Brett Lee

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

clark and lee still have another 6 years, especially for clark, maybe 4-5 for lee. that is another 20-40 tests. that is a long time. they arent that old. they are both in what is called their prime age, in two years time is when they start to drop off. plus they are experienced. there is nothing at all that can beat experience. why is hussey still in the side? because he has won countless games and is the second or third most experienced in a side that lacks experience. NSW last season came last in the SS because they played all new players up an coming. they will all develop, but it will take a few season. thats alright for a state side. australia cant afford to lose everything for a couple of years. have to keep half the side in experience. hilfenhaus and hauritz should be the two bowlers trying to gain experience. not all of them. that is a sure fire way of losing a game. sorry for the rambling.

and i have been saying this for years now, nofke should be the next choice for fast bowlers, especially since he would average 35-40 batting as well. but i have the feeling that wont happen.

i would be playing lee, clark, johnson and hauritz in my perfect world, but for the fifth test lee, clark, johnson and hilfenhaus. siddle has been flogged around all series except for the one 5-fa, 4 of which included tailenders.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Brett Lee

Don't usually comment in these forums, always have a look though. Couldn't help myself reading some of the dribble being posted from Boris.

You would have to be the biggest bone head going around.

Amongst other things, saying Stu Clark and Brett Lee have 4-6 years left in them is utterly stupid.

As for the other rubbish you ramble on about, deary me do you have any idea!

Are you Andrew Hilditch in disguise?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Brett Lee

clark and lee still have another 6 years, especially for clark, maybe 4-5 for lee.

Uh, no. This is flat out crazy talk. By the time the Australian summer starts Clark will be 34 and Lee will be 33. How many pace bowlers do you know that are still performing at the top level after 35, let alone at 39/40?

they arent that old. they are both in what is called their prime age, in two years time is when they start to drop off. plus they are experienced. there is nothing at all that can beat experience.

Yes, they are old - and injury-prone, like all ageing pacemen. Pace bowlers, especially express ones like Lee, peak in their late 20s. If they are able to convert to line-and-length and subtle seaming like Clark they can last a few more years. Players like McGrath are the exception - there's a reason that he's taken more wickets than any other paceman, and thats because he was able to keep playing for far longer than the norm.

Lee is already a shadow of his former self, and will never recover the pace that made him such a formidable bowler. Clark is fast reaching his use-by date. I would expect both of them to be out of the Test side within 12 months - if they're still in the side in 2 years then it will be indicative of something seriously wrong with our other options.

and i have been saying this for years now, nofke should be the next choice for fast bowlers, especially since he would average 35-40 batting as well.

No.

i would be playing lee, clark, johnson and hauritz in my perfect world, but for the fifth test lee, clark, johnson and hilfenhaus. siddle has been flogged around all series except for the one 5-fa, 4 of which included tailenders.

You could say something similar about Johnson, and I think the phrase 'flogged around' suits him far better than it suits Siddle. At this point dropping Siddle for Lee would be a mistake, given how much of an unknown quantity he is and how consistently Siddle has performed. He may not have taken massive bags of wickets, but at no point has he bled runs like Johnson did in the first three Tests.

***

Boris - you're really clinging very hard to old players for no reason that I can see other than experience and nostalgia. I get the impression you probably started following cricket around 2005-2006, and still see those players still in the team as still being capable of their performances from that era. The simple fact is that they're not. 3-4 years is a long time in a cricketer's career - particularly when they hit 30, and even moreso when they're a pace bowler.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Brett Lee

Couldn't agree any more Mr Rissole.

4-6 years is nonesense, and if Clarke is in his prime why has he already dropped off in pace. Siddle has not been flogged but this seems to be the catch cry of those who desperately want lee in the side, who was going for a few before the injuries sidelined him. Siddle has not gone any where near the journey that Johnson has and this is ignored by the Boris' of this world as they know he is staying and must attack someone. Nofke is not there, he is a good player but this is Australia and we don't pick people who are a bit good at a few things (perhaps Watson withstanding) but very good at nothing.

Lee and Clarke have been great players for Australia but this is coming to an end. Don't forget Boris your age is not determined by how long you have been in the Australian team but rather by how old you actually are and your physical condition. This means that just because Clarke didn't get in until later in life does not mean he has a McGrath length career in front of him, if that was the case then McGill would be in his prime and not retired.

It is time to look to the future for Australia and not to older players to plug gaps, because if we do not develop international standard players now, with some experience around if only in the squad, the when they do go there will be a huge void which will last for years.

Finally Boris are you old enough to remember Australian cricket prior to the all conquering teams of late? If you are then your comments astound me, if not they are far more understandable.

 

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

i over estimated their ages a little. but still another 3 years is still a long time, and i dont care about age anyway. why waste a good talent because he is a little old? it doesnt make sense. you play siddle because hes young and 'looks good'. he is too young to be playing and hasnt had enough experience to notice that batsman at international level are just a bit better then the grade cricketers he was bowling to not a year and a half ago. maybe in a few years he will be there, and then i will be behind him. until he proves me wrong and makes me eat my words then i will be pushing to drop him.

play mcgain for one year, i dont care. if he gets 20-30 wickets in that time he has more then done what he needs to do. why waste time trying to develop hauritz if you have a good leggie in the state sides? surely hauritz could wait a year, by then a new up and comer may be the new legend being born.

i am old enough to look back. i wasnt around in the 60s and 70s but, although i have watched and pored over them in research. they were going through transistional stages then. all the old legends retired at the same time. then a whole team of newbies comes through and gets flogged. why not stagger the ages a little just to make sure that half the team doesnt retire at once? if you pick who is ready then that is likely to happen. clark and lee will retire at about the same time. but by then siddle will be ready. siddle, hilfy, johnson and hauritz are all similar ages. would you want to be around in 10-15 years or whenever when our whole bowling attack retires within a season of each other?

and yes johnson was flogged around. fair enough. im not comparing him to siddle, im analysing siddles performances. siddle looked much better then johnson, yes, not hard, but not up to the quality of hilfenhaus. just think of gillespie. great support bowler, almost better then the spear heads. look at siddle, fawltering spearhead that should be supporting. clark is a much better idea until siddle finds his feet at domestic level, let alone international level.

i am not saying siddle is a bad bowler. he is a great bowler. just not ready. he is averaging 30 something. that is the average of someone like lee. lee averaged 22-25 for his first couple of years in tests. then bad form and injury put it up. siddle should be the same. he has played 12 tests or something and gets a 5fa, then 0-2max wickets per innings inconsistently, then gets another 5 fa. need consistency. come back when your ready and i'll be right behind you.

remember flemming? nobody wanted him forced out of the team. but lee did that. now the same is happening to lee. wasting good talent because of new players that arent experienced at domestic level.

i know my views are different to most but im entitled to them. if everyone had the same views some very stupid things would be happening to teams. there always needs to be someone opposing the masses. i dont do that intentionally but my differing views are right more often then not, and i am proud of my success rate when it comes to picking players based on gut feelings alone. please dont insult me because of it.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Brett Lee

Just because you think the current crop of young players aren't 'good enough' isn't justification to keep old underperforming players in the squad. It's a very rare player who arrives on the international scene a complete cricketer, averaging over 40 with the bat or under 25 with the ball straight out of the blocks. Most need to grow into the role, which is what is happening with the current crop of young players - including Siddle.

Keeping old players in the team past their use-by date makes this worse, not better, as it denies opportunities. Lee has been poor for quite a while, Clark is on the decline. Like I said, if they're both not out of the squad in 1-2 years then it will be indicative of serious issues with the other options.

Personally I think both Hilfenhaus and Siddle are better bowlers than Lee on current form anyway. YMMV.

 

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

most young players should really have an explosive start. thats why hussey averaged 75 for over a season. thats why they get picked in the team, because they are doing well at domestic level then they continue that explosive form into international. that is the best way to adjust to the international scene. playing for australia is much much different to playing against for your state. there is a huge jump to that level. i personally know a few australian cricketers or wanabe australian cricketers and they confirm this. having a slow start like siddle means that it will be much harder for him to adjust.

i dont not like siddle. i like him. i think putting him in the australian team is harsh on him. as i found out last night he only played half a domestic season. and he wasnt even ripping every side apart. he has a future with australia, and i personally think he is going to have a hard time to keep his spot for the next season. which may mean someone else will take it indefinately.

whats wrong with letting lee play out whats left of his career and let siddle take over when hes done? apparently its not going to be long anyway. give australia's 4th highest wicket taker a break. hes in that spot for a reason.

 

[cold case]

Re: Brett Lee

Unless Stuart Clarke can regain that extra 5 yards that he has lost I think he is going to struggle big time. He had no answer for the 2 poms smacking him all over the park. Not a lot of room for bowlers at international level that do not hit the pitch hard unless they are bowling boomerangs. Hilfenhaus is a good outswinging bowler that does hits the deck reasonably hard. I wish he could bend the ball back in though. Hilfy will succeed as long as he can keep bowling around 140-145. I would love Brett Lee to play the last test as I believe he is panels better than Siddle. I was nearly sick watching Clark and Siddle bowling that garbage the other night in the 2nd dig, but believe Ponting was playing one against the other regarding selection for the deciding test. I think Siddle won but an inglorious victory.
England will ask the curator to contrive a spinning wicket, the aussie selectors will shit themselves and play Hauritz(all credit to Hauritz but is a defensive tweaker at best) and Clark will miss out.
I would back our batmen to bat for at least 250 overs of the alotted 450 thus having ample runs. Remember the aussies are up there with the best of playing spin, and ordinary spinners to boot. I therefore would play an all out pace attack with Hilfenhaus and Lee taking the newy and Siddle and Johnson after them. I guarantee even if Lee is almost over the hill he can still mop up the tail with reverse swing as good as anyone else in the world. Maybe on a par with Steyn. Cleaning the tail has been one of the aussies weaknesses since the injuries to Lee.
If Lee cant break in the team now I think it might be curtain time as a test player. Not my choice though.

 

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

that has always been the case with clark. if you are given the chance to attack him then he doesnt know how to retaliate. every side knows that. its just that it is very hard to start the attacking when he bowls the way he does. but in that innings he had a very offside field set for wide bowling as their plan. gave them a chance to attack. clark didnt know how to recover. its a weakness of his. ponting should have taken him out of the attack straight away. it doesnt normally affect him though... its almost impossible to start attacking him. its why hes not in the ODI side.

what would you think of brett lee retiring from international cricket now? i think it would be a big loss and it would be a sad day for me to see such a great man go, but from the sound of things i dont think you guys would be quite so sentimental, rather the opposite actually.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Brett Lee

No great loss. He's not at the point of being dropped quite yet, but he's hardly irreplacable. We'd miss his ability to swing the ball though, Hilfenhaus isn't at his level in that department yet.

 

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

what about the fact that he has served australia for such a long time?
there has to be some saddness in the fact that he would be gone.

sorry... just a random pointless question.

 

[cold case]

Re: Brett Lee

what would you think of brett lee retiring from international cricket now? i think it would be a big loss and it would be a sad day for me to see such a great man go, but from the sound of things i dont think you guys would be quite so sentimental, rather the opposite actually.

As I've said I believe he is worth a wicket or 2 with the new ball and definately a couple with his reverse swing. I have never put him along side Mcgrath but definately above most others. Purely for shaking up batsmen, his courage especially with the bat but mostly his ability to frighten the lower order minimising their nuisance value.

I think I heard the other night that Englands top 6 have an aggregate of about 900 runs opposed to the bottom 5 who are round the 1000 run mark.
Unless Mitch Johnson is up and firing I dont believe we have the firepower to run through lower orders on a regular occurrence.

 

[Boris]

Re: Brett Lee

siddle can hit them in the head but rarely get them out. hilfenhaus isnt that sort of bowler. clark can keep them quiet. hauritz has trouble taking wickets full stop (but still a good bowler). so yes, good for the tail he is.

 

[bren122]

Re: Brett Lee

Boris;
i think there would be few people here who would not love to see Lee back in full flight and delivering the ball at 90mph. but he is old- his technique is not what it was and he has not developed anything to replace it- and now the injuries are really stating to interrupt his career. we're gonna miss him when he goes; but it is probably time to start thinking of him as gone.
i for one will look back at Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee as being the best bowling attack this country has ever had. i will certainly savour the 5-0 drubbing they handed the WIndies earlier this decade- sweet vengeance for all those hidings they gave us in the 80's.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Brett Lee

Boris;
i think there would be few people here who would not love to see Lee back in full flight and delivering the ball at 90mph. but he is old- his technique is not what it was and he has not developed anything to replace it- and now the injuries are really stating to interrupt his career. we're gonna miss him when he goes; but it is probably time to start thinking of him as gone.
i for one will look back at Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee as being the best bowling attack this country has ever had. i will certainly savour the 5-0 drubbing they handed the WIndies earlier this decade- sweet vengeance for all those hidings they gave us in the 80's.

Dead right. If Lee was
1 Fully fit
2 Likely to stay that way
3 Bowling as he used to
4 Younger

I would love to see him in. We all have to learn to let go of the past. Remember that the loss of Lee will pale in significance to others we have lost, and his return just doesn't offer enough.

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Brett Lee

Unless Stuart Clarke can regain that extra 5 yards that he has lost I think he is going to struggle big time. He had no answer for the 2 poms smacking him all over the park. Not a lot of room for bowlers at international level that do not hit the pitch hard unless they are bowling boomerangs. Hilfenhaus is a good outswinging bowler that does hits the deck reasonably hard. I wish he could bend the ball back in though. Hilfy will succeed as long as he can keep bowling around 140-145. I would love Brett Lee to play the last test as I believe he is panels better than Siddle. I was nearly sick watching Clark and Siddle bowling that garbage the other night in the 2nd dig, but believe Ponting was playing one against the other regarding selection for the deciding test. I think Siddle won but an inglorious victory.
England will ask the curator to contrive a spinning wicket, the aussie selectors will shit themselves and play Hauritz(all credit to Hauritz but is a defensive tweaker at best) and Clark will miss out.
I would back our batmen to bat for at least 250 overs of the alotted 450 thus having ample runs. Remember the aussies are up there with the best of playing spin, and ordinary spinners to boot. I therefore would play an all out pace attack with Hilfenhaus and Lee taking the newy and Siddle and Johnson after them. I guarantee even if Lee is almost over the hill he can still mop up the tail with reverse swing as good as anyone else in the world. Maybe on a par with Steyn. Cleaning the tail has been one of the aussies weaknesses since the injuries to Lee.
If Lee cant break in the team now I think it might be curtain time as a test player. Not my choice though.

i disagree, clarks main weapon, like mcgraths, is bounce off a good lengh, mcgrath showed that even when his pace dropped below 130 ks in his latter years he was still effective, clarks a very simalar bowler to mcgrath allthough clark can swing the ball, where mcgrath couldnt (as much) for me clark should be the 1st bowler picked, dont worry about him getting smashed around at the end, siddle got carted as well, carefree tail enders with nothing to lose can do that from time to time (BTW, thats why clark doesnt were the coloured uniform, he isnt a limited overs bowler, also IMO mcgrath wasnt nearly as good a ODI bowler as a test bowler), they were in 20/20 mode, clarks never really been quick and he showed what he could do by destroying the English top order in the 1st innings and setting the game up for us, as for siddle, he's a great talent, but to wayward for mine, he's allmost like a strike bowler and he struggles to maintain a consistant line and lengh, if we want pressure then clarks our no1 man IMO, put enough balls in the right spot and make the English drive on the up and they'll get themselves out, allways have.

 

[cold case]

Re: Brett Lee

i disagree, clarks main weapon, like mcgraths, is bounce off a good lengh, mcgrath show that even when his pace dropped below 130 ks in his latter years he was still effective, clarks a very simalar bowler to mcgrath allthough clark can swing the ball, where mcgrath couldnt (as much) for me clark should be the 1st bowler picked, dont worry about him getting smashed around at the end, siddle got carted as well, carefree tail enders with nothing to lose can do that from time to time (BTW, thats why clark doesnt were the coloured uniform, he isnt a limited overs bowler, also IMO mcgrath wasnt nearly as good a ODI bowler as a test bowler), they were in 20/20 mode, clarks never really been quick and he showed what he could do by destroying the English top order in the 1st innings and setting the game up for us, as for siddle, he's a great talent, but to wayward for mine, he's allmost like a strike bowler and he struggles to maintain a consistant line and lengh, if we want pressure then clarks our no1 man IMO, put enough balls in the right spot and make the English drive on the up and they'll get themselves out, allways have.

I have always been a fan of Stuart Clark but at no stage did I see steep Glenn Mcgrath bounce. Over the last 12 months he has dropped 5 yards at least.
I would have thought Bracken could do the same job?

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Brett Lee

he may not get as much as mcgrath but he still gets more than the others, its a huge weapon bounce (thats how you get an average of 22), he's able to bowl a fuller lengh than the rest of our bowlers and if theres any seam movement he becomes a very difficult customer and his seam position is second to none, allthough he doesnt need seam movement to get his wkts, and at the very least he can hit a hanky over and over and over again, builds pressure and if you want to score off him you'll most likely be driving on the up or waiting to score off the other bowler, which helps them, i thought his pace was passable in the last test, im sure the English batsman thought it was, i reckon he's the most underrated bowler (because he doesnt have pazzazz) in the last 20yrs, as for bracken, clarks still quicker than him, brackens a ODI bowler, nothing more, gets most of his wkts through variations which just wouldnt work when the batsman arnt looking to score 6 an over.

 

[cold case]

Re: Brett Lee

he may not get as much as mcgrath but he still gets more than the others, its a huge weapon bounce (thats how you get an average of 22), he's able to bowl a fuller lengh than the rest of our bowlers and if theres any seam movement he becomes a very difficult customer and his seam position is second to none, allthough he doesnt need seam movement to get his wkts, and at the very least he can hit a hanky over and over and over again, builds pressure and if you want to score off him you'll most likely be driving on the up or waiting to score off the other bowler, which helps them, i thought his pace was passable in the last test, im sure the English batsman thought it was, i reckon he's the most underrated bowler (because he doesnt have pazzazz) in the last 20yrs, as for bracken, clarks still quicker than him, brackens a ODI bowler, nothing more, gets most of his wkts through variations which just wouldnt work when the batsman arnt looking to score 6 an over.

I just thought Clark looked average against a very ordinary batting line up.
Didnt impress me in the first innings either. He did swing the ball nicely at times but definately no bounce that you are talking about. Time will tell anyway. For the Aussies and us supporters I hope whoever gets the job takes us to victory

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Brett Lee

i hear ya about the bounce, i guess what im trying to say is if you ask clark to hit the top of off, because of his height and upright action he'll have to bowl 2'3'4 inches fuller than the rest of our bowlers, making him harder to play and more likely to get edges. its just my opinion.