Brett Lee: Drop the man, and the chainsaw

Lucas, Let me be very clear here. I have never used the type of wicket celebration shown to rate a bowler's ability - that's your incorrect interpretation based, presumably, on your emotional attachment to Brett Lee. I use Lee's type of wicket celebration as evidence that in my view that he is an immature prat. No more, no less. Sure he loves the game. We all do. It's irrelevant to the topic. Loving the game does not make him a great. Playing into his mid-thirties does not make him a great. Carrying on like a pork chop does not make him a great. As for your reference to me highlighting typing errors of yours I'm at a loss. Yet another invention of yours I'm afraid. I've not done it so I'd appreciate not getting libeled by you for no other reason than you fail to correctly interpret the bleeding obvious.

I think we have to put this discussion to bed. It is clear that nothing will bring either of us to diverge from our points of view. I respect the fact that you see Brett as immature and not as a great, but your arguments are unreasonable. To me, the discussion of whether or not he is a great or not is the wrong topic of discussion. At his age, he's still determined to play for his country rather than focus on the big money available in the t20 competitions. I assume you to be someone who has spent a fair amount of time on the cricket field(probably more than I have), but that doesn't mean that your listing of past greats makes Lee less impressive. Sure, I agree, the game has become more agressive with batsmen taking more risks. But at the same time, that's the reason why bowlers lose their places in the side -- not win it. Going wicketless and being expensive is resulting much too often in a drop from the team...and the fact that lee is still playing pays tribute to his ability to consistently rank amongst the premier fast men in Australia. Im not sure what generation you belong to when it comes to celebrating wickets - but using celebrations as a judgement of who's a great and who isnt is pretty weak(i won't say pathetic, but you get the point) don't you think? ((Quite rude, and utterly besides the point, are your constant references to single letter omissions or mispellings in my posts?!)) Anyway, I've always felt that greats should be judged on the statistics they produce and the numbers they churn out. That way you're not judging a book by its cover. And yes-you've argued that one into the ground, but face it: No one makes it to the top level/survives there without being a great. As careers are being curtailed because people aren't producing 200% more than the previous bloke, i find it refreshing to see an old face steaming in wanting to knock someone's head off. That's what being a fast bowler(any bowler in fact) is all about-about wanting to see the back of the batter 20 meters from you. Brett still does it. And he will until his body falls apart. Because he loves the game. And he's someone who bodes well for the game. Who else then but him should be a great? If Brett was a Book, you might not like the title, the cover or the back page. BUT, you just can't argue with the storyline.

Lucas, While I admire your loyalty to Brett Lee, and respect your view, I can only repeat mine. He's good but he's not a great fast bowler. The great thing about the Roar is that it provides an outlet for opinion. Yours appears to be that Brett is a great, mine is that he's not. He is not, for example, in the same class as Dennis Lillee. In my view he is also behind McDermott and Gillespie on ability. On that score I hardly need to add the names of Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. Lee has more wickets than all of them but he's not better, in my opinion, than any of them. He's also played in an era where batsmen have been more inclined to take risks. Risks means mistakes and for a batsman mistakes usually mean dismissal. He's also played in an era where batsman seem to be very short on defensive technique. Lunging onto the front foot is not designed to help when the track is doing something or the ball is short. As for the Sachin argument - he must be great because he's dismissed Sachin - I would ask how many times has Lee played against him. Arthur Morris was known to many Englishmen as "Bedser's Bunny" because the great fast bowler dismissed him so many times. Conveniently overlooked was the fact that as an opening batsman Morris got to face Bedser, and the new ball, a considerable number of times and averaged over fifty in those games against England (and Bedser). So bare numbers can be slightly skew an argument. For example, how many runs, at what average, has Tendulkar got against Lee? My memory of Sachin against Australia is that he's made a truckload of runs and quite a few hundreds. One thing that also needs to be considered in this day and age of ODIs and T20. Batsmen today attack the bowling. Thirty years ago any ODI score above 200 was defendable while 250 virtually guaranteed victory (yes, there were always exceptions). Today 250 is considered the bottom end of defendable. So if a batsman is forced to chase five an over, every over, just to stay in the game then bowlers will be given a chance. This scenario helps the bowler to the point where ODI wickets cannot be compared to those taken in Test cricket. If you are a bowler and you play enough games you will take plenty of wickets. In Lee's case the wickets per ODI average is 1.73. On the question of Lee's celebration of a wicket I don't argue against his ability or his standing on that basis. The comment was made in reference to his immature nature and the fact that he allowed the presence of Shoab Akhtar to distract him from his real job. Bowling 160kph became more important than getting batsmen out - and for several years. The celebration may well be just "emotional", as you say. But it may also show an immaturity and a tendency to be a bit of the school-yard bully, as I say. In my view those displays are far more of a wank than a display of emotion. He is simply playing to the crowd - grandstanding, as we used to call it in the old days. More simply put - Lee is just showing off. Personally, I find those displays embarrassing. They do nothing to improve Brett's image. As for defining a great bowlers by the numbers alone I have already disagreed with the concept. Likewise, I disagree with your idea that we must then turn to batting, fielding and "overall valur to the team" (whatever that is). Lee doesn't become a better bowler than McGrath just because he can bat better, or field better - which, incidentally, I have no doubt about. McGrath was an average field and a very ordinary batsman. Lee is much better at both disciplines although his batting has probably fallen short of his capabilities. However, we are talking here about their relative merits as bowlers and on that score McGrath wins. As for Lee's being more valuable to a team than those I mentioned I can only say you clearly don't know much about them. It was Lee, don't forget, who decided to be quick rather than good for several years. Not much value there although, to be fair, a word from the coach and captain may have helped.

Thats your thinking..i completely disagree with you....

you dont understand the meaning of my message..i said that he got injured in that phase..that means he was not playing at that time..so he didnt bowl to sachin in that phase..i am not saying he was a little bit sore.. First understand the comment and then answer..

You're obviously immovable on the subject, Bayman. And, I must say that you make quite the journalist. But I do think you put the Tendulkar issue to the side much too easily as being "largely irrelevant to the topic." Clearly, from your following arguments, Brett's record dismissals of Tendulkar evidence that Sachin's wickets are usually down to batsman error rather than unplayable bowling. Now, watching Tendulkar for the past 10 years, a characteristic that has made him so successful has been his determination to not give his wicket away. Seeing him in the middle a youngster can learn so much about temperament in sport, and how to fight the urges of "boundary hitting" that many batsmen succumb to. Lee has been able to get Sachin out more than anyone, and sachin does not throw his wickets away. Bowlers agree in unison that bowling to him is the most difficult test cricket can offer, and Brett lee seems to relish it--and succeed more than anyone. To me, that's what makes him a great on top of his stats( which i still believe can't be argued with): Breet lee is the fierce competitor that every captain wants in his team. Yes, he might go for 20 runs in that final over if his concentration deserts him...but who wouldn't. But with Brett, you have a guy who has the self confindence, the drive, to take on the responsibility of bowling in adverse conditions. I remember watching an interview of his where he spoke about what cricket meant to him. And his most cherished moments are those when he has the new ball in his hands, and a batsman who presents a challenge. He's an emotional cricketer, someone who deserves to go down as a great not purely on statistics but also on his unfaltering commitment and his love for his country. I can't understand how you can argue against brett on the basis of how he celebrates wickets. It's an emotion, and people express that in different ways. I can't understand why referring you to the statistics and records is not enough to cement Brett's place. You're allowed to believe that he's lucky in getting his wickets, but only after you study them closely. I feel like if you, and Duncan, set out to rewatch any odd spell by Lee since he came on the international scene you would see a couple of things: A cricketer who'll do everything he can to play. And a cricketer who'll play to get a batsman out. If I had the choice between any of the greats and Brett, I'd choose him. Not because of his record, but because he's a matchwinner. We're looking for the ultimate cricketer here. And if you want to be a great bowler, and ( as according to you) records aren't enough, then we have to look farther: fielding, batting, overall value to the team. And if we go there, McGrath would sit bottom of any list. Lee's bowling, batting and fielding won NSW the champions league t20 in the final against trinidad and tobago. He's not only an outstanding bowler, but an outstanding cricketer who has more value to any team than McGrath and the others you named will ever have.

Brett lee is a genuine fast bowler..so he can definetely go for runs..and some of the matches he played recently were played on absolutely flat tracks..true batting wickets..You cannot compare brett lee to glenn mcgrath as they both are very different bowlers. Brett lee is a srike bowler and if you look at the number of matches he has played, his strike rate is 29.2 which is second to none. His job in the team is to take wickets and he has done that extremely well for the last 12 years..and his record shows that.. Given he is a genuine fast bowler his career economy rate is 4.78 which is excellent............ and in the last match against westindies, the 3 wickets he took were very crucial for australia to level the series. Even against srilanka in the last match of cb series he took 3 very important wickets of kumar sangakara, dilshan and parerra which helped australia to win the series. So you cannot say that he doesnt contribute anything. Those wickets he took were extremely crucial to the result. That is why he is still in the team. He can go for runs as any fast bowler can but he takes wickets which is his role and he does that very well. I dont know how long will he play but as an admirer of the game he has been a true ambassador of the game. His action and run up is the best in the world. Guy like dale steyn in many interviews has said that he considers brett lee as his role model..

He may very well be the the fastest to 250, 300 and 350 wickets, I agree in so far as that makes him the best in that single measurable category. What about the other categories? How expensive was he? In how many games were all those wickets he took critical to the result? How do those measures compare season by season? Is he still producing? By way of answering these questions lets take T20 stats, as they are a fair indicator of performance over the latter part of his career (and they support my argument). Lee has taken 25 wickets from 24 games at 27.64 at a rr of 7.92. That places him behind Steve Smith both on average and run rate (but not wickets although Smith has played fewer T20's). Smith might be a good player (the jury is well and truly out), but he's got a long way to go to even be close to what Lee's big toe has achieved. If I use more stats then take a look at the link below (I hope it works) and tell me that he's not having his worst statistical year in terms of runs conceded, average and strike rate since 2001. In fact he has not taken more than 3 wickets in any match this year. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6278.html?class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling I rest my case it's time to drop him because he's no longer a match winner. He's good, maybe even very good, but a true great, not by any objective measurement.

As a professional sportsperson I'd say that if you play, you are accountable for the result. No caveat that he was a little sore so that series doesn't count - that's rubbish. That's like saying tests against Zim and Bang don't count because the opposition wasn't good enough. I'd never say that because that would mean Murali would have taken 175 less test wickets and Tendulkar scored 1738 less test runs and 8 less test centuries. If you're in the game, you're good enough - that's the bottom line. It's what you do when you're in the game that counts.

Standing ovation for Lee please he is about to leave the building.... He has a career in the IPL he will be singing at the game between wickets !

And if your going to go by records it is important to remember too that Lillee missed two of his best years playing world series cricket where he picked up approximately 60 wickets at an average in the mid 20's against the best batsmen from the west indies and the rest of the world. A lot less tests were played in that era too so an argument can definitely be made that Lille is better than McGrath, but not by much.

On his test record, I believe it could have being so much better than what it was and that his performances were overated by many who just saw his pace. At his best he was a very good bowler with searing pace, a wicked bouncer, a wicked yorker and quality outswing with the new ball and wicked reverse swing with the old ball. THe problem was that he had no idea how to use his natural gifts. He was a player with that natural talent and no brain to go with it. So many times in his test career you would see him start his spell getting in close to the stumps and getting good outswing at great pace. But if a wicket wasn't forthcoming immediately he would start to go wide of the crease or aroung the wicket and deliver a succession of yorkers and bouncers when such deliveries should be used rarely. It was so frustrating and both Waugh and Ponting in my opinion didn't exersice enough tactical control on his bowling. I do believe though that if he had played thirty years earlier he would have done a lot better with no helmets, spicier wickets, bigger boundaries and minimal protective equipment.

Jason, Yep, I'd rather be fielding with them than batting against them.

you said that he has'nt dismissed sachin for 4 years..but let me make you clear that brett lee got injured a number of times in this phase.. U got to accept that he has got the best batsmen in the world the most number of times.. And just an ordinary bowler cannot do this. He's a true champion.. Guy like Dale steyn in many interviews has said that he considers brett lee as his idol..

i AGREE with u lukas..he's a true legend.

brett lee is the fastest bowler to take 250, 300 and 350 wickets in ODI's. He is a world class bowler.. A true champion. Even at this age he sometimes reaches the speed of 150 kmph. He brings an x factor to the side..i will always have him in my team if he is fit..superp guy.... Awesum action! And most importantly a very exciting bowler. One of the all time greats!

brett lee is the fastest bowler to take 250, 300 and 350 wickets in ODI's. He is a world class bowler.. A true champion. Even at this age he sometimes reaches the speed of 150 kmph. He brings an x factor to the side..i will always have him in my team if he is fit..superp guy.... Awesum action! And most importantly a very exciting bowler. One of the all time greats!

God knows who?? That would be one R. T. Ponting. He's probably the worst thing that happened to B. Lee. I was at the M.C.G. when Lee debuted and to see him bowling that fast with genuine swing was truly exciting. Alas over many years Ponting seemed to demand that he bowl fast fast fast and that seemed to really mess him up. And as you mention the thing with Akhtar. Perhaps if a few more blokes had got in his ear about how to vary things up and slow it down a touch, things may have been different. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened with a young B. Lee getting into the squad with the current C. McDermott as bowling coach.

Lillee, Warne, McGrath, O'Reilly and Miller will do me fine as an AT Australian attack.

Renegade, As with every bowler who's played long enough they will have their days. Good luck to them. Perhaps I should just leave you with Cricinfo's summation of Brett's career....... "Brett Lee excelled as an exponent of extreme speed over a decade without achieving the all-conquering success required to earn the tag of a true Test great". Nobody is saying he can't play - it's just that Duncan and I think he's generally been over-rated by the cricket public and, in some cases, the cricket media. It does seem though that Cricinfo might agree with us - for what it's worth.