Brett Lee up there with Holding, Marshall: Viv Richards

I don't think there is any doubt that Lee is no Walsh. Again it's the height thing.

I remember facing my team's two best bowlers in the nets when I played top grade local cricket many moons ago. Both were of similar pace (quick by our standards) but one was 5'11" and the other was 6'6". I played the shorter guy with much more ease than I played the other guy.

skully wrote:IBoth were of similar pace size (large by aussie standards) but one was 5'11" and the other was 6'6". I played with the shorter guy with much more ease than I played with the other guy.

Fixed.

Because you could reach the smaller one easier on your knees?

skully wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that Lee is no Walsh. Again it's the height thing.

I remember facing my team's two best bowlers in the nets when I played top grade local cricket many moons ago. Both were of similar pace (quick by our standards) but one was 5'11" and the other was 6'6". I played the shorter guy with much more ease than I played the other guy.

Malcolm Marshall's skiddy bouncer was the most vicious of them all. Just ask Mike Gatting.

Lee has not had the greatest career. But the last 18 months have gone some way to making up for that IMO.

When Australia needed him most, he stepped up.

How tall was Walsh? Brett Lee is hardly short at 6'2 is he?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:How tall was Walsh? Brett Lee is hardly short at 6'2 is he?

6'5/6.

Lee looked capable of anything when he first started but he plateau-ed very quickly and has been no more than decent test class up until recently. Someone must have told him he was playing for England.

Since McGrath's retirement Lee has taken a step up, however, and may still fulfill that early promise. However, he would have to do something pretty spectacular over the next 4 years to be in the same class as the bowlers mentioned by IVA.

BTW. I reckon Andy Roberts deserves more mentions than he gets these days.

Agree re Andy Roberts, a great bowler.

Put Lee back in time to bowl alongside them on uncovered pitches,smaller bats,and I think he would hold his end up very well.He would be a lot better in ODIs,as the boundary was the boundary in those days.

It's certainly more difficult for Lee to bowl with shorter boundaries and flatter pitches on average. The short ball rule has also changed. Holding and Marshall were absolute guns though. Marshall's record stands the test of time.

Lee's career can be divided into three phases - the explosive first dozen or so tests, then a long period of inaccuracy in which he was weak against England in particular. Now a third phase in which his talent (coached by Cooley, I expect) seems to be coming to fruition. Not sure if I'd call him as good as Marshall but he's certainly very, very good now. I can't see England winning the Ashes with Lee on current form, even if we get Fred and SiJo back.

I did some numbers for these 3 phases (as I saw them) in the Bung 3.0 thread, Rob. I see the phases as:

Bung 1.0 (Dec 1999 to Dec 2000) - 7 Tests 42 wickets @ 16.07 SR=32.60
Bung 2.0 (July 2001 to Oct 2005) - 36 Tests, 119 wickets @ 39.03 SR=61.00
Bung 3.0 (Nov 2005 to June 2008) - 25 Tests 128 wickets @ 25.23 SR=47.80

Wasim also considers him a 'genuinely great fast bowler' or something like that. Said so in a show. Also said Tendulkar was unimpressed when he first saw Lee and told Wasim, while Wasim said that seeing his performance against India he was glad the Pak series was over.

Skully,

Is he really closing on 300 test wickets? Even in his carpo phase he was still striking often, I notice. His inaccuracy was not such a problem because TGM*2 carried the attack.

Bung 1.0 = young Waqar
Bung 2.0 = Harmi bowling on a good deck at non-minnows
Bung 3.0 = Willis or Walsh, but a useful #8 too.

Has he a test century yet? I bet he has one in him.

Rob I wrote:Skully,

Is he really closing on 300 test wickets?

The follicly-challenged one is not around atm Rob, but I believe Lee has 289 wickets and a Test average that has only just dropped below 30 for the first time in ages. I posted a while ago, when hunting thru his figures, that (from memory) he has the second-highest average of players to take 250 wickets in Tests.

Zat wrote:

Rob I wrote:Skully,

Is he really closing on 300 test wickets?

The follicly-challenged one is not around atm Rob, but I believe Lee has 289 wickets ...

Aye, amazing to think that Bung is now no. 5 on the all-time Australian wicket taking list after TGM, tgm, DKL and Billy McSofty. And he should pass McSofty's 291 (in 71 Tests) in less appearances (Bung has played 68 Tests). He is also well ahead of a man I considered a great Test bowler, Jason Gillespie, who took 259 in 71 Tests.

So as crook as he was during Bung 2.0, his figures stack up very well.

And he has the lowest SR for any Australian taking over 100 wickets.

He may not go down as an alltime great but I think he will definitely have his place in Australian cricket history.

Bung is only 31. He possibly has another 4 or 5 years of Test cricket ahead of him. He should romp past the mighty DKL (355) and finish as the 3rd all-time wicket taker for Australia. Pretty remarkable for someone who was so ordinary from Ashes 2001 to Ashes 2005.

And I notice this board has promoted him from "Dung" back to "Bung"! Maybe he'll be "Bing" again in another year or two.

Never!!!!

Where has Mark Nicholas got to?

PeterCS wrote:Where has Mark Nicholas got to?

It was the ghost!

RD?

phurt

That's what "it" said.