2019 non-freo nonchalance (aka discussion)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Clems Knee said:
Are you stuck in Ceduna?

Good luck getting home safely.
Click to expand...
We were heading back today from Victoria (visited Horsham and Cobden while at it) and had planned to get to the nullabor today then Perth tomorrow. In Ceduna now waiting things out.

Looks bad at Balladonia, and was a scorcher today - can't imagine the punters stuck at Caiguna
 
Arcassius said:
We were heading back today from Victoria (visited Horsham and Cobden while at it) and had planned to get to the nullabor today then Perth tomorrow. In Ceduna now waiting things out.

Looks bad at Balladonia, and was a scorcher today - can't imagine the punters stuck at Caiguna
Click to expand...
Better than being stuck in Adelaide :eek: :cool:
All jokes aside, huge thanks 2 the firefighters & all the best for 2020 to everybody
 
Joao said:
31 wasn't his age, it is his bowling average. It's ordinary.

I am not saying he wasn't good to watch, he was a lot of the time. I am simply saying he is several tiers below the top bowlers and with his attributes he should have been near the top.

Also Johnson's problem wasn't injury, it was that for the majority of his career he was dreadful. Always capable of getting wickets with a miracle ball but spent most of the first half of his careers bowling boundary balls. Then all of a sudden, it all clicked and he was near unplayable for 2 years.
Click to expand...

He was in the team for a reason. He was told to bowl short, he was told to bowl bouncers and most all he was told to bowl it bloody fast. It was his job to intimidate the batsman and get them battered for McGrath, Gillespe and Warnie. He was an excellent support bowler and often sacrificed his game for the team to get wickets. Yes his bowling average wasnt that great but his wicket count is currently 6th overall in the test rankings and that is pretty good. When his role changed in the team and he became the leader of the Aussie attack his bowling average decreased by a small margin. Lee's career was wrecked by some pretty nasty injuries and if you go back and have a look what he overcome to get back playing at international level it was pretty incredible. When i said I would have McGrath and him over the other two is was because McGrath and Lee were such a formidable bowling attack. McGrath is a test great and is the undisputed King of fast bowling but had support around him and Lee was a big part of that support.
 
Docker82 said:
For consistency Johnson is no where near the top but if you take the everyone at their very best Johnson makes the best Aussie XI since 2000 easily.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Pidge, Johnson and then a toss up between Cummins and Harris. Probably Cummins just.

freo84 said:
He was in the team for a reason. He was told to bowl short, he was told to bowl bouncers and most all he was told to bowl it bloody fast. It was his job to intimidate the batsman and get them battered for McGrath, Gillespe and Warnie. He was an excellent support bowler and often sacrificed his game for the team to get wickets. Yes his bowling average wasnt that great but his wicket count is currently 6th overall in the test rankings and that is pretty good. When his role changed in the team and he became the leader of the Aussie attack his bowling average decreased by a small margin. Lee's career was wrecked by some pretty nasty injuries and if you go back and have a look what he overcome to get back playing at international level it was pretty incredible. When i said I would have McGrath and him over the other two is was because McGrath and Lee were such a formidable bowling attack. McGrath is a test great and is the undisputed King of fast bowling but had support around him and Lee was a big part of that support.
Click to expand...

Top shelf test batsman aren't intimidated by blokes bowling 2 feet outside off, half volleys or poorly directled short balls which were all Lee specialties when he was still rapid. He was a decent test leader post McGrath but still only average historically.

You idea that he was a gun enforcer might hold up if there weren't countless examples in history of players that did it MUCH better (Lillee, Thompson, Hall, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Steyn, Donald etc) , including a contemporary (Shoaib).

You way way way overestimate Lee's ability and if you think McGrath in anyway needed Lee to be the player he was then you don't understand what it was that made him great. I'd actually argue that most of the time he is the exact opposite of what he needed given he couldn't maintain pressure.

He took 300 wickets because our fast bowling stocks were thin in the 2007-2012 period, not because he is anywhere near the 6th best bowler to play for Australia.
 
Joao said:
Agree.

Pidge, Johnson and then a toss up between Cummins and Harris. Probably Cummins just.



Top shelf test batsman aren't intimidated by blokes bowling 2 feet outside off, half volleys or poorly directled short balls which were all Lee specialties when he was still rapid. He was a decent test leader post McGrath but still only average historically.

You idea that he was a gun enforcer might hold up if there weren't countless examples in history of players that did it MUCH better (Lillee, Thompson, Hall, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Steyn, Donald etc) , including a contemporary (Shoaib).

You way way way overestimate Lee's ability and if you think McGrath in anyway needed Lee to be the player he was then you don't understand what it was that made him great. I'd actually argue that most of the time he is the exact opposite of what he needed given he couldn't maintain pressure.

He took 300 wickets because our fast bowling stocks were thin in the 2007-2012 period, not because he is anywhere near the 6th best bowler to play for Australia.
Click to expand...

His Cricinfo bio says that after McGrath's departure, Lee the took 58 wickets in 9 tests at an average of 21.55. Also, the point about the thin bowling stocks between 2007-2012 is diminished somewhat when his last test was the Boxing Day test 2008.

I agree with the the other poster. He was the perfect bowler to come in after McGrath and Gillespie.
 
stax on the mull said:
His Cricinfo bio says that after McGrath's departure, Lee the took 58 wickets in 9 tests at an average of 21.55. Also, the point about the thin bowling stocks between 2007-2012 is diminished somewhat when his last test was the Boxing Day test 2008.

I agree with the the other poster. He was the perfect bowler to come in after McGrath and Gillespie.
Click to expand...
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how ordinary he was before that.

He was far from the perfect foil for those two. He certainly could have been, but he just never did it consistently.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joao said:
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how ordinary he was before that.

He was far from the perfect foil for those two. He certainly could have been, but he just never did it consistently.
Click to expand...

Well, if consistency is the issue, he was way more consistent than the enigmatic Johnson and the injury prone Harris.
 
Joao said:
Agree.

Pidge, Johnson and then a toss up between Cummins and Harris. Probably Cummins just.



Top shelf test batsman aren't intimidated by blokes bowling 2 feet outside off, half volleys or poorly directled short balls which were all Lee specialties when he was still rapid. He was a decent test leader post McGrath but still only average historically.

You idea that he was a gun enforcer might hold up if there weren't countless examples in history of players that did it MUCH better (Lillee, Thompson, Hall, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Steyn, Donald etc) , including a contemporary (Shoaib).

You way way way overestimate Lee's ability and if you think McGrath in anyway needed Lee to be the player he was then you don't understand what it was that made him great. I'd actually argue that most of the time he is the exact opposite of what he needed given he couldn't maintain pressure.

He took 300 wickets because our fast bowling stocks were thin in the 2007-2012 period, not because he is anywhere near the 6th best bowler to play for Australia.
Click to expand...

Trivialising 300 test wickets because they dont conform to your agenda that he was an 'average' bowler is somewhat confusing. Average bowlers don't do what Lee did and certainly dont play for Australia in that bowling line up.

Lee played a role for the team and was a great support bowler. McGrath was a gun but even guns need support and thats what Lee provided. I never said he was a gun enforcer but he was there to bowl short, bowl fast and entice hitting. He didnt all of a sudden improve when he took over leading the Aussie bowling attack after McGrath retired. He was playing a different bowling role and thus his stats improved.
 
Arcassius said:
Anyone else stuck the wrong side of the nullabor this break?
Click to expand...
I flew back to Melbourne from Perth yesterday, didn't have a great view out the window because I was in the aisle seat (stupid late booking with no windows left) but all I could see out the windows on the way down was smoke in every direction.
 
Allikat said:
Smith's batting like he's trying to play out a draw
Click to expand...

He said before play he was going to wear out the NZ bowlers as a strategy to combat the short bowling that was being directed at him. Smith also said he thought bowling short at him was perhaps not such a great idea as the other batsmen are more than making up for his reduced output. As in all sports an ugly win by any means is much better than an attractive loss. So far it's hard to argue with the team first approach he is following as not being the best way to go. While it's not very attractive it seems to be a sound plan overall.
 
stax on the mull said:
Well, if consistency is the issue, he was way more consistent than the enigmatic Johnson and the injury prone Harris.
Click to expand...
In terms of performance it's Harris >>> Lee

No doubt Harris was made of glass and Lee got a lot more out of his body though. That's not what this was about.

Lee and Johnson are reasonably similar. The difference being that Johnson had a ridiculous purple patch. Lee also had a couple of quality seasons but was not as destructive as Johnson (this from someone who definitely wanted Johnson dropped right before his purple patch). Also, the averages don't lie, Johnson still got his wickets cheaper than Lee even before the purple patch.

freo84 said:
Trivialising 300 test wickets because they dont conform to your agenda that he was an 'average' bowler is somewhat confusing. Average bowlers don't do what Lee did and certainly dont play for Australia in that bowling line up.

Lee played a role for the team and was a great support bowler. McGrath was a gun but even guns need support and thats what Lee provided. I never said he was a gun enforcer but he was there to bowl short, bowl fast and entice hitting. He didnt all of a sudden improve when he took over leading the Aussie bowling attack after McGrath retired. He was playing a different bowling role and thus his stats improved.
Click to expand...
We were comparing Lee to other quality fast bowlers (well at least I was as that is where the discussion started). Under those criteria, average is probably generous.

Agree with the bowl fast part, not the short or entice hitting. Sure you can throw in the odd tempting delivery but anybody does that, you don't need a dedicated bowler for it. Also, my whole point was that he didn't do any of what he was supposed to do that well, hence the 31 average.

I am not arguing that he wasn't test standard because he clearly was. What I started arguing was that he wildly underachieved given his attributes and was far from this great foil for McGrath. Pidge would have survived just fine with me bowling the other end. Maybe if you take Warne away he struggles but I doubt it. Hadlee or Murali is a good example of what happens with one ATG bowler in a team, he just bowls more overs and gets more wickets.

Stats
Year by year wickets and averages:
7 @ 11.14
35 @ 17.05
30 @ 36.23
25 @ 41.28
38 @ 35.05
4 @ 69
49 @ 32.36
37 @ 32.37
28 @ 17.28
57 @ 33.05

So leaving aside he first year (which is only 1 test, albiet a great debut) he only had two years where he averaged below 30. That is just average test bowling. His first full year was where all the hype justifiably came from (I was as excited as anyone) but it just never eventuated. Compare to Johnson because I think they share a lot of traits, he only had 3 years where his average was above 30.

So compared to other bowlers in the original conversations, he is average at best.
 
Joao said:
In terms of performance it's Harris >>> Lee

No doubt Harris was made of glass and Lee got a lot more out of his body though. That's not what this was about.

Lee and Johnson are reasonably similar. The difference being that Johnson had a ridiculous purple patch. Lee also had a couple of quality seasons but was not as destructive as Johnson (this from someone who definitely wanted Johnson dropped right before his purple patch). Also, the averages don't lie, Johnson still got his wickets cheaper than Lee even before the purple patch.


We were comparing Lee to other quality fast bowlers (well at least I was as that is where the discussion started). Under those criteria, average is probably generous.

Agree with the bowl fast part, not the short or entice hitting. Sure you can throw in the odd tempting delivery but anybody does that, you don't need a dedicated bowler for it. Also, my whole point was that he didn't do any of what he was supposed to do that well, hence the 31 average.

I am not arguing that he wasn't test standard because he clearly was. What I started arguing was that he wildly underachieved given his attributes and was far from this great foil for McGrath. Pidge would have survived just fine with me bowling the other end. Maybe if you take Warne away he struggles but I doubt it. Hadlee or Murali is a good example of what happens with one ATG bowler in a team, he just bowls more overs and gets more wickets.

Stats
Year by year wickets and averages:
7 @ 11.14
35 @ 17.05
30 @ 36.23
25 @ 41.28
38 @ 35.05
4 @ 69
49 @ 32.36
37 @ 32.37
28 @ 17.28
57 @ 33.05

So leaving aside he first year (which is only 1 test, albiet a great debut) he only had two years where he averaged below 30. That is just average test bowling. His first full year was where all the hype justifiably came from (I was as excited as anyone) but it just never eventuated. Compare to Johnson because I think they share a lot of traits, he only had 3 years where his average was above 30.

So compared to other bowlers in the original conversations, he is average at best.
Click to expand...
Our discussion has centered around that I disagreed that he is average and still think that he was a great support bowler. Average bowlers don't take 313 wickets in their careers. Endurance and durability are traits to a sportsperson and Lee had both.

However I never said he was better than the other bowlers that were raised. They were all great and I liked them as well, it was that Lee was a favorite of mine growing up and I preferred him and McGrath (who wouldn't pick McGrath as a fast bowler as a preference). His economy and strike rate never fazed me as a young fella.

Our current bowling stocks are looking great and my opinion may change as they get more games together.
 
Purpletown said:
He said before play he was going to wear out the NZ bowlers as a strategy to combat the short bowling that was being directed at him. Smith also said he thought bowling short at him was perhaps not such a great idea as the other batsmen are more than making up for his reduced output. As in all sports an ugly win by any means is much better than an attractive loss. So far it's hard to argue with the team first approach he is following as not being the best way to go. While it's not very attractive it seems to be a sound plan overall.
Click to expand...
The greatest players adapt.
 
Joao said:
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how
Admit my memory is hazy (clearly thought he played longer) and I am surprised that he did that well (I knew he was better) but that just shows you how ordinary he was before that.

He was far from the perfect foil for those two. He certainly could have been, but he just never did it consistently.
Click to expand...
Mate, your memory is so hazy, you forgot what you wrote a couple of lines into your post :cool:
Joking, happy new year :thumbsu:
 
yyou said:
Mate, your memory is so hazy, you forgot what you wrote a couple of lines into your post :cool:
Joking, happy new year :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
yyou mate can you start the 2020 nonfreo nonsense thread, I am a bad luck charm I have decided so I think it's your turn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

J
Game Day Freo v Bombers
Replies
4
Views
348
ignoramus
I
Paracleet
Freo Non-current Season Chat
Replies
19
Views
1K
mattis117
mattis117
Tonga Bob
Welcome Welcome To Freo Shai Bolton!!!
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
491
Views
24K
theGav56
T
C
Freo in close games
Replies
17
Views
979
BStaff17
BStaff17
C
Freo and the never ending rebuild
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
152
Views
6K
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
J
  • Locked
Game Day Freo v Port - A New Hope
43 44 45 46 47
Replies
1K
Views
19K
Tonga Bob
Tonga Bob
Van_Dyke
  • Locked
Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2023
467 468 469 470 471
Replies
12K
Views
470K
freo1
freo1

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top