Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I think lee has only once taken a wicket of a no ball in test cricket.
Even glenn mcgrath has so it doesn't make you a bad test bowler.

So you praise siddle when he gets solid figures in one game, and bowls terrible in another and its ok because its only his second game.

Also thats 1/22 was against england so that is not impressive.
Were as lee performed against all countries.

Make up your mind, you were the one bringing the England series into the discussion to try and prove Lee is a test superstar

As for once? Are you kidding me, I reckon he did it 3-4 times in the Ashes 05 alone

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

No balls are a problem for a lot of bowlers. Even Hauritz has trouble with them. It's a small and insignificant argument.

I spent a long time working all these figures out and posted them in another thread months ago. Thanks to Statsguru.

For Lee's first two seasons in International cricket he averaged 24 with the ball. He took a lot of wickets and proved a matchwinner. Then he went into a bit more of an ordinary patch. His averaged lifted to 35 or so. Still a great bowler, but not really good enough when competing with Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Clark, Bollinger and so on. At that time they had McGrath, Warne and Gillespie, so his bowling was just to scare the batsman into submission for the other bowlers.

Then came the two seasons before and the one after the retirements of McGrath and Warne. He averaged 23. He got more wickets then McGrath one season. His performances proved his stats. He proved just as much a matchwinner as Warne and McGrath in that time. Then the transition to the leader of the bowling attack. For that next season he averaged 16. Along with Clark and Johnson they proved to be the new attack for Australia. They blasted all batting line ups left, right and centre. This was when he was bowling at 135-140 km/h. Guess what he could do at the 150 he is bowling at again now. He has the same control, better amounts of swing, and I bet you that he feels young again. Yes there is an injury risk there, but thats the same with all bowlers. He is that risk bowler you play because you just cannot go past his record.

Yes he has some poor stats, but take away the period of time where he probably shouldn't have been playing for Australia and he is an excellent bowler. He has changed so much today compared to what he was.

He is a show pony fiery FAST bowler capable of scaring batsman still. After all that he is still sportsmanlike. He gets into little sledging matches and thats it. As you said I would hate all fast bowlers for being like that, but Siddle is over the top. After Lee hits a batsman, he is the first person to see if he is alright. Siddle grins, glares then walks back to his mark without a care for the PERSON at the other end.

Look at Lee's figures in ODIs. He has been rated as the second best ODI bowler ever for Australia. That's what his Test figures should be like in reality, if you take out the selection blunder of letting him play through some horrible form. That which he does not have now.

 

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

You cannot miss 12 months of cricket through injury and expect to get your spot back when the players who replaced you are doing a good job and are a hell of alot younger

As for the sportsmanlike crap, Siddle bowls like a real fast bowler, if a batsman gets hit in the head then bad luck for them, thats why they invented helmets. England pissed Australia off when they took them on at their own game 4 years ago and it worked. Out in the middle you do your best and if you want to bowl bouncers you dont then go and make sure the batsman is fine with it. No wonder Phil Hughes technique didnt get found out, his state team mates were probably too scared to bounce him in the nets in case he got hurt, Lee is turning soft and you dont need soft players in test cricket

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

You cannot miss 12 months of cricket through injury and expect to get your spot back when the players who replaced you are doing a good job and are a hell of alot younger

As for the sportsmanlike crap, Siddle bowls like a real fast bowler, if a batsman gets hit in the head then bad luck for them, thats why they invented helmets. England pissed Australia off when they took them on at their own game 4 years ago and it worked. Out in the middle you do your best and if you want to bowl bouncers you dont then go and make sure the batsman is fine with it. No wonder Phil Hughes technique didnt get found out, his state team mates were probably too scared to bounce him in the nets in case he got hurt, Lee is turning soft and you dont need soft players in test cricket

That's where my opinion differs to you. I believe that if you are at the peak of your game and you get injured, the players that replace you should step aside to ensure that the team balance is reattained and that winning form is continued. Then you assess the situation, if their form is bad after a series you look to replacing them. If it isn't you are in for one hell of a player for the next few years with the confidence that there are good players waiting in the sheds for their right at a game when their time is meant to come.

What the selectors have done here is replace them, then have them fight their way back, only to waste time and lose games (for example the Ashes). Lee will play Tests again. It is a given. It's just that a long time will be spent stupidly on him showing people that he is better then Siddle, and that sort of pressure on Siddle is not good for a young bowler. He should be given the best chance to become a legend of the game, not be pushed around by a 300 plus wicket taker with a vengeance. It won't be good for him and we may just lose the potential in him.

I also completely disagree with your ideology on sportsmanship. Cricket is perhaps the only game where the sportsmanship model is at work. All other games use the gamesmanship model.

Under the sportsmanship model, the way an individual plays the game is central. Sport is viewed as a special activity where noble conduct and glory are achieved, not through winning, but through honourable competition in pursuit of victory. The philosophy of their playing is derived from the thought that "The most important this in sport is not winning, but taking part".
Sportsmanship demands a commitment to principles of integrity, fair play, respectfulness and grace. It seems that the more important it is to win, the harder it is to behave in an ethical manner. According to this model, a true sportsperson must be willing to lose rather than forfeit ethical principles, even when the stakes are high. The model also suggests that winning without honour is not a true victory.
On the other hand, in the gamesmanship model of sport, all that really matters is winning. Gamesmanship encourages and sanctions the clever and effective ways of bending, evading and breaking the rules to provide a competitive advantage over an opponent. These tactics are considered to be part of the game in their mind. Athletes who operate by this model often believe that they have no ethical obligation to play by the rules because they maintain it is the officials' role to identify violations and impose sanctions. One of the major problems with the gamesmanship model of behaviour in sport is that there are no criteria for drawing a line between what is acceptable and what is not.

That is straight from a paper I wrote. All properly referenced and I was given very high grades for it. Siddle follows the gamesmanship model, Lee the opposite.

Cricket is almost fully filled with the sportsmanship model. The one and only rule is 'The Spirit of the Game'. Even Merv Hughes follows this model. Yes he was a bit 'over-the-top' but he did still follow it. He played like the opposition were his best mate. Ricky Ponting is the best example of this with the unclaimed catches he has taken, and the withdrawn appeals.

Cricket is no place for gamesmanship. It just doesn't work as it will change the face of the game to look somewhat like Soccer does now.

 

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

But the team was losing when Lee was last in the side and nothing would suggest he would have made a difference in the Ashes, he didnt last time, its not like an injury to Ponting or a top player, this is a bloke who has always been inconsistent and when he finally got left out for injury most were wanting him dropped. Its one thing to say he had a great record after beating up on the West Indies but he failed against the top sides and his history has seen the same thing always happen

Oh and maybe he did outbowl McGrath late in his career, it happens, teams play McGrath with respect, see Lee as cannon fodder and can do stupid things

As for the sportsmanship thing, I aint against sportsmanship, but checking on a guy cos he couldnt play a bouncer at test level doesnt count, unless you want them to outlaw the bouncer? Then Lee would be completely useless

 

[Thumbs up]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

One day cricket has nothing to do with test cricket. Lee is finished as Australia seem to be looking forward.
I have noticed a cople of odd comments recently.

Boris you asserted that Lee was as much of a match winner as McGrath or Warne, toward the end of their carrers. My only question is: Are you high? Oh yeah, your idear of returning players from injury is absolute lunacy.

The point has been reached that you clearly refuse to acknowledge anything Siddle does without a caveat to explain how a talentless ahck could get lucky and do well. Get over it, weather you like it or not (clearly not) he is part of the side and will remain so.

Slip your arguments against north defy logic.

The pair of you continue to forget that ODI cricket has nothing to do with test cricket. There are numerous examples of players who do well in one form but not the other and ODIs do not matter, all that matters is tests, and you know it!

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

One thing I will say about Lee is that he is by far our best exponent of reverse swing, that fact alone means I quite willing to consider him for selection when the time comes and if the ground is known to be conducive to reverse.

Lee can also blast out tail-enders, which is something our current bowling lineup of Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Hauritz and Johnson can at times struggle to do.

I don't think Lee's test career is over at all, injuries during the coming summer are likely to occur at some stage.

Lee wasn't physically fit against SA, he is now 100% ready to go. Im willing to consider him for selection.

He is a fine reverse swing bowler, probably the best reverse swing bowler among our contracted Australian bowlers.

On that fact alone you have rocks in your head if you won't at least consider his case for selection, especially when you consider the ability of lower order players to play that type of bowling.

 

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Reverse swing is what got Siddle picked because he is a younger, more controlled version of Lee

As for blasting out tail enders, Siddles critics whinge whenever he does that

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Reverse swing is what got Siddle picked because he is a younger, more controlled version of Lee

As for blasting out tail enders, Siddles critics whinge whenever he does that

I think you forget that Siddle cannot swing the ball whatsoever. And he is lucky to reach 145 km/h.

I don't complain about tail end wickets, someone has to get them and these days they can be just as hard to get out, but I do complain when people rate those wickets higher then others. If someone gets the wickets of the two openers and the number four, and then another gets five tailend wickets, which has the better match performance?

Lee is either controlled accuracy with pace and swing, or controlled chaos of sheer pace. Either way works, its just how many runs you want off his bowling. But with the economy of his Champions Trophy (just over 4 an over) I think that isn't an issue of his anymore.

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

One day cricket has nothing to do with test cricket. Lee is finished as Australia seem to be looking forward.
I have noticed a cople of odd comments recently.

Boris you asserted that Lee was as much of a match winner as McGrath or Warne, toward the end of their carrers. My only question is: Are you high? Oh yeah, your idear of returning players from injury is absolute lunacy.

The point has been reached that you clearly refuse to acknowledge anything Siddle does without a caveat to explain how a talentless ahck could get lucky and do well. Get over it, weather you like it or not (clearly not) he is part of the side and will remain so.

Slip your arguments against north defy logic.

The pair of you continue to forget that ODI cricket has nothing to do with test cricket. There are numerous examples of players who do well in one form but not the other and ODIs do not matter, all that matters is tests, and you know it!

Now I am the biggest preacher of the non-comparison thing, but the fact is if players are playing both successfully it is completely comparable. I have chosen Test players from their performances in ODIs, and vice versa. I was one of the first to start saying Mitch Johnson would make a fine Test bowler, perhaps the next legend, and judging it all off of his few ODIs at the time. People called me ludicrous back then, I hate to say it, but I told you so. I have done this with a number of players successfully. The fact is, you can compare even T20s with Tests. You can tell that Katich is a good test player from the way he plays T20s, even though he is all smash and bash. You can tell his technique, his temperament and his stroke play. It's not often you see a classical cover drive in T20s.

After all that I still say it isn't comparable and shouldn't be compared. I am a man of contradiction.

And with the Siddle thing, I'm not saying he's a bad bowler, I'm not saying he should never be in the team, I'm just saying that there are too many young players in the side and Lee has proven himself as a better bowler. All I'm arguing is Lee vs Siddle, and in my opinion Lee wins. When you have five and a half new players in your team, surely you can fit a 34 year old player who still looks and plays as if he is 28. He is reaching his prime and people want to shove him out. All for an unproven young player that hasn't shown he is better in any way, especially when there is another young player in Hilfenhaus completely showing him up at the other end.

 

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I think you forget that Siddle cannot swing the ball whatsoever. And he is lucky to reach 145 km/h.

I don't complain about tail end wickets, someone has to get them and these days they can be just as hard to get out, but I do complain when people rate those wickets higher then others. If someone gets the wickets of the two openers and the number four, and then another gets five tailend wickets, which has the better match performance?

Lee is either controlled accuracy with pace and swing, or controlled chaos of sheer pace. Either way works, its just how many runs you want off his bowling. But with the economy of his Champions Trophy (just over 4 an over) I think that isn't an issue of his anymore.

Yet you attack Siddles economy when at the Champions Trophy he only went for 0.05 runs an over more than Lee!

As for his pace, he can hit 150+, but has more control than Lee and doesnt need to bowl every ball at high speed to be a wicket taking threat

Also I dont think you have even watched any games if you dont think Siddle swings it at all

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Yet you attack Siddles economy when at the Champions Trophy he only went for 0.05 runs an over more than Lee!

As for his pace, he can hit 150+, but has more control than Lee and doesnt need to bowl every ball at high speed to be a wicket taking threat

Also I dont think you have even watched any games if you dont think Siddle swings it at all

Siddle's economy varied. He had a good game then the next game was close to a run a ball. Inconsistency is his greatest problem.

If he hits 150 he is lucky he hovers at about 140. That's his effort ball. He is quick but not in the same class as Lee. There is nothing wrong with that though, you don't need to be fast to take wickets. In Lee's case though, it helps.

I don't know about him swinging the white ball, but I barely saw a hint of swing in the Ashes series. He was tipped by Hilditch and that coach guy as Clark's replacement as the non-swinging, economical seam bowler. So far he has been economical and his seam bowling has been wayward. One out of three ain't bad as the non-swing being the only thing he has achieved. And yet Clark blows the side away with swing anyway, despite apparently not being able to. Funny that.

He can swing the ball, but from my view point it is pointless. He can't swing a Kookaburra and if he does it's not as if he controls it. There is nothing wrong with not being able to. He gets wickets without it. He needs to concentrate on seam bowling, that is his role and that's what, if anything, he is good at. No swing for him as there are already three of them in the side.

 

[eddiesmith]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Actually he does swing the Kookaburra and quite good at it, has a very good inswinger that nets him alot of wickets bowled and there were some he bowled that had Haddin catching in front of first slip

But unlike a swing bowler, its his variation ball, doesnt try and swing every ball so when it does swing in it usually results in wickets

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

You trying to tell me Siddle is a better exponent of the reverse swinging ball then Brett Lee?

You cant be serious.

Lee is superb when the ball is going reverse.

If you want to have some proper cricket discussion then feel free, instead of relating everything back to some Victorian cricket player.

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

It's his variation ball because he can't bowl it on demand. It just happens when it happens. Not all bad when that happens, but Lee can swing orthodox and then one of the best in the world with reverse.

Try and name more then three players that are better then him at it.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Look Im not saying Lee deserves to be picked before the likes of Siddle, but he at least should be considered before each match.

If it is 40 degrees in the weak leading up to the adelaide oval test then it is likely the pitch will be very dry and the square equally abrasive. In that situation you may want to pick Lee to see what his got.

Lee has impressed me since his returned from injury, Im not his biggest fan, but he could have easily announced his retirment from test cricket saying that his body couldnt take it and gone off and played ODI's and T20's. Some players have done that, lured by the filthy lucre.

Lee is still our fastest bowler when fit, he is the only bowler who has mastered reverse swing when the conditions suit, he deserves to be in the mix for selection in the first test at the Gabba.

Im not convinced about Hilfenhaus ability away from England, if Lee is targeting a place in the test side he could well be eyeing off Hilfenhaus' spot.

We only have 9 test matchs until the next ashes series, that isn't a lot of time to get this attack right.

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Surprisingly I have never really been a fan of Lee either.

I'm talking skill here. I believe that even if Siddle goes through a whole career and gets more wickets at a better average, that Lee was always more important the Siddle because of the way he brought back Australia post McGrath, also being a major part of rearing Johnson to become the best bowler in the world.

Siddle will never be better then Lee at ODI cricket. I am talking seriously here, I believe he had a better effect on the Australian team for ODIs then McGrath. Pains me to say it but I think I truly believe it.

 

[Thumbs up]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Surprisingly I have never really been a fan of Lee either.

I'm talking skill here. I believe that even if Siddle goes through a whole career and gets more wickets at a better average, that Lee was always more important the Siddle because of the way he brought back Australia post McGrath, also being a major part of rearing Johnson to become the best bowler in the world.

Siddle will never be better then Lee at ODI cricket. I am talking seriously here, I believe he had a better effect on the Australian team for ODIs then McGrath. Pains me to say it but I think I truly believe it.

What? I am going to have to ask this again, do you just type random words and hope they make sense? Do you read what you have written before posting it? Oh yeah, do you injest enormous amounts of hallucinogens?

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Id put Ponting up higher then Lee for keeping Australia competitive post McGrath, people don't realise how important Ponting is to our side, with both bat and captainicy and general presence.

IMO when Ponting retires we will miss his influence more then McGrath and Warne. I feel for the spud who has to take Ponting's place at 3, because when he invariably starts to struggle and we start going from 1 down to 2 down at the drop of a hat only then will people realise how good Ponting was.

When you hear spuds who apparently know the game, like Jim Maxwell, say that Ponting should retire from ODI cricket to let Clarke take over you really wonder how much they actually know about the game.

Bunch of students if you ask me.

 

[Boris]

re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

What? I am going to have to ask this again, do you just type random words and hope they make sense? Do you read what you have written before posting it? Oh yeah, do you injest enormous amounts of hallucinogens?

Okay well McGrath is one of the greatest gifts to Australian cricket ever, as a whole, but it is unfair to say that he was the greatest of every aspect of pace bowling. Yes he got consistent wickets with an extremely low average, the greatest ODI bowler for Australia ever, but actual effect on Australian cricket.

Australia hadn't had a very fast bowler for a little while. Lee was a new breed of cricketer, the always young and fit good bloke that just puts things to the extreme. He is the fastest bowler Australia has ever had. I know there was a lot of cricket in times without speed recording, but as a general rule bowlers are getting quicker and quicker due to professional coaching and technology, and for even Thompson to be quicker then Lee is a bit of a stretch.

Just having that shock factor of facing the fastest bowler in the world in the last ten overs of an ODI is just a scary fact. He has an average of 22, almost as good as McGraths and he really created an effect on audiences world wide. He is a show pony that really showed the world up with his arrogance.

Now he isn't the cricketer of McGrath, never ever would that be the case. Neither is he the best bowler in ODIs. But he had the greater effect on Australian cricket. Nothing being taken away from McGrath there.

Now he is just as good a seam and swing bowler as an out and out pace bowler. But at 155 km/h for his effort ball, 147 constantly. Scary for most batsman that like their body and dignity.

Id put Ponting up higher then Lee for keeping Australia competitive post McGrath, people don't realise how important Ponting is to our side, with both bat and captainicy and general presence.

IMO when Ponting retires we will miss his influence more then McGrath and Warne. I feel for the spud who has to take Ponting's place at 3, because when he invariably starts to struggle and we start going from 1 down to 2 down at the drop of a hat only then will people realise how good Ponting was.

When you hear spuds who apparently know the game, like Jim Maxwell, say that Ponting should retire from ODI cricket to let Clarke take over you really wonder how much they actually know about the game.

Bunch of students if you ask me.

I second that motion.