Talk:Brett Lee/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Brett Lee Pig Handler? 2 Issue on page 3 Faster than Akhtar 4 What's with all this crap? 5 What hagiography? 6 What in the world?

[edit] Brett Lee Pig Handler?

I have removed the reference that says Brett Lee was the a pig handler in the movie babe. On IMBD there are four listed Brett Lees. Two of them seem to be him, but can we verify that he was the pig handler? The reference to the Brett Lee in Babe does not contain any other information about him, unlike the Changing Rooms episode and a hosting job he has done. Even if it was Brett handling the animals, is it relevant as an outside interest? (DavidMSpeed 19 February 2006)

I think it's notable if he was, but I doubt it was. Lee would have been about 18-19 at the time of filming? Rogerthat ^Talk 11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue on page

Something appears wrong with the batting style on the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss coolgal (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 June 2006

[edit] Faster than Akhtar

The line although Lee is said to bowl consistently faster spells than Akhtar and is considered by many batsmen as the faster of the two. [2] in the lead had a fact tag which has now been replaced by a link to a Telegraph article. I can't see anything in the article which corroborates that.

It is currently a weasel word. Even if some batsmen did say that an opinion should have no place in the lead of the article. It is a fact that Akhtar has bowled faster than Lee and the rest are all points of view and impressions and opinions. If you look around long enough, you'll probably find 'somebody' who considers Harmison, Bond or even Sami or Mohammad Zahid as the 'fastest bowler'. Include such opinions in the main text but not in the lead. Tintin (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I cleaned out the artilce last month and it is now having random anecdotes there turning it inot hagiography.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with all this crap?

This article was flowing nicely before all this helter-skelter editing! The article is all over the place. IMO, the older version was much better. (Liver01 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Interesting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: User is a sockpuppet of Star_cricketer. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What hagiography?

What hagiography?

Where in this article is there anything indicating that it's a hagiography? This article is neutral and remained neutral. It seems to me that there are individuals who'd prefer to see the article written as if Brett Lee is the worst fastbowler rather than a respected one.

The bit about the car he drives is a part of the endorsements section. There are proper references, therefore none should be removed. If it is meant to be a biography, then it should include whatever Brett Lee has achieved. Why was the bit about the coffee house removed? I don't see any reason to remove that. Cricket/cricketers do not exist in a vacuum. If it is so, then that same policy should be used on all articles on cricketers, no wait on every wikipedia article based on any person, which of course would make it all so uninteresting.

Why did Blnguyen remove cricket achievements such as an ODI hattrick? That looks more like a persona vendetta to make Brett Lee look like he achieved nothing.

Everyone was fine with it all along to make it a featured article before Lee was injured.

If I see this ridiculous editing continuing, then for sure everyone will realise that it is something personal against Brett Lee.-Starcricketer

The article was not neutral. It only reported the happy parts of his career, and did not include the controversy over his bowling action or the beamers. The lead was simply full of stuff about him being a super fast. He is a cricketer and his job is to take wickets. Otherwise when someone reads the article, they would think that if he is one of the fastest, he must be the best. Also I removed the comment from Lehmann, since being a team-mate, he is not in a neutral position to judge who is definitively better etc, so I removed it. The bit about him being the most exciting etc is again, subjective and subject to who you ask, a lot of people would rather what spin bowling, etc, etc.

The bit about the car and excessive details about one single restaurant and a segment on renovating and painting a house with his brother is not relevant. Unlike the fact that he is in a lot of commercials. I also removed the excessive detail about his songs, etc, since they are already in the article. We aren't here to make articles "interesting" or "catchy". It must be encyclopedic. I removed a whole lot of subjective fluff which came from his own website, that's not WP:RS.

I removed the stuff about him being an all rounder. He is not an all rounder, his batting ranking is about 90th in the world, and I gave reasons for removing the comment about the channel 9 bat/ball, since they are given out rather freely.

I deleted the list because it was already mentioned in the main text.

As for the cricket, a long while back I noted his double century against Sydney at the SCG and a series average of 60. All the media reports of his performance that season were highly critical of his performance, and nobody can say that a bowling average of 60 is acceptable. Someone whitewashed that part and replaced it with a sentence about bowling no balls.

The section also claimed that Kaspa vs Lee was a difficult choice and talks of "firepower and hostility" of Lee. It is POV and misleading, the reader can see for themselves that in the three years before he was finally dropped he averaged about 38 with the ball and conceded about 4/280 in his last Test. Since people are seeing why Kasprowicz was not dropped, they only need to see his average during that time, which was 25, much lower than Lee. It also had misleading weasel words stating that Lee took wickets in the low twenties, when the average was actually 25.74

I removed your quote that Richards said that Lee was better than Tendulkar. Unless it was a general consensus that Lee was better and the committee ripped him off, then it is biased to put in the opinion of one commentator. One could easily find another commentator who thinks that he is useless and put that in.

If you think that your version will pass WP:FAC then feel free to submit it. It would not pass. From reading the old version it seems as though Brett Lee is one of the best bowlers in the world. Look at the ICC Test rankings and it is clear that he is not close. And if you think I like denigrating certain people, read Harbhajan Singh, an FA I wrote. It makes full mention of how he got bashed for 0/376 against Pakistan in 2006....Harbhajan has certainly won more Tests for India than Brett Lee did for Australia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Harbhajan article included full details of suspect action and disciplinary incidents and all the rubbish performances and well as the good one. The old version of the Lee article did not contain these. Harbhajan has won 5 MotM and 2 MoS awards in Tests, he took 32 wickets in one 3 Test series, he took 19WI and 4WM. Lee has 7WI 2WM and 2MoS. The Harbhajan article fully mentions the fact that he has a bad average of 40 outside of home Indian pitches. The Lee article DOES NOT mention that outside the bouncy pitches of the southern hemisphere, that he averages 42. Every single ICC disciplinary breach by Harbhajan is in mentioned. Lee's 2001 breach for abusive language is currently not [1]. If either player is getting a soft run under my version, it is Lee. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the article was fair since it did contain pieces on whatever disciplinary action was taken against him and his bad bowling performances. I don't think that the Loss of Test Position was anything for Brett Lee to be happy about. If it is that anyone feels that something else should be added, that's what wikipedia is for. In the lead it states facts, he is a fast bowler, people even included other fastbowlers' fastest deliveries in it too. Everything in the lead points to Brett Lee being a cricketer. I don't see the difference if Lehmann said it or anyone else. It could have been an Indian cricketer who said it and nobody would have known if Brett Lee was possibly a friend of the person.

Comment interfere - It did not contain all the pieces on disciplinary action, since his obscene send-off to Bond in 2001 was not noted in the page. I do note that it was me who added the stuff about his down phases, since the other editors were not willing to do so. Same for the fact that he was reported for chucking, as I did for Harbhajan, and the beamers as well. You contributions consist entirely of selectively adding good results and fancruft to the article. Also note that I added the bits about Harbhajan giving rubbish performances as well as the good ones. A current teammate is not a a neutral commentator, so it should not be stated in the lead, where represenative general consensus is put. And as for the 2003-04 era, see the cricinfo collection. They are unanimously critical of his performances. The previous version, before I edited it simply whitewashed the thing without talking about his series bowling average. I included every series roundup for Harbhajan useless or otherwise, especially his 2006 performances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the page look as if it's finished? Of course all those pieces of info has to be put in, and it will be in due time!. Why don't you add that other piece of disciplinary action then, since it was you who missed it out. (Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

I've had enough experience with single-article editors to know that they have usually very strong opinions, and only selectively insert stuff which conforms to their POV. When contrary material is added, they tend to stall and become obstructive. It's obvious from your edits that you only add favourable stuff and celebrity material, and stall on all the rest. Especially as you deleted the sourced info about his bowling action and beamers again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break! Do you actually think that the rest of the world has little or no life like yourself?Star cricketer

The bit about the car is not excessive, it's endorsements, and like other cricketers on wikipedia who has theirs listed, Lee has also. Shouldn't eencyclopedia articles be interesting and not vague. The articles from the website were taken from news sites just in case you did not notice and the site isn't Lee's, it's some fan's who dedicated it to him.

Comment interfere - no they do not all have their cars listsed. No, encyclopedia articles should be exactly that, not celebrity tatlle. you can't have stuff from fansites. See WP:RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see total and absolute subjectivity here simply because you hate the guy!I suggest you go to the Flintoff page as well as the Harbhajan page and see what you can do over there! I also suggest you remove all these rumours about Harbhajan's potential love interests/arranged marriages and that he arranged his sisters' marriages, an encyclopedia doesn't need that! (Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

The total early years/family/endorsements section for both Harbhajan and Flintoff are smaller despite them being of larger size. Part of the Harbhajan section was actually about a police scuffle and not about endorsements/celebrity cruft as well. If you had your way, the proportion of that stuff on the Lee would be twice as large. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address the part about the potential marriages. Conveniently sidestepped?Star cricketer

It's not the ranking that matters, it's the simple rule of what your bowling and batting average is. Removing it shows that you are including your own POV.

Comment interfere - So I should put in a note that he is the regular Australian member of hte Australian team (As in 40+ Tests) in the last ten years with the worst bowling average? His bowling average is inferior to many other players around the world, despite conveniently not playing on the subcontinent, which saves his average from being bashed. He is not considered an all rounder. Why did you include his ODI ranking then, when you could have noted that Shane Bond has a better statistical record?????? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again that's your opinion! Why do I need to include Bond in Brett Lee's page? I didn't see you including Warne and Murali in Harbhajan's page to show that they are far more superior to him. And by the way, Bond vs Lee is still debatable as Bond hasn't played as many matches as Lee yet! I also don't think Bond has played that many in the sub-continent. Fell free to correct me if I'm wrong. (Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

I don't intend to put Bond in the Lee page, or any other bowler, I'm pointing out that since you feel that average is all that counts, why don't you rank him by average instead of quoting his ranking when he was #1 for a period. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To rank a player by average is stupid. I say that because a part-time bowler could bowl six overs, take wickets and have a tremendously good average, does that mean that this mediocre part-timer is one of the best bowlers in the world simply because of a good average? Of course not.Star cricketer

The bit on the Sydney test was still there, go back and check, and the bit about the no-ball problem is a fact. That's in the very same critical articles too!

Comment interfere - See the daily reports of that Test, did they spend 80% of the article saying stuff about the no-ball or the fact that he got clubbed by everybody including four fours by Parthiv Patel in one over? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that they mostly wrote about the no-ball problem? No! I said that it's a fact that there was a no-ball problem! All that info is in the same artcles and all read along the same wavelength.(Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

No, but your version emphasised the no ball problem above the fact that he was bowling erratically. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's what you'd want everyone to read, all the girls and all...Star cricketer

You don't even know the facts about the Kaspa-Lee choice. It was not an easy choice for selectors, you would know if you followed it up at the time. Lee was not dropeed, he was injured and the incumbent simply kept his place.

Comment interfere - Stop editorialising about this "hostility and firepower" - He is there to get wickets and he did not. Yes, everybody knows the selectors will always pick him no matter what, for commercial interests to get girls to watch cricket. I might point out that Kasprowicz had 5 series averaging under 25, and as soon as he averaged ~ 40 for one series he was dropped. Although for Lee, he did that for three years and probably not going to be dropped. Also stop adding hyperbole like astonishing assult etc or that he wuickly impressed without showing his stats. I removed the evidence that being on a hat-trick shows good form - no, everybody knows that in cricket, you can bowl a good ball and the batsman can miss it and a bad ball and it could get slooged to long on. So simply being on a hat-trick is not the appropriate evidence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then you should remove your bit on Harbhajan's hattrick! Again, it is a fact that he has a hat-trick, so it will be included! And I do believe that the selectors decision to drop Kaspa was justified after all the tripe he served up in the tests that he was chosen for in the Ashes '05 and the tour of South Africa last year. He was hardly given a bowl by the captain. I suppose he was useful in terms of the last match where he had to bat with Lee to win the match.And by the way give up the little boy antics about the girls, I challenge you to prove that, of course I know you can't, though. (Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

Well, I didn't remove anything about either of the hat-tricks, I simply noted the achievement. I removed the personal analysis linking good form to being or getting a hat-trick. And I will continue to remove your weasel words and peacock terms and replace them with numbers. Well of course I can't prove the selectors' interest, but most things run along money these days. Australia said that they want to play only the best teams. By that logic why do they not boycott India and play Bangladesh? TV rights. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then where is the bit about the hat-trick in achievements? After all, it is an achievement.Most things run along money and that's why Lee's in the team? Don't act stupid. Explain to me why Lee is in the top 3 range in CA's top contracted players? Are his looks worth that much? You are trying to depict Lee's value in the team as being lesser to other players like Hogg, Tait, etc.But then again, according to you, maybe they are better than Lee, after all, they're not as good-looking. Let me ask you this: if it is all about money, why wasn't Lee chosen to play in the CB series match in Sydney? They would have garnered big revenue if he played, right? A simple world cup doesn't make Bangladesh better than India. I suppose then that Kenya became one of the best teams in the world because they reached the semis last WC then? You're showing me how limited you cricket knowledge really is. All you do is regurgitate articles and statistics. I'm afraid you've become a walking PC yourself.Star cricketer

I think Richards comment is fine since he is a neutral commentator in this case.

Comment interfere - There was a committee which selected SRT as the MOTT, so this reflects a consensus that the commentators thought he was better. So Richards is not a selective source, and since the event did not garner any significant controversy, there is no need to document it. unless we include every pundit each time he has a not so good day?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't give a shit about Richards to tell you the truth. (Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).

Good for you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harbhajan has certainly won more Tests for India than Brett Lee did for Australia.

Seems to me that it's personal opinion here.

Comment interfere - Simply look at the number of MoTMs, although in this case, I mean the opinion of the commentators at large. Oh and its obvious that Harbhajan has won more Tests to the vast majority of cricket pundits, and his performances in the 2000-01 series were widely hailed by the whole cricket world. That's nothing to do with my POV, I'm telling you that the commentators feel that Harbhajan has done more, yet the wiki pages do not reflect this. I did not shy away from documenting Harbhajan's bad performances or that fact that his record outside the subconitned is rubbish, unlike your version of the Lee article, which does not note that Brett Lee's average outside the southern hemisphere is 40+. Check his average in Asia, it's 60! And if you compare it to the other fast bowlers who went on that tour, [2], you can see how bad he was [3]. Oh and despite having the worst average, he was the one not dropped (Gillespie was). By your logic, should I say that he was the worst player in the the Australian team?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't act like a newbie to cricket. You know that you can't compare a spinner and a fast bowler. Please get me the links to the articles where cricket pundits compare Lee and Harbhajan, I find that hard to believe. You are actually sounding childish now. Oh, and I thought that we couldn't use the thoughts of the commentators? I guess their thoughts are invalid in this ridiculous spinner/pacer comparison.I'm telling you that the commentators feel that Harbhajan has done more Show me where they compared them.(Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Except that they do. Do they have separate MotM, MotS for different styles of players. See the Wisden 100 for one thing, and whoever the commentators who give out these awards. Since these consensus is that he won more matches (from the MotM), we just report these awards. However, Lee has won less awards, but from reading the article it seems that people think he is better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't showed me where they compared them. You simply state that they do, with nothing to back up your statements. Again you're acting stupid. More MOTM & MOTS awards doesn't mean a player is better than another. Say, for eg; Abdur Razzak for Bangladesh wins more MOTM & MOTS awards than Lee or any other player for that matter, I suppose that means that he is a better cricketer than whoever else he has won more awards than. Of course not. That's simply ridiculous. And again, don't compare a spinner and pacer. Since they don't have different awards for different styles of players, maybe you should compare Ponting and Harbhajan then.Star cricketer

Don't you know that the rankings doesn't always indicate what a person's ability is? I personally think that Harbhajan is an over-rated(especially by indian fans) and crap cricketer who isn't half as good as a few other off-spinners around his own country and the world.And you don't see me feeling the need to put that on Harbhajan's page Also, anyone who knows anything about cricket would know to never compare an off-spinner to a fast-bowler! That's simply stupid.

Comment interfere - Well that's your opinion. Everybody knows that Brett Lee is just there in Tests at least, for the girls. Bowlers are compared to each other. If you don't think rankings mean anythign, why did you include that he was ranked #1 in ODIs? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then! I do believe that we have a condition of severe inferiority complex on our hands!Everybody knows that Brett Lee is just there in Tests at least, for the girls What are you, ten? Okay, you are childish then!Since everyone knows this, get some evidence and include it in the article! What really is your problem? Btw, I meant that you don't include the player's ranking as it constantly changes! Please note that when the ODI ranking was listed, it was done so in past tense to simply state that he once peaked in the ODI rankings and does not include his other placements before/after that! Since this bothers you so much, find out what was his highest ranking in test and include it!(Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Very good. Do feel free to try to continnuously whitewash the article with random weasel words while removing stats and info about his bowling action. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Selective reading and response. Well it is all about the girls, right?Star cricketer

It's obvious to me that you have some serious issue with Lee judging from what you removed. Why did you remove stuff on Jo Angel's arm getting broken? That's a fact! Why did you remove the bit about the number of wickets he took in his first few tests? That's a fact. Seems to me that you would prefer if Brett Lee looked as if he doesn't even have any ability at all. (Star cricketer 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)).

Comment interfere - I didn't remove the thing about the early career check again. As for all the dot points, they are already in the main body. As for the stuff about his teammates going to CBCA, I removed that, since the vast majority of Test players go there these days and it is to be expected. I don't have a serious issue, it's you who have the issue if you think your old version was neutral. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral is one thing, but we don't want the article sounding biased towards hatred for Lee, and that's exactly what's going on here. I don't think I have the serious issues, since it wasn't me who stated that he's in the team for the girls and in doing so, showed what the real problem here is! Mate, I suggest you get off you Pc and actually go out and play the game rather than read up on it like you do and maybe then your self-esteem might be boosted!(Star cricketer 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes, very good. What matters is what's on the article. It is you that is stifling progress on this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing all of the work that I have done on this article. Feel free to do whatever you please, as long as it's not my work.Star cricketer

It's not your work. Just below where you type, it says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." Every time you click "save page", you agree to that licensing. --Dweller 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What in the world?

I came here wondering why was this page being "vandalised" if you please, by people, only to realise that there is an editing war going on here. Here is my input: Blnguyen:You have some radically dumb views on cricket/cricketers judging from what I am reading here. How can you say that Lee is in the team for the girls? That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard in my life! If that is what you believe, then you are suggesting that some of the world's most respected batsmen such as Tendulkar are not as good as they seem. I do not think that Lee claimed 200 plus wickets by mere luck. Clearly, you have some type of jealously towards Lee and you should no longer edit this page because of that.

How can you say that a hat trick was by luck? Then every other hat trick by every other sportsman was by pure luck! At the end of the day, it is still an accomplishment in sport and should be included!

How can you remove the piece on the number of catches Lee took during the World Cup? In cricket, a catch is a catch! It is in the records.

If Lee is endorsed by car companies and he drives them, then it should be included in the profile.

Blnguyen, if you continue with what you are doing then you must be one serious loser who needs special help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajaylal (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello Star_cricketer.

When did I say that 200 wcikets is good luck. I simply noted that taking a hat-trick depends on luck, so you can't saw "this proves he was in good form". Dude I removed your personal commentary that taking a lot of catches proves that you are the best fielder. It does not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)