Ashraful_Rox Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 No they are not. Brett Lee has better average, strike rate, number of wickets than Shoaib Shoaib looks more exciting when he comes to bowl, but Lee is far more disciplined and consistent. Well said, I agree with you. Good explanation, friend. :hatsoff:
ganeshran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Well said' date=' I agree with you. Good explanation, friend. :hatsoff:[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up: Here are their comparitive stats. Akhtar has a better test average than lee. but Lee has taken far more wickets and played more matches in tests In all other formats Lee has better stats
Sachin=GOD Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 You have to add factors like 1) with or without kamran akmal 2) with or without liposuction 3) with or without genital warts :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: :adore: :adore:
Sid Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Lee has been the fitter of the two and a much better ODI bowler than a test one .Actor was the better of the two when it comes to test matches but becoz of his longevity and also legitimate bowling action :P,Brett Lee is better than the Actor overall :nice:
gaurav92 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 You have to add factors like 1) with or without kamran akmal 2) with or without liposuction 3) with or without genital warts :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
achilles Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Shoaib at his peak > any fast bowler at his peak in the past decade. If you are looking at batting, fielding, consistency as parameters, Brett Lee.
zen Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Akhtar is the better test match bowler (when in top form) so it's not difficult to pick b/w the two .... In ODIs, I might be tempted to go w/ Lee because he is a better all-round cricketer But just for bowling, the vote goes to Akhtar
Asoka Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Akhtar at his peak was light years ahead of Lee. Akhtar at his worst is about as good as Lee. So Akhtar hands down. Akhtar never had the luxury of bowling in greentops, an awesome fielding unit and the support of legends like Bucknor,Benson and Silva. I have never seen Lee trouble the likes of SRT,Lara,Kallis,Sehwag,Dravid,KP, etc.Akhtar on the other hand has dominated the top batsmen of his generation.
achilles Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 @ rett... I think he been doing a phenomenal job since the past 6 months odd. Lee can't even come close to matching Shoaib in his present form.
ganeshran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Lee has been both consistent and disciplined with his performances, both of which Akthar has not been. Akhtar's run up makes him look very exciting. On his day he does very well, but the minute he is hit around for a few shots, he starts spraying the ball everywhere on the pitch. Lee has far more mental toughness than him. Lee's stats are also far better than Akhtar.
the don Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Lee has been both consistent and disciplined with his performances, both of which Akthar has not been. Akhtar's run up makes him look very exciting. On his day he does very well, but the minute he is hit around for a few shots, he starts spraying the ball everywhere on the pitch. Lee has far more mental toughness than him. Lee's stats are also far better than Akhtar. am i missing something??? isnt akhtars test average and strike rate way better............ and in one dayers there record is pretty similar with lee having a slightly better avge ......... or r u talkin abt vital stats ??
punjabi_khota Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Shoaib at his peak > any fast bowler at his peak in the past decade. If you are looking at batting, fielding, consistency as parameters, Brett Lee. Nope, I think Steyn has had better 'highs' than Shoaipe.
ganeshran Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 am i missing something??? isnt akhtars test average and strike rate way better............ and in one dayers there record is pretty similar with lee having a slightly better avge ......... or r u talkin abt vital stats ?? I posted their stats in an above post. Akhtar's test stats are better but he has played far fewer matches and taken fewer wickets than Lee. Lee's ODI stats are better even after playing so many more matches. Sustaining the same average when he takes the number of wickets Lee has, would be extremely dfficult given the kind of shape he is in. Stats are far difficult to maintain over longer periods of time,
Clarke Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Shoaib at his peak > any fast bowler at his peak in the past decade. If you are looking at batting, fielding, consistency as parameters, Brett Lee. :hysterical: Steyn & Mcgrath must be upcoming in ur posters or something.
RedFlow Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Akhtar at his peak was light years ahead of Lee. Akhtar at his worst is about as good as Lee. So Akhtar hands down. Akhtar never had the luxury of bowling in greentops' date=' an awesome fielding unit and the support of legends like Bucknor,Benson and Silva. I have never seen Lee trouble the likes of SRT,Lara,Kallis,Sehwag,Dravid,KP, etc.Akhtar on the other hand has dominated the top batsmen of his generation.[/quote'] Spot On. His wicket of Mahela against Srilanka was turning point.
Raghav_12 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 On his absolute peak Akthar was defintely better than Lee. But that absolutely peak lasted for very short period and for that reason I'll go for Lee. 200 test wickets is some kind of qualifying criteria to be considered as great bowler and Akhtar doesn't meet even that.
Karan114 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 On his absolute peak Akthar was defintely better than Lee. But that absolutely peak lasted for very short period and for that reason I'll go for Lee. 200 test wickets is some kind of qualifying criteria to be considered as great bowler and Akhtar doesn't meet even that. Good summary. Longevity means Lee will always be considered better, otherwise you may as well say that Bond was better than both Akhtar and Lee (averaged less than both).
Sooda Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 What Lee has in spades that Akhtar does not is heart. Hell bowl his backside off for you. Akhtar is far more talented though, his slower ball and cutters- Lee does not have anything like that in his arsenal
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now