England in Australia

[evertonfan]

Indeed it was, Warne conceded his highest figures too.

 

[wolf]

He averaged over 40 with the ball...

Yes but his strike rate was really good, and in the 4th innings of the 4th test his bowling was unbeatable. He gave 100% to the Aussie cause and batted with great bravery, despite a barrage of bouncers always coming his way.

To say drop his just insane, so he hasn't been at his best, but you can't say he wasn't dangerous yesterday, he worked up a good pace.

 

[evertonfan]

You failed to metnion the amount of times he leaked runs. One good bowling spell doesn't mean he had a good otour; His bowling was poor in England and it's been poor so far.

 

[Eddie]

As an England fan , i want Lee to keep playing!

I don't want them picking someone who might bowl us out !

 

[wolf]

15.1    5     47      3 (G.Jones, Giles, Harmision)
15      3     58      2 (Strauss, Vaughan)
17      1    111      1 (Pietersen)
18      1     82      4 (Tresco, Hoggard, Vaughan)
27      6    100      4 (Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Hoggard)
12      0     60      1 (Vaughan)
32      2    131      1 (Pietersen)
12      0     51      3 (Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff)
23      3     94      1 (G.Jones)
20      4     88      0

Figures from last series. 19 wickets at 41. If you look at that you will see all the top order batsman he got out. He also took 2 catches and averaged 26 with the bat, better than Gilchrist and Marytn.

 

[GrayNicolls]

They're not bad figures...But they are too inconsistent.

 

[evertonfan]

I notice you didn't show the economy rates Wolf, I wonder why that might be. :

 

[wolf]

Because they don't show economy rates on the scorecard. It was 4.29 over the whole series I think. Economy doesn't matter that much, we are playing test cricket not ODI.

 

[GrayNicolls]

But, It's not exactly pressurising the batsmen if he is going for 4 an over, is it?

 

[evertonfan]

It's actually Test cricket were economy rate is important. Anything over 4 for a fast bowler is simply not good enough. You may argue that he took wicketsm but the runs he conceded were more match effecting than the wickets he took. That's not even including the whole host of no-balls he bowled too.

 

[GrayNicolls]

6.52 (17-1-111-1) 	B Lee 	Australia v England at Birmingham, 2nd Test, 04/08/2005

Amazing to see that he was this expensive at one point.

 

[wolf]

I would rather a bowler took 10-0-100-5 than 10-5-10-0.

 

[GrayNicolls]

I would rather the second one, myself. As int he first one, the wicket was probably just pure luck, whilst in the second, he could be causing pressure which could lead to runouts, getting out to the bowler at the other end etc.

 

[wolf]

I would rather the second one, myself. As int he first one, the wicket was probably just pure luck, whilst in the second, he could be causing pressure which could lead to runouts, getting out to the bowler at the other end etc.

What a load of crap. How can you say the wickets were pure luck when I made it up as an example?

 

[GrayNicolls]

Well if he is going for 10 an over, then obviously the bowler is spraying it around, so the wickets might have just been lucky balls.