Australians watching a different game

Richard said:

I'd say that if it was the case - if Lee had changed and bowled well, though, I'd say so.
In the case of this Test, Lee hasn't bowled well, at all, and I wait in the near-certainty of seeing him smashed all over everywhere when we get a better batting pitch and an improvement in our batting.

Click to expand...

What exactly has been wrong with the way Lee has bowled, then? He's been wonderfully accurate, he's bowled quickly, and used his variations in line and length cleverly, and picked up several wickets and been fairly economical in the process. Which of his wickets did he not deserve, and which batsman played him with ease?

King_Ponting said:

Will cricket ever produce a consistently "decent" bowler

Click to expand...

Yes, many of them.

FaaipDeOiad said:

What exactly has been wrong with the way Lee has bowled, then? He's been wonderfully accurate, he's bowled quickly, and used his variations in line and length cleverly, and picked up several wickets and been fairly economical in the process. Which of his wickets did he not deserve, and which batsman played him with ease?

Click to expand...

Fairly economical? Nearly 3.5-an-over?
No-one played ANYONE with ease on this pitch, but Lee was handled far better than McGrath - FAR better, not just a bit.
Lee bowled accurately on just 1 occasion in this match - the opening spell in the first-innings. Otherwise he sprayed it all over everywhere. And he bowled just 1 wicket-taking ball, which had more to do with the pitch than his skill.
Otherwise it was just a poor leg-glance, an expectedly poor aerial drive from a tailender, an unneccessary change of mind and a play down the wrong line from someone who should be doing better.

Richard, when will you get it through your head that accurate 90+ mph bowling gets wickets. Hell, even the odd 90+ mph ball delivered in the right area is difficult to play.

Lee was excellent.

The only question remaining is whether he can back it up.

Richard said:

Fairly economical? Nearly 3.5-an-over?
No-one played ANYONE with ease on this pitch, but Lee was handled far better than McGrath - FAR better, not just a bit.
Lee bowled accurately on just 1 occasion in this match - the opening spell in the first-innings. Otherwise he sprayed it all over everywhere. And he bowled just 1 wicket-taking ball, which had more to do with the pitch than his skill.
Otherwise it was just a poor leg-glance, an expectedly poor aerial drive from a tailender, an unneccessary change of mind and a play down the wrong line from someone who should be doing better.

Click to expand...

B Lee 0s 1s 2s 3s 4s 6s Runs Balls RP6B
v ME Trescothick 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00
v AJ Strauss 16 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 0.35
v MP Vaughan 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 2.00
v IR Bell 16 1 0 0 1 0 5 18 1.67
v KP Pietersen 12 3 1 0 1 0 9 17 3.18
v GO Jones 12 2 0 0 1 0 6 15 2.40
v AF Giles 9 0 1 0 2 0 10 12 5.00
v SJ Harmison 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 2.00
v SP Jones 0 0 1 1 1 0 9 3 18.00
Total 75 9 4 1 6 0 44 95 2.78

B Lee 0s 1s 2s 3s 4s 6s Runs Balls RP6B
v ME Trescothick 37 2 0 1 3 0 17 43 2.37
v AJ Strauss 15 3 0 0 3 0 15 21 4.29
v MP Vaughan 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 6.00
v KP Pietersen 12 4 2 0 1 1 18 20 5.40
v A Flintoff 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 6.00
Total 69 9 2 2 8 1 57 91 3.76

Richard said:

Fairly economical? Nearly 3.5-an-over?
No-one played ANYONE with ease on this pitch, but Lee was handled far better than McGrath - FAR better, not just a bit.
Lee bowled accurately on just 1 occasion in this match - the opening spell in the first-innings. Otherwise he sprayed it all over everywhere. And he bowled just 1 wicket-taking ball, which had more to do with the pitch than his skill.
Otherwise it was just a poor leg-glance, an expectedly poor aerial drive from a tailender, an unneccessary change of mind and a play down the wrong line from someone who should be doing better.

Click to expand...

Are you insane? By what possible standard did he "spray it all over everywhere"? He was the second most accurate bowler in the match!

Regarding his wickets... Jones was dismissed by as good a bouncer as you will ever see.

Giles played Lee poorly but was completely defeated by some devastating short-pitched bowling, as Lee bowled a series of accurate bouncers, mixed with full deliveries while the ball was reversing. The first delivery Lee got Giles with was a gem, but a no-ball, and when Giles stepped on his own stumps he was completely beaten by having his weakness perfectly exploited. He simply didn't know how to play Lee's bouncers at all, and the fact that he stepped on his own wicket in an attempt to get out of the way of one shows that.

Obviously Harmison got himself out, as Lee just bowled an accurate length ball and Harmison hit it straight to a fielder.

The ball he got Strauss with was another excellent bouncer. In fact, one of the best features of Lee's bowling was how much his short-pitched stuff had improved from previous efforts in tests, when he often simply wasted bouncers by having them wide or too short and therefore easily dealt with. As he showed in this test, a bouncer at Lee's pace delivered straight at the body is virtually impossible to play comfortably, and if one attacks it there is a fair chance of being caught in the deep (which you would no doubt term a poor shot and discount from the bowler), and if you try and avoid it there is the chance of something going wrong. In Strauss's case, something went wrong and Lee took an excellent catch. So, basically, any wicket taken with a short ball is undeserved, which just goes to show how ridiculous your whole method of judging "wicket taking deliveries" really is.

The ball he got Vaughan with simply beat him for pace. It didn't do anything particularly remarkable besides move slightly off the seam, Vaughan was simply rushed by the pace as he tried to defend it and played down the wrong line. Once again, it was Lee's quality rather than Vaughan's error which accounted for the dismissal. Had it been delivered a few mph slower it wouldn't have been a wicket taker.

social said:

Richard, when will you get it through your head that accurate 90+ mph bowling gets wickets.

Click to expand...

Never, because it doesn't, and that's been demonstrated time and again.

Hell, even the odd 90+ mph ball delivered in the right area is difficult to play.

Click to expand...

No, it's not, it's incredibly easy for decent batsmen.

Lee was excellent.

Click to expand...

No, he was good enough to get reasonable figures on a malevolent pitch.

The only question remaining is whether he can back it up.

Click to expand...

No, the question is whether he can do it on better batting pitches.
I mean, has Lee EVER bowled in a Test-match on such a seamer-friendly wicket? I think not.

Scallywag said:

B Lee 0s 1s 2s 3s 4s 6s Runs Balls RP6B
v ME Trescothick 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00
v AJ Strauss 16 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 0.35
v MP Vaughan 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 2.00
v IR Bell 16 1 0 0 1 0 5 18 1.67
v KP Pietersen 12 3 1 0 1 0 9 17 3.18
v GO Jones 12 2 0 0 1 0 6 15 2.40
v AF Giles 9 0 1 0 2 0 10 12 5.00
v SJ Harmison 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 2.00
v SP Jones 0 0 1 1 1 0 9 3 18.00
Total 75 9 4 1 6 0 44 95 2.78

B Lee 0s 1s 2s 3s 4s 6s Runs Balls RP6B
v ME Trescothick 37 2 0 1 3 0 17 43 2.37
v AJ Strauss 15 3 0 0 3 0 15 21 4.29
v MP Vaughan 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 6.00
v KP Pietersen 12 4 2 0 1 1 18 20 5.40
v A Flintoff 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 6.00
Total 69 9 2 2 8 1 57 91 3.76

Click to expand...

More significantly:
9-10-0
20.1-95-5
Those are the breakdowns.
And in the 2nd he went for nearly 5-an-over.

FaaipDeOiad said:

Are you insane? By what possible standard did he "spray it all over everywhere"? He was the second most accurate bowler in the match!

Click to expand...

So accurate that he went for 95 off 20.1 overs after his 1st spell...
I mean, you can have a slightly poor economy-rate despite bowling accurately in Tests, but if you're going for all but 5-an-over you're doing something wrong - no doubts.

Regarding his wickets... Jones was dismissed by as good a bouncer as you will ever see.

Click to expand...

No, he was dismissed by a shortish ball that bounced more than expected and caught him in 2 minds.

Giles played Lee poorly but was completely defeated by some devastating short-pitched bowling, as Lee bowled a series of accurate bouncers, mixed with full deliveries while the ball was reversing. The first delivery Lee got Giles with was a gem, but a no-ball, and when Giles stepped on his own stumps he was completely beaten by having his weakness perfectly exploited. He simply didn't know how to play Lee's bouncers at all, and the fact that he stepped on his own wicket in an attempt to get out of the way of one shows that.

Click to expand...

And that simply shows that Giles is a poor player, not that Lee is particularly good.

The ball he got Strauss with was another excellent bouncer. In fact, one of the best features of Lee's bowling was how much his short-pitched stuff had improved from previous efforts in tests, when he often simply wasted bouncers by having them wide or too short and therefore easily dealt with. As he showed in this test, a bouncer at Lee's pace delivered straight at the body is virtually impossible to play comfortably, and if one attacks it there is a fair chance of being caught in the deep (which you would no doubt term a poor shot and discount from the bowler), and if you try and avoid it there is the chance of something going wrong. In Strauss's case, something went wrong and Lee took an excellent catch. So, basically, any wicket taken with a short ball is undeserved, which just goes to show how ridiculous your whole method of judging "wicket taking deliveries" really is.

Click to expand...

As lots of bowlers showed in this match, Hooking and Pulling wasn't the easiest task. It was a two-paced surface, and aside from the many obvious vaguaries there were also (as there always are) countless less glaring ones, all of which make scoring off the short-ball difficult.
Lee exploited this, as would most half-decent bowlers (as shown by the amount of rubbish bowling that got wickets in this Test).

The ball he got Vaughan with simply beat him for pace. It didn't do anything particularly remarkable besides move slightly off the seam, Vaughan was simply rushed by the pace as he tried to defend it and played down the wrong line. Once again, it was Lee's quality rather than Vaughan's error which accounted for the dismissal. Had it been delivered a few mph slower it wouldn't have been a wicket taker.

Click to expand...

Rubbish, that ball could have been delivered at 50mph and Vaughan would probably still have gone. If you can't tell by watching Vaughan that he's currently in horrible touch (has barely scored a First-Class run all season - except against Bangladesh) then you can't tell anything.
It was an average delivery that got the wicket of a fantastic batsman who's not seeing it well ATM. Good batsmen in good form DO NOT GET BEATEN FOR PACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard said:

More significantly:
9-10-0
20.1-95-5
Those are the breakdowns.
And in the 2nd he went for nearly 5-an-over.

Click to expand...

yeah and take out 1.3 overs of McGrath and he went for 80 odd for no wickets.

Richard said:

So accurate that he went for 95 off 20.1 overs after his 1st spell...
I mean, you can have a slightly poor economy-rate despite bowling accurately in Tests, but if you're going for all but 5-an-over you're doing something wrong - no doubts.

Click to expand...

You are talking rubbish, in the second innings Lee had an aconomy rate of 3.76 and in the first innings he had an economy rate of 2.78.

And if a bowler goes for 5 an over they are doing something wrong no doubt doesent sound good when Harmisons career economy rate is 4.77.

Scallywag said:

yeah and take out 1.3 overs of McGrath and he went for 80 odd for no wickets.

Click to expand...

Significant difference is that to do that with McGrath you have to selectively pick-out little pieces here and there.
With Lee you do a straightforward divide.

Scallywag said:

You are talking rubbish, in the second innings Lee had an aconomy rate of 3.76 and in the first innings he had an economy rate of 2.78.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not talking rubbish, it's basic fact that Lee's last 20.1 overs in the match went for 95 runs.
Anyone who doesn't notice that is a mathematically illiterate fool.

And if a bowler goes for 5 an over they are doing something wrong no doubt doesent sound good when Harmisons career economy rate is 4.77.

Click to expand...

Indeed it doesn't (not, of course, that Harmison's Test-match economy-rate is said amount, nor that it is much use against me when I've said time and again that Harmison is neither Test or ODI class)

Richard said:

No, I'm not talking rubbish, it's basic fact that Lee's last 20.1 overs in the match went for 95 runs.
Anyone who doesn't notice that is a mathematically illiterate fool.

Indeed it doesn't (not, of course, that Harmison's Test-match economy-rate is said amount, nor that it is much use against me when I've said time and again that Harmison is neither Test or ODI class)

Click to expand...

How many wickets were lost in scoring that 95 runs. Losing a wicket at less that 20 runs apiece is pretty good bowling.

Actually I dont know why they keep playing test cricket. According to you nobody is good enough to play test cricket.

Scallywag said:

How many wickets were lost in scoring that 95 runs. Losing a wicket at less that 20 runs apiece is pretty good bowling.

Click to expand...

It's pretty good bowling figures - but unless at least some of the wickets are with good balls it's not good bowling.
And with Lee there was just 1 good ball, which had to do with the pitch rather than his skill.
And the wickets aren't actually relevant to this particular - up for discussion was the fact that Lee had been hammered, not how many wickets he'd got.

Scallywag said:

Actually I dont know why they keep playing test cricket. According to you nobody is good enough to play test cricket.

Click to expand...

Utter rubbish in the form of gross exaggeration.
But indeed - less people are good at Test-cricket than some think.
For instance - there are those who think Nathan Hauritz is a Test-standard bowler...

Richard said:

It's pretty good bowling figures - but unless at least some of the wickets are with good balls it's not good bowling.
And with Lee there was just 1 good ball, which had to do with the pitch rather than his skill.
And the wickets aren't actually relevant to this particular - up for discussion was the fact that Lee had been hammered, not how many wickets he'd got.

Click to expand...

Get off the drugs mate, England didnt hammer anyone, they didnt even pass 180.

England lost 20 wickets for 334 runs and lost by 239 runs, I think you need to see a doctor.

Scallywag said:

Get off the drugs mate, England didnt hammer anyone, they didnt even pass 180.

England lost 20 wickets for 334 runs and lost by 239 runs, I think you need to see a doctor.

Click to expand...

I'll leave Richard in your more than capable hands, Scallywag. We seldom see eye to eye but on this occasion, you can have him all to yourself.

Scallywag said:

And if a bowler goes for 5 an over they are doing something wrong no doubt doesent sound good when Harmisons career economy rate is 4.77.

Click to expand...

3.04 actually.