View Full Version : What is going on out there?
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what are some people snorting up their noses out there?
Lee over rated? By whom? He is a terrific fast bowler and is getting better by the test. In 5 years time when he has over 200 test wickets and carrying the Australian attack you'll all be saying what a great bowler he is.
MacGill a better bowler than Warne? Never in your wildest dreams is MacGill better than Warne. MacGill holds no dillusions about the matter, why do other people. Shane Warne is the greatest leg-spinner to have ever played the game. MacGill is good, but not that good.
sandeano
30 Dec 2002, 14:39
I'd reckon those that believe Brett Lee is a great bowler also think that Pamela Anderson is a beautiful woman.
Some people are overwhelmed by flamboyant, expensive, eye-catching, superficial bouncers and tend to not realise that patience, thought and consistency are the prime qualities that should be admired. .
Originally posted by sandeano
Some people are overwhelmed by flamboyant, expensive, eye-catching, superficial bouncers
Enough Pamela Anderson, what about Brett Lee?
Now that I think about it, though, I'd rather be hit between the eyes by Pammy's bouncers than Brett's.:D
knuckles
30 Dec 2002, 14:51
Originally posted by Becker
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what are some people snorting up their noses out there?
Lee over rated? By whom? He is a terrific fast bowler and is getting better by the test. In 5 years time when he has over 200 test wickets and carrying the Australian attack you'll all be saying what a great bowler he is.
MacGill a better bowler than Warne? Never in your wildest dreams is MacGill better than Warne. MacGill holds no dillusions about the matter, why do other people. Shane Warne is the greatest leg-spinner to have ever played the game. MacGill is good, but not that good.
If Lee leads our attack, ever, we are England. I seriously think McGrath will still be bowling when Lee is gone.
sandeano
30 Dec 2002, 14:55
Originally posted by scmods
Enough Pamela Anderson, what about Brett Lee?
Now that I think about it, though, I'd rather be hit between the eyes by Pammy's bouncers than Brett's.:D
heh...that was the rather clumsy analogy I was trying to make. Two blond bimbos who have each carved out a career on the dubious basis of having quite eye-catching bouncers.
On first glance both seem quite impressive...but after a few minutes you come to realise that there aint a whole lot else to them and the novelty of their respective 'assets' grows tiresome and predictible.
Brett Lee can bowl very well. My gripe is that he doesn't do it any near enough. Maybe being forced to lead an attack for a year or so might force him to play a more disciplined game. But at the moment he's expensive and he has only one tactic when he's getting carted - bowl at the head.
Warne is better than MacGill. End of story.
If anyone was watching the 2nd Innings in the Melbourne Test, Brett Lee WAS leading the attack. McGrath was well below his best (obviously injured), and Gillespie is also under an injury cloud in my opinion and was used sparingly by Waugh.
If it wasn't for Lee tearing in and bowling his heart out Australia would have been in real trouble. I just cannot believe all this garbage about how undisciplined Lee's bowling is. He has been bowling under instruction from his captain.
As for how expensive he is, how many Test matches has it cost Australia?
shiva25
31 Dec 2002, 07:45
Originally posted by Becker
If anyone was watching the 2nd Innings in the Melbourne Test, Brett Lee WAS leading the attack. McGrath was well below his best (obviously injured), and Gillespie is also under an injury cloud in my opinion and was used sparingly by Waugh.
If it wasn't for Lee tearing in and bowling his heart out Australia would have been in real trouble. I just cannot believe all this garbage about how undisciplined Lee's bowling is. He has been bowling under instruction from his captain.
As for how expensive he is, how many Test matches has it cost Australia?
It hasnt cost us any test matches because our other bowlers have been able to cover his inconsistant bowling.
I would rate McGrath,Gillespie and Warne well ahead of Lee at present and the only reason i think he is in the side is because he can bowl fast.
Originally posted by shiva25
It hasnt cost us any test matches because our other bowlers have been able to cover his inconsistant bowling.
I would rate McGrath,Gillespie and Warne well ahead of Lee at present and the only reason i think he is in the side is because he can bowl fast.
Exactly, that is precisely what I have been saying. His captain wants him to bowl as fast as he can to intimidate the batsmen. That is his current role, and while he is doing this his economy rate will never be the same as McGrath.
This is the role of a fast bowler. Because of the way they bowl, runs will always flow from the bat. It's either runs or wickets, they are great for the game.
shiva25
31 Dec 2002, 09:23
Originally posted by Becker
Exactly, that is precisely what I have been saying. His captain wants him to bowl as fast as he can to intimidate the batsmen. That is his current role, and while he is doing this his economy rate will never be the same as McGrath.
This is the role of a fast bowler. Because of the way they bowl, runs will always flow from the bat. It's either runs or wickets, they are great for the game.
So your saying his role is to just bowl fast concede a few runs and not take wickets. Interesting theory that.
Originally posted by shiva25
So your saying his role is to just bowl fast concede a few runs and not take wickets. Interesting theory that.
What cricket are you people watching? Lee has taken 8 wickets in the past two tests. 4 wickets a test is as many as you would expect from any bowler.
I think Australian cricket fans have been spoiled rotten by the likes of Lillee, McGrath and Warne over the years and expect everyone who bowls for Australia to be a superstar.
I'd love to see some of you armchair critics padding up and facing Lee for a few overs. A few overs? ... what am I talking about, you wouldn't last 2 balls.
Australia really require Lee don't they? They really struggled in the first two tests without him. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Becker
In 5 years time when he has over 200 test wickets and carrying the Australian attack you'll all be saying what a great bowler he is.
200 wickets of tailenders. Stats never tell the true story. The most overrated, overpublicised, overused bowler ever to play a game in International Cricket.
He's on his way to the World Cup too. Looks like the Aussies want some big totals to chase, or on the other hand, want to provide the opposition with a chance to win the game.
Originally posted by Becker
This is the role of a fast bowler. Because of the way they bowl, runs will always flow from the bat.
Then how do you explain Gillespie and McGrath? Both concede less runs combined than what Lee does on his own. Gillespie conceded only 25 from almost 17 overs. McGrath has been consistent for years and rarely concedes huge amounts of runs,.
Originally posted by Catman
200 wickets of tailenders. Stats never tell the true story. The most overrated, overpublicised, overused bowler ever to play a game in International Cricket.
He's on his way to the World Cup too. Looks like the Aussies want some big totals to chase, or on the other hand, want to provide the opposition with a chance to win the game.
He wouldn't make the English team?
Originally posted by DaveW
Australia really require Lee don't they? They really struggled in the first two tests without him. :rolleyes:
So what? Australia won the 4th Test without Warne .. what's your point?
Originally posted by Catman
Then how do you explain Gillespie and McGrath? Both concede less runs combined than what Lee does on his own. Gillespie conceded only 25 from almost 17 overs. McGrath has been consistent for years and rarely concedes huge amounts of runs,.
I can explain Gillespie and McGrath. both cut back on their pace and concentrate on the line and length. Neither are bowling flat out these days for fear of injury. Brett Lee is an athlete capable of bowling long spells of extremely quick bowling. He is asked to do that because he can.
Anyone out there remember Lillee and Hadlee, both tear away quicks until they cut back their pace and became great fast bowlers. Before that, however, they were stilll great value because of the pace they could generate.
Yes, I can explain Gillespie and McGrath. What I can't explain is people's ridiculous attitude towards a good fast bowler still learning the craft of fast bowling at test level. I just wish people would cut him some slack.
Lee is a hack. The faster you bowl the ball, the faster it comes off the bat. McGrath and Gillespie don't have a "fear of injury", they realise there a couple more important elements to bowling - namely, line and length.
Originally posted by DaveW
Lee is a hack. The faster you bowl the ball, the faster it comes off the bat. McGrath and Gillespie don't have a "fear of injury", they realise there a couple more important elements to bowling - namely, line and length.
Unbelievable.
Originally posted by Becker
Lee has taken 8 wickets in the past two tests. 4 wickets a test is as many as you would expect from any bowler.
The 8 wickets have come at a cost of over 38 runs apiece. That is quite poor.
Originally posted by DaveW
The 8 wickets have come at a cost of over 38 runs apiece. That is quite poor.
So McGrath's 2 wickets in the last test at 42.5 apiece was a poor effort in your opinion?
Originally posted by Becker
So McGrath's 2 wickets in the last test at 42.5 apiece was a poor effort in your opinion?
Certainly. Thankfully for McGrath, it is rare for him.
GoEagles
31 Dec 2002, 18:02
Originally posted by sandeano
heh...that was the rather clumsy analogy I was trying to make. Two blond bimbos who have each carved out a career on the dubious basis of having quite eye-catching bouncers.
Actually it was quite clever. Pamela Anderson used to have "Lee" on her surname when she was married to abusive rocker Tommy Lee.
dogboy23
1 Jan 2003, 20:05
Originally posted by Becker
If anyone was watching the 2nd Innings in the Melbourne Test, Brett Lee WAS leading the attack. If you watched the first innings you would have noticed him feeding the english players rank half volleys and half track tripe.At one stage he bowled 4 balls above head height in a row.IMHO we would have had them out before lunch if a tighter option was bowling.Instead they batted till tea.I dont think Mcgill and Lee can operate in the same team together they are just far too expensive.The pressure it releases off the batsmans shoulders must just kill Mcgrath and Dizzy inside.