- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Why can't they use a red ball if it's at an international ground where it will be lit up almost as well as day time?
Unpopular Cricket Opinions
- Thread starter Black Diamond
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
that makes too much sense, therefore we have to do the opposite!
I think bowlers are similarly disadvantaged in that they won't be able to grip the ball, so I believe neither discipline would be overly advantaged. More concerned about the overall quality of the cricket being lowered.
SleazySimon
Club Legend
Mark Taylor is a good commentator who explains a lot about the game, the rest of channel nein are crap though
I personally don't care for age in national selection. If there's 3 blokes who are all 35 knocking the door down and no one else better, then play them. The younger blokes still get a run in domestic cricket, Voges probably won't ever play a test but he should be in consideration for the Ashes and Windies tours.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Brett Lee was a better bowler than Jason Gillespie.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
s**t commentator, but 50 more wickets, better strike rate, more 5-fa's and only played 5 more test matches. Brett Lee is criminally underrated, he took over 300 test wickets (one of four players) and was an excellent fast bowler.
You are underrating peak Dizzy a fair bit
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Not really. I'm not saying Dizzy wasn't a good bowler, he was. I just think Lee's better, and he's unpopular on here because he's a s**t commentator and is an easy scapegoat with his average.
During the hey day, Lee was almost permanent 12th Man for 18 months, when Kasper & Bichel were preferred as the 3rd seamer to McGrath & Gillespie. A very good player, but well behind Gillespie in my view.
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Yet in the years where he broke into the side, he took far more wickets.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Lee was just too expensive, which is what cost him place in the team.
There is an argument in the modern era being super quick actually works against the bowlers. Edges tend to be thicker and thus fly wide of slips, and with the stronger bats, the extra pace means as soon as it beats the in field its a big chance of going for four. Also the fear factor just wasn't there due to helmets.
I also seem to remember Lee being the recipient of a lot more drop catches than our other bowlers but that may have just been selective memory. Probably not too far off the mark - tends to happen for the express bowlers.
Many of the modern quicks have become better bowlers when they have slowed down. Steyn is nowhere near as quick as he was 5-6 years ago but is a more well rounded and sucessful bowler now.
Lee may have averaged under 25 in a different era, but that wasn't the era he played in.
There is an argument in the modern era being super quick actually works against the bowlers. Edges tend to be thicker and thus fly wide of slips, and with the stronger bats, the extra pace means as soon as it beats the in field its a big chance of going for four. Also the fear factor just wasn't there due to helmets.
I also seem to remember Lee being the recipient of a lot more drop catches than our other bowlers but that may have just been selective memory. Probably not too far off the mark - tends to happen for the express bowlers.
Many of the modern quicks have become better bowlers when they have slowed down. Steyn is nowhere near as quick as he was 5-6 years ago but is a more well rounded and sucessful bowler now.
Lee may have averaged under 25 in a different era, but that wasn't the era he played in.
my guess would be that it becomes almost impossible to catch a high ball, the contrast of red ball on dark sky is obvoiusly a lot harder to see than red ball on clear blue sky (or even cloudy conditions)
BlackWhiteBlood
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2014
- 494
- 456
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- 49er, SFGiants, Mapel Leafs
Dizzy a better bowler. Lee bowled in 13 more inning = more chance to take wickets.
Dizzy also has lower economy and S/R.
And who can for get his 201* against Bangladesh
Dizzy also has lower economy and S/R.
And who can for get his 201* against Bangladesh
- Apr 2, 2013
- 10,985
- 16,394
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Having the minnows in the World Cup is a waste of time. This is meant to be the premier event of 1 day cricket where the heavy hitters match up yet having some easy kills in means the tournament is essentially an 8 side knockout tournamment. Have more regular matches for the associates, including against full members include them in the Champions Trophy by all means but including them in the elite show-piece event just wastes everyone's time. (Even if there is an upset, a washout and one gets lucky the final rounds will be a massacre circa Kenya 2003 and will hardly grow the game.
*Sigh*
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
No, he doesn't.
EDIT: Also, on the whole 13 more innings thing, 310 wickets in 150 innings is still better than 259 in 137 innings. He also has only 16 less wickets when opening the bowling than Dizzy does total.
Last edited:
Zach Package
Prespakis2Tsatas
Goatee and earring Dizzy is better than anything Lee ever produced
BlackWhiteBlood
Team Captain
- Sep 6, 2014
- 494
- 456
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- 49er, SFGiants, Mapel Leafs
sorry my bad
should have said average.
swansfan51
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 3, 2007
- 12,602
- 21,357
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- The Exers
If Glenn McGrath is considered an all-time great, then Curtly Ambrose should be too.
405 wickets, average of 20.99 (better than McGrath), economy rate of 2.30 (better than McGrath). Extremely dangerous bowler with good control, who was great to watch as well.
405 wickets, average of 20.99 (better than McGrath), economy rate of 2.30 (better than McGrath). Extremely dangerous bowler with good control, who was great to watch as well.
I would have though that most people already think of Ambrose as a great.
But everyone thinks Ambrose is an all-time great
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Who thinks Ambrose isn't an all time great?
