What is the sound of 200 pounds of overrated fast bowling sh-t hitting the fan?

[bharat297]

I don't quite agree with you Salil. Lee might not be an outstanding bowler but he isn't as bad either as you are trying to make him look. How many terrible bowlers have taken 300 wickets in tests? There are only 23 in the entire history of cricket. And what is wrong with having the ability to finish the tail off? You have to take their wickets and that too quickly if you want to win a match. I wish India had a pace bowler like him who could finish off the tail quickly and could go on to take 300+ test wickets! Just one pace bowler from India has managed above 300 test wickets and the number will remain the same for some time to come. Lee is no where near his great predecessors like Lillee or McGrath but he isn't as bad either as you are trying to prove!

WELL SAID !!!

[Mr. Wicket]

I didn't know Lee was this bad. :cantstop:

Find some tapes of the 01 Ashes, it's horrific to watch. Or a tape of the afternoon session of the Oval test in 05, with Pietersen coming out post-lunch expecting Lee to launch into super-bighearted bouncer-yorker mode and immediately whacking him for a few sixes over long leg.

I don't quite agree with you Salil. Lee might not be an outstanding bowler but he isn't as bad either as you are trying to make him look. How many terrible bowlers have taken 300 wickets in tests? There are only 23 in the entire history of cricket.

Volume doesn't always mean quality. More and more tests are played these days. There's a lot more mediocre opposition, so more wickets will be taken against weaker opposition. Tallies aren't that relevant in this context. Jacques Kallis just passed 250 wickets (not a milestone reached by that many bowlers either), and he's hardly the definition of a quality seamer. There are plenty of others like Garner, Holding, Lindwall, Jeff Thomson and Andy Roberts who have a lot fewer wickets - that doesn't mean they're lesser bowlers. And taking a whole bunch - mostly against mediocre opposition, and buying them against good opposition at ridiculous averages - doesn't make you a top bowler.

And what is wrong with having the ability to finish the tail off? You have to take their wickets and that too quickly if you want to win a match. I wish India had a pace bowler like him who could finish off the tail quickly and could go on to take 300+ test wickets! Just one pace bowler from India has managed above 300 test wickets and the number will remain the same for some time to come.

There's a difference between finishing the tail off and feeding mostly on the tail. Lee is the sort who'll occasionally take a top order wicket, then get pasted around when the ball is old, then hopefully get a couple of wickets near the end of the innings with tailenders to bump his figures up. This is different from your Hadlees, Srinaths, Imrans and co. who would do their work through an innings.

Lee is no where near his great predecessors like Lillee or McGrath but he isn't as bad either as you are trying to prove!

Lee is nowhere in the class of McGrath and Lillee. That much is blatantly obvious. But Lee is also an inferior bowler to a lot of others before him; Terry Alderman, Merv Hughes (equal amounts of heart and a lot more brain), McDermott, Fleming, Gillespie and Reid all have significantly better records when you look at all other aspects of his bowling (average, economy), and many of them didn't have Lee's added bonuses of a McGrath or Warne at the other end and world class support like Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting and co. as keeper/fielders to back him up. Just because Lee has more test wickets than Alderman (170 at 27), Gillespie (259 at 26), McDermott (291 at 28.6), Merv (212 at 28), Fleming (75 at 25.9) and Reid (113 at 24.6) it doesn't make him a better bowler. Those men all took wickets more consistently and for fewer runs against better quality opposition in most cases. Compare their records, you'll find greater consistency across ALL oppositions (rather than being dismantled by the decent-to-great teams and feeding on mediocrity like WI and NZ). And your comparison with India is a straw man argument. It's irrelevant; India until very recently had ALWAYS focused on spin as a strength - hence why foreign tours would regularly see at least 3 spinners picked, spinners were regularly developed and among quicks only Kapil and Srinath were regulars in the team for any real length of time. Home pitches were ALWAYS slow and low in the 90s for three spinners to be picked and at times just one seamer (with sometimes a batting all rounder like Ganguly doubling up with the new ball). So it's hardly a surprise that only Kapil has taken 300+ wickets. If you're trying to make Lee out to be better than most recent Indian seamers, it's not that hard - Dodda, Kuruvilla, Prasad, Mohanty, etc were all crap. Until Zaheer came along, Srinath was our only real major seamer in the 90s, and he's a significantly better bowler than Lee. Better on flat pitches. Better records against top teams. More reliable, more consistent, less likely to just bleed runs, capable of being a strike and stock bowler. But he doesn't have 300 wickets. Even then, anyone who has actually watched both men extensively in most of their tests will have no doubt that Srinath was significantly superior.

[Chandan]

Volume doesn't always mean quality. More and more tests are played these days. There's a lot more mediocre opposition, so more wickets will be taken against weaker opposition. Tallies aren't that relevant in this context. Jacques Kallis just passed 250 wickets (not a milestone reached by that many bowlers either), and he's hardly the definition of a quality seamer.

] I don't agree with you here too. Volume certainly doesn't mean outstanding quality but it shows a performance at a certain level for a longer period of time and that level certainly isn't of rubbish bowling. Weaker oppositions are here? Big deal! Bradman played his cricket only against England. It doesn't make him an inferior batsman because of that. Kallis is past 250 wickets and even though that isn't a milestone of quality bowling, it certainly shows that he has been setting his standard at a certain level which is better than mediocre and far below than outstanding.

There are plenty of others like Garner, Holding, Lindwall, Jeff Thomson and Andy Roberts who have a lot fewer wickets - that doesn't mean they're lesser bowlers. And taking a whole bunch - mostly against mediocre opposition, and buying them against good opposition at ridiculous averages - doesn't make you a top bowler.

l] They are superior bowlers no dout, but it puts a question mark over their longevity. How would they have dealt with cricket through the entire year with no off season available to recuperate, as is the condition of fast bowlers today. In such a situation if Lee kept himself fit and performed reasonably okay for his country getting 300+ test wickets, he is certainly not a ****y bowler as you say.

There's a difference between finishing the tail off and feeding mostly on the tail. Lee is the sort who'll occasionally take a top order wicket, then get pasted around when the ball is old, then hopefully get a couple of wickets near the end of the innings with tailenders to bump his figures up. This is different from your Hadlees, Srinaths, Imrans and co. who would do their work through an innings.

Haven't we seen many a top effort from Srinath being ruined by the charge of tailenders? Whats the harm in having a bowler who can take one top order wicket and then finish the tail off quickly? The bowling works in a team as well and a top order wicket and lower order wicket count the same in the match.

Lee is nowhere in the class of McGrath and Lillee. That much is blatantly obvious. But Lee is also an inferior bowler to a lot of others before him; Terry Alderman, Merv Hughes (equal amounts of heart and a lot more brain), McDermott, Fleming, Gillespie and Reid all have significantly better records when you look at all other aspects of his bowling (average, economy), and many of them didn't have Lee's added bonuses of a McGrath or Warne at the other end and world class support like Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting and co. as keeper/fielders to back him up.

] Since I've seen Fleming and Gillespie closely, I can say that the latter was the best bowler in the world for a period of time inspite of McGrath being there. But Lee is not inferior to Fleming. And then you can also say that neither Fleming nor Gillespie could keep an acceptable standard for a longer period of time and hence were axed. Lee was the best bowler in the world for an extremely brief while but he too couldn't keep that standard up for longer than 6 months and slipped. But his slip was not as drastic as that of Gillespie.

Just because Lee has more test wickets than Alderman (170 at 27), Gillespie (259 at 26), McDermott (291 at 28.6), Merv (212 at 28), Fleming (75 at 25.9) and Reid (113 at 24.6) it doesn't make him a better bowler.

Maybe. But still he has kept himself fitter and somewhere resonably in form too to stay in the team. Others slipped and hence despite having superior quality when they were at their peak their slip or fall was that more drastic too. So who is better?

Those men all took wickets more consistently and for fewer runs against better quality opposition in most cases. Compare their records, you'll find greater consistency across ALL oppositions (rather than being dismantled by the decent-to-great teams and feeding on mediocrity like WI and NZ).

True. But as I daid, that quality was for fewer tests, A fast bowlers quality also lies in the fact as to how long he is able to perform for his country at an acceptable level. I think time has come for Aussie selectors to drop Lee because other vbowlers in the squad are superior to him. Yet, you just can't say that Lee has been all rubbish over a decade.

And your comparison with India is a straw man argument. It's irrelevant; India until very recently had ALWAYS focused on spin as a strength - hence why foreign tours would regularly see at least 3 spinners picked, spinners were regularly developed and among quicks only Kapil and Srinath were regulars in the team for any real length of time. Home pitches were ALWAYS slow and low in the 90s for three spinners to be picked and at times just one seamer (with sometimes a batting all rounder like Ganguly doubling up with the new ball). So it's hardly a surprise that only Kapil has taken 300+ wickets. If you're trying to make Lee out to be better than most recent Indian seamers, it's not that hard - Dodda, Kuruvilla, Prasad, Mohanty, etc were all crap. Until Zaheer came along, Srinath was our only real major seamer in the 90s, and he's a significantly better bowler than Lee.

Srinath could be a better bowler than Lee. But he couldn't keep himself fit for a longer period. I think longevity is as important as quality. Any one batsman can perform much better than Sachin Tendulkar at the moment for an year or two. But it will be difficult or near impossible for anyone else to keep that standard for 20 years as Sachin has kept. That is why he is better than others who might smash every opposition for say 2 years.

Better on flat pitches. Better records against top teams. More reliable, more consistent, less likely to just bleed runs, capable of being a strike and stock bowler. But he doesn't have 300 wickets. Even then, anyone who has actually watched both men extensively in most of their tests will have no doubt that Srinath was significantly superior.

Superior for a lesser period of time. Even then Lee is not rubbish as you claim.

[Mr. Wicket]

I don't agree with you here too. Volume certainly doesn't mean outstanding quality but it shows a performance at a certain level for a longer period of time and that level certainly isn't of rubbish bowling. Weaker oppositions are here? Big deal! Bradman played his cricket only against England. It doesn't make him an inferior batsman because of that.

England were a top quality team. It's not as if he made all his runs against New Zealand, who were the Sri Lanka of that period. Your reasoning there is flawed.

Haven't we seen many a top effort from Srinath being ruined by the charge of tailenders? Whats the harm in having a bowler who can take one top order wicket and then finish the tail off quickly? The bowling works in a team as well and a top order wicket and lower order wicket count the same in the match.

No harm at all. But such a bowler is hardly a 'strike' bowler, and certainly not one deserving of the accolades, hype and the ridiculous level of loyalty from selectors that Lee has earned.

Since I've seen Fleming and Gillespie closely, I can say that the latter was the best bowler in the world for a period of time inspite of McGrath being there. But Lee is not inferior to Fleming. And then you can also say that neither Fleming nor Gillespie could keep an acceptable standard for a longer period of time and hence were axed. Lee was the best bowler in the world for an extremely brief while but he too couldn't keep that standard up for longer than 6 months and slipped. But his slip was not as drastic as that of Gillespie.

You are wrong on Fleming. Inferior to Lee? Give me a break. Did you watch him in only one or two games, or maybe the final game he played in India after which he got dropped (while struggling with injury)? There was NO OPPONENT that Fleming did not average below 30 with the ball against. And he played Pakistan, Sri Lanka, England, Zimbabwe and India and had records against them that ranged from outstanding to very good. Far superior averages than your boy Lee. http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/5239.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling Slightly worse away than at home, but overall a far superior bowler with an almost equal strike rate, a far superior economy rate and a MUCH better average per wicket - that too against better opposition. If you honestly think Fleming is a poorer bowler than Lee, I highly suggest you watch a few more tapes of Fleming, then compare to games with Lee. Have you seen and compared Fleming's performances against India in test matches with Lee's? Or against England? Try watching a tape of Fleming in the 1998 Ashes, where he regularly troubled the batsmen and on a few occasions ran right through them. Then put on a tape or DVD of Lee in the 01 Ashes against many of the same batsmen (in more bowling-friendly conditions and with a stronger support attack; remember that McGrath and Warne missed parts of the 98 Ashes due to injury) and watch how much inferior he is in terms of control and consistency.

Maybe. But still he has kept himself fitter and somewhere resonably in form too to stay in the team. Others slipped and hence despite having superior quality when they were at their peak their slip or fall was that more drastic too. So who is better?

I suggest you watch footage of McDermott at his best in the 94/95 series against the West Indies and tell me. Or Alderman in England, against one of the top test teams at the time with the likes of Gower and Gooch. When Lee has been up against top quality opposition, he's been mediocre and generally expensive. Try and separate his performances in ODIs (where he is world class) or in tests against weak teams from his performances against good teams.

True. But as I daid, that quality was for fewer tests, A fast bowlers quality also lies in the fact as to how long he is able to perform for his country at an acceptable level. I think time has come for Aussie selectors to drop Lee because other vbowlers in the squad are superior to him. Yet, you just can't say that Lee has been all rubbish over a decade.[/qupte] A couple of years ago, after the end of 2006, Lee averaged 31.93 with the ball in tests. This may be acceptable, but it doesn't make him a quality bowler by any means. Especially for a side where every other strike bowler averaged significantly more. So between 1999 and 2006, Lee built up a career where he bought wickets at almost 32 apiece. (Compare and contrast with the other names and their averages.) Far weaker than his peers and the men who preceded him. Not in the league of some of his contemporaries who unfortunately didn't have the state selectors always pushing for them (Fleming), or had injuries. For the most part of the decade he was mediocre - between 06 and 08 he had an excellent period where that average dropped significantly. But 4-5 mediocre years, particularly between 2001 and 2006 - a 51 match period where he averaged 35.57 with the ball - is hardly enough to call him a good bowler. Please, Chandan. I think you know enough about cricket to realize that a man who averages over 35 with the ball as a 'spearhead' of a test attack for a period of over 50 tests is not a great quality bowler. Barely even a good one, unless you're generous. Check his matches in this period and see if there's justification for calling him inanely overrated. http://tinyurl.com/nv9lom

Srinath could be a better bowler than Lee. But he couldn't keep himself fit for a longer period. I think longevity is as important as quality. Any one batsman can perform much better than Sachin Tendulkar at the moment for an year or two. But it will be difficult or near impossible for anyone else to keep that standard for 20 years as Sachin has kept. That is why he is better than others who might smash every opposition for say 2 years.

Srinath also suffered from a lot of factors Lee benefited from. He didn't have support in an attack overseas especially; until the end of his career almost NO pace bowlers he could bowl well in tandem with. Lee had McGrath and Gillespie. Lee also had world class fielding supporting him. If you saw Srinath in 1996 in England, you'll remember Mongia and the slip cordon dropping chances regularly in the cold weather. And the idea of players doing well over a 2 year period is a straw man argument that again is irrelevant. Srinath played a full decade, we're comparing apples to apples here, not a one-year wonder like Mohammad Zahid to Lee. Lee may not be rubbish - he is a superb ODI bowler, and good against lesser teams in tests - but he is tremendously overrated, helped incredibly by the bowlers he's played alongside and his ability to pick up wickets in bulk against weak, inconsistent opposition who cover his mediocrity against good teams.

[Shehezaada]

Lee is from NSW' date=' obviously he will be picked. TBH he's not that bad. He may not be the best but still is a force to reckon with. A bowler that can swing at high speed is always good to have in the team. He's definitely better than say Shoaib Akthar, Sreesanth, Morkel, Anderson and the likes.[/quote'] Better then these guys EXCEPT Akhtar....Akhtar I think is hands down the better bowler in test matches. In ODIs it could be closer

[Shehezaada]

Please, anyone is better than Akhtar. Morkel right now is a 'potential' prospect; has it in him to do a lot. Sreesanth has produced test performances that Lee can't match, Anderson's starting to peak and could be very, very dangerous in the next couple of years. As for Lee being from NSW... so is Douggie Bollinger. But he was left out. :((

Akhtar 178 wickets at 25.69 striking at 46 B. Lee 310 wickets at 30.81 striking at 53.3 Akhtar's played 21 tests in the graveyard's of Pakistan and still averages 26. so how exactly is lee better then akhtar?

[The Outsider]

Akhtar 178 wickets at 25.69 striking at 46 B. Lee 310 wickets at 30.81 striking at 53.3 Akhtar's played 21 tests in the graveyard's of Pakistan and still averages 26. so how exactly is lee better then akhtar?

Because there is life beyond averages. Akhtar conveniently walks off the field every time things are not going his way. It's well documented and if he had continued bowling in all those situations where he has walked off with a broken rib he probably would have been averaging closer to 35. I haven't even taken into account the disturbances he causes in team composition by his constant injuries and antics or how many of those wickets were drug assisted. Given a choice I would pick Lee over Akhtar every time.

[ritwik]

Between Akhtar and Lee' date=' it's a no-brainer: Akhtar is a far superior bowler. A sh1t sportsperson though.[/quote'] Correct. Within or without averages, when on song, Akhtar is/was a frighteningly good fast bowler. Any comparison with Lee approaches the domain of absurdity. Akhtar monumentally wasted his talent, otherwise I think he would have been the best fast bowler in the world after the retirement of Mcgrath and Pollock.

[Mr. Wicket]

Akhtar 178 wickets at 25.69 striking at 46 B. Lee 310 wickets at 30.81 striking at 53.3 Akhtar's played 21 tests in the graveyard's of Pakistan and still averages 26. so how exactly is lee better then akhtar?

At the end of it I'll take a bowler who may not have been all that good, but played honestly and didn't cheat, over a guy who was caught regularly ball tampering (let us just hope he wasn't tampering with balls when his latest infection came about), took steroids and then was taking wickets off them thanks to his board. The fact that Akhtar's also had a history of faking injuries or leaving the field for stupid reasons to get away from bowling in tougher conditions/situations makes it a no-brainer as shwetabh said. I'll take a guy who'll at least run in hard when the score's 350/3 in hot conditions and a flat deck even he bowls 5-0-30-0, rather than the pr-ck who'll walk off the field with 6.3 overs under his belt citing a tweaked muscle just when Ponting starts to hit the ball all over the place and the captain spreads the field. In terms of talent and performance, Akhtar has the edge. But when you look at the sort of team man he is, and the fact that a number of those wickets should be accompanied by question marks given the steroids he took (not to mention the repeated ball tampering issues), it becomes a lot cloudier.

[Shehezaada]

At the end of it I'll take a bowler who may not have been all that good, but played honestly and didn't cheat, over a guy who was caught regularly ball tampering (let us just hope he wasn't tampering with balls when his latest infection came about), took steroids and then was taking wickets off them thanks to his board. The fact that Akhtar's also had a history of faking injuries or leaving the field for stupid reasons to get away from bowling in tougher conditions/situations makes it a no-brainer as shwetabh said. I'll take a guy who'll at least run in hard when the score's 350/3 in hot conditions and a flat deck even he bowls 5-0-30-0, rather than the pr-ck who'll walk off the field with 6.3 overs under his belt citing a tweaked muscle just when Ponting starts to hit the ball all over the place and the captain spreads the field. In terms of talent and performance, Akhtar has the edge. But when you look at the sort of team man he is, and the fact that a number of those wickets should be accompanied by question marks given the steroids he took (not to mention the repeated ball tampering issues), it becomes a lot cloudier.

You can take anyone you want as a team man. Dinesh Kartik seems to be a great guy who's always laughing and seems to be a team player...but he sucks. We are talking about who the better bowler is, talent, performance, skill. That's Akhtar, hands down. He also has tons of cricketing intelligence, unfortunately he's not a team player and causes too much controversy.

[Shehezaada]

Because there is life beyond averages. Akhtar conveniently walks off the field every time things are not going his way. It's well documented and if he had continued bowling in all those situations where he has walked off with a broken rib he probably would have been averaging closer to 35. I haven't even taken into account the disturbances he causes in team composition by his constant injuries and antics or how many of those wickets were drug assisted. Given a choice I would pick Lee over Akhtar every time.

averaging 35? I don't think so. A guy who can do so many things with the ball and has good accuracy with raw speed will never average 35. Team composition, controversy I'll give you guys. But skill? No chance Lee has of getting close to him.

[The Outsider]

averaging 35? I don't think so. A guy who can do so many things with the ball and has good accuracy with raw speed will never average 35. Team composition, controversy I'll give you guys. But skill? No chance Lee has of getting close to him.

Why does he always fake injuries and not bowl when the going gets tough for his side. Drugs/tampering/faking injuries to avoid bowling in tough conditions - he would have been a 30-35 averaging bowler.

[Dravid]

averaging 35? I don't think so. A guy who can do so many things with the ball and has good accuracy with raw speed will never average 35. Team composition, controversy I'll give you guys. But skill? No chance Lee has of getting close to him.

he is def. skilled.. in ball tempering and chucking

[Shehezaada]

Why does he always fake injuries and not bowl when the going gets tough for his side. Drugs/tampering/faking injuries to avoid bowling in tough conditions - he would have been a 30-35 averaging bowler.

Refresh my memory...when did he fake injury? in the pak series in 2004 with us?

[The Outsider]

Refresh my memory...when did he fake injury? in the pak series in 2004 with us?

Probably every time when he has played against a strong batting line up starting to fire in recent years - Bangalore and Calcutta against us in 2007, Perth and Sydney against Australia in 2005, Rawalpindi against India, also that match where Asif bowled like 40 overs in the 2nd innings against South Africa when the pitch had eased up and Akhtar was chilling out.

[Mr. Wicket]

What about the time in New Zealand when a flat track was predicted, he suddenly developed a groin injury... but was seen jetskiing a day later?

[Shehezaada]

Probably every time when he has played against a strong batting line up starting to fire in recent years - Bangalore and Calcutta against us in 2007' date=' Perth and Sydney against Australia in 2005, Rawalpindi against India, also that match where Asif bowled like 40 overs in the 2nd innings against South Africa when the pitch had eased up and Akhtar was chilling out.[/quote'] I watched the test series against us in 2007, and Akhtar was bowling his heart out in every single test match, even though he was carrying an injury picked up in the ODIs. The spell he bowled to Dravid and Tendulkar was magnificent, and he got Dravid with an awesome delivery. Test 1: Bowled 16 overs in the first innings, 18 in the 2nd (most in the team) Test 2: Bowled 24 overs in the first innings, 12.3 in the 2nd (2nd most in team) Test 3: Bowled 10 overs in the first innings, 17 in the 2nd. Especially in the first innings at Bangalore, he was REALLY struggling, yet came back to bowl another 17 overs in the 2nd innings knowing realistically his team had no shot at winning. So I really see no "running away". I remember watching the whole series and really see Akhtar put everything he had into it while carrying an injury. His 4 for in the 2nd innings in Delhi was outstanding. I also remember him waging a one man war against Australia in 2004-2005, so I find it hard to believe when you say he was running away in Perth and Sydney. He took Let's check it out. Perth: 22 overs in the first innings (got a 5 fer), injured his shoulder while diving on the boundary and bowled 6.3 overs in the 2nd innings Melbourne: 27 overs in the first innings (ANOTHER 5 fer), 7 overs in the 2nd out of a total of 28 overs, while the target was only 127 runs. Sydney: Was injured but still tried to bowl, and he did bowl 15 overs but was really struggling and ineffective. Honestly I don't understand where the running is coming from. The other two accounts I didn't really watch/follow so I won't comment, but these two series your talking about have nothing to do with running away. Akhtar put everything he had into it.

[Mr. Wicket]

Injured his shoulder diving on the boundary? Shehezaada, if you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. :D

[Chandan]

Better then these guys EXCEPT Akhtar....Akhtar I think is hands down the better bowler in test matches. In ODIs it could be closer

Because there is life beyond averages. Akhtar conveniently walks off the field every time things are not going his way. It's well documented and if he had continued bowling in all those situations where he has walked off with a broken rib he probably would have been averaging closer to 35. I haven't even taken into account the disturbances he causes in team composition by his constant injuries and antics or how many of those wickets were drug assisted. Given a choice I would pick Lee over Akhtar every time.

Between Akhtar and Lee' date=' it's a no-brainer: Akhtar is a far superior bowler. A sh1t sportsperson though.[/quote']

Correct. Within or without averages, when on song, Akhtar is/was a frighteningly good fast bowler. Any comparison with Lee approaches the domain of absurdity. Akhtar monumentally wasted his talent, otherwise I think he would have been the best fast bowler in the world after the retirement of Mcgrath and Pollock.

At the end of it I'll take a bowler who may not have been all that good, but played honestly and didn't cheat, over a guy who was caught regularly ball tampering (let us just hope he wasn't tampering with balls when his latest infection came about), took steroids and then was taking wickets off them thanks to his board. The fact that Akhtar's also had a history of faking injuries or leaving the field for stupid reasons to get away from bowling in tougher conditions/situations makes it a no-brainer as shwetabh said. I'll take a guy who'll at least run in hard when the score's 350/3 in hot conditions and a flat deck even he bowls 5-0-30-0, rather than the pr-ck who'll walk off the field with 6.3 overs under his belt citing a tweaked muscle just when Ponting starts to hit the ball all over the place and the captain spreads the field. In terms of talent and performance, Akhtar has the edge. But when you look at the sort of team man he is, and the fact that a number of those wickets should be accompanied by question marks given the steroids he took (not to mention the repeated ball tampering issues), it becomes a lot cloudier.

Why does he always fake injuries and not bowl when the going gets tough for his side. Drugs/tampering/faking injuries to avoid bowling in tough conditions - he would have been a 30-35 averaging bowler.

he is def. skilled.. in ball tempering and chucking

What about the time in New Zealand when a flat track was predicted' date=' he suddenly developed a groin injury... but was seen jetskiing a day later? [/quote']

I watched the test series against us in 2007, and Akhtar was bowling his heart out in every single test match, even though he was carrying an injury picked up in the ODIs. The spell he bowled to Dravid and Tendulkar was magnificent, and he got Dravid with an awesome delivery. Test 1: Bowled 16 overs in the first innings, 18 in the 2nd (most in the team) Test 2: Bowled 24 overs in the first innings, 12.3 in the 2nd (2nd most in team) Test 3: Bowled 10 overs in the first innings, 17 in the 2nd. Especially in the first innings at Bangalore, he was REALLY struggling, yet came back to bowl another 17 overs in the 2nd innings knowing realistically his team had no shot at winning. So I really see no "running away". I remember watching the whole series and really see Akhtar put everything he had into it while carrying an injury. His 4 for in the 2nd innings in Delhi was outstanding. I also remember him waging a one man war against Australia in 2004-2005, so I find it hard to believe when you say he was running away in Perth and Sydney. He took Let's check it out. Perth: 22 overs in the first innings (got a 5 fer), injured his shoulder while diving on the boundary and bowled 6.3 overs in the 2nd innings Melbourne: 27 overs in the first innings (ANOTHER 5 fer), 7 overs in the 2nd out of a total of 28 overs, while the target was only 127 runs. Sydney: Was injured but still tried to bowl, and he did bowl 15 overs but was really struggling and ineffective. Honestly I don't understand where the running is coming from. The other two accounts I didn't really watch/follow so I won't comment, but these two series your talking about have nothing to do with running away. Akhtar put everything he had into it.

Shahzada, Sarcasm and Ritwik, Even if Akhtar has high levels of talents and skill, he'll be a lesser bowler to Lee. Not because of faking injuries or controversies or not being a team man or what not! He'll be a lesser bowler to Lee because he got less number of wickets than Lee for his country. He didn't keep himself fit enough to serve his country for a longer time and hence got lesser number of wickets. All the talent and skill and other things count for zilch if you do not transform it into your performance which is taking more wickets for your country. Shivalkar might be more talented than Bedi, but he will not be remembered whenever we discuss the history of cricket. One has to perform for a longer period of time to prove his talent. Physical fitness plays a big role here. And Akhtar clearly failed here and Lee succeeded as he played for a longer period of time at an acceptable level. As simple as that!

[Mr. Wicket]

Even if Akhtar has high levels of talents and skill, he'll be a lesser bowler to Lee. Not because of faking injuries or controversies or not being a team man or what not! He'll be a lesser bowler to Lee because he got less number of wickets than Lee for his country. He didn't keep himself fit enough to serve his country for a longer time and hence got lesser number of wickets. All the talent and skill and other things count for zilch if you do not transform it into your performance which is taking more wickets for your country. Shivalkar might be more talented than Bedi, but he will not be remembered whenever we discuss the history of cricket.

So following with the logic in bold, shall we now define Saqlain Mushtaq as a lesser bowler to Danish Kaneria as he too took fewer wickets for his country? Or say that Ambrose is a lesser bowler than Walsh because Walsh took more wickets than him? Or maybe that Marvan Atapattu is a better ODI batsman than Mark Waugh or Michael Bevan because he too scored more ODI runs than either?! Truly absurd logic, Chandan. I'm really surprised at how easily you're accepting the most basic statistic there.