him, but in test cricket it just doesn't work. The Windies were masters of it... Lee should take a leaf from their book.

Roebuck goes a bit over the top, but his premise of Lee's motives is based on context. So you think it was merely coincidental that his recent "accidents" were directed at batsmen he was irritated at? What about the Razzaq beamers, I suppose that was an accident as well? Come on mate, what recent rain shower did you come down in?

Normal bouncers are fine, but the deliberate 1 meter no ball was just as bad as a beamer, hence I used this as an example. Why try and injure the bloke... is it because he couldn't dismiss him?

Could it not also be that iritation with a batsman causes him to go overboard in a sense that he loses his rythem and control...or is that a little to logical for ya?

Intimidation is the same!!! as a matter of fact no team put more deliveries into thier own half of the pitch than the WI, what the ******** does test cricket have to do with this.......conversation with you is over.

You appear to be one of them idiots that lets their mind wander and drag in fact or fiction that has little bearing on the argument, everytime your BS is shot down you throw out another irrelevent line like this "Roebuck goes a bit over the top, but his premise of Lee's motives is based on context"

His "premise" of Lees motives is fiction he created to sell a story.

Only idiots are buying!

[likka]

Could it not also be that iritation with a batsman causes him to go overboard in a sense that he loses his rythem and control...or is that a little to logical for ya?

Intimidation is the same!!! as a matter of fact no team put more deliveries into thier own half of the pitch than the WI, what the ******** does test cricket have to do with this.......conversation with you is over.

You appear to be one of them idiots that lets their mind wander and drag in fact or fiction that has little bearing on the argument, everytime your BS is shot down you throw out another irrelevent line like this "Roebuck goes a bit over the top, but his premise of Lee's motives is based on context"

His "premise" of Lees motives is fiction he created to sell a story.

Only idiots are buying!
Loses his rhythem due to irritation of a batsman... LOL... you have absolutely no clue. His control is appalling I'll agree, but if beamers were bowled every time a bowler "loses their rhythem" they would be a regular occurrence.

The context of the delivery is very pertinent (ie he gets mad and bowls a beamer), but obviously you have swallowed CA and Aussie media BS about Lee and will not be convinced otherwise.

[Cooldude]

total garbage go out and get somebody to bowl at you and see where the ball comes from :rolleyes:

I'm sure they come out of your ass, just like everything you've said in this thread :D

[what the!]

Is that you Brett?

Is that you John? :rolleyes:

[Barry Schneider]

It is funny that Bracewell talks about potential legal action if someone is injured by a full toss.(I always thought a beamer was at the head not at the waist).I would love Lee and Kevin Mitchell to sue Bracewell for defamation.

[gerta]

It is funny that Bracewell talks about potential legal action if someone is injured by a full toss.(I always thought a beamer was at the head not at the waist).I would love Lee and Kevin Mitchell to sue Bracewell for defamation.


Yeah i talked about that yesterday but its seems that people have forgotten about it... A beamer is aimed directly at the head...

Bracewell = media ........

[KiNgCliVe26]

Not when he goes all sooky la la when it happens to him. And when he does it on a regular basis.


Regular basis lmfao. Out of the 700 odd balls he's bowled 4 or so have been beamers.

Thats pretty regular :rolleyes: