Ashes Blog - http://www.cricketweb.net/blog/asheshq/

[Richard]

And Brett Lee has now essentially secured his place for the series opener.

[superkingdave]

And Brett Lee has now essentially secured his place for the series opener.

His spell was either side of tea not lunch wasn't it?

[Richard]

So it was.

[Uppercut]

And Brett Lee has now essentially secured his place for the series opener.

Nice piece- you're really giving him a fair shot, despite generally being very critical of him at times.

[GIMH]

Great News - Pietersen Fails

[Burgey]

Nice work Martyn and Rich. Both good reads there.

[NUFAN]

Enjoyed this line:

In the week which saw Michael Jackson depart for an enigmatic 50, it was somehow appropriate that Mike Hussey shrugged off his year-long impersonation of a zombie from the "Thriller" clip to post an off-the-wall 140 odd not out (sorry).

Turns out even fitting that he was out for an even 150.

The articles have been fantastic so far.

[Uppercut]

Cricket Web - Ashes HQ: Steve Harmison? Really?

[GIMH]

Great piece, completely agree

[BoyBrumby]

Great piece, completely agree

Puts far too negative a spin on things for me. Yes, he's only taken six wickets in a tour match, but if one were pro Harmison one could equally say he's taken double the amount of either of his seam rivals have managed in their last outings. &, whilst it's obviously UC's own opinion, I really don't think of Harmison as a man who doesn't ever make one feel he's going to take test wickets when he comes on. It becomes immediately apparent if it's good Harmy or bad Harmy who's turned up when he's bowled his first couple of deliveries, but he has taken over 200 of them, so the hope is always there in my mind. It's a faint hope often tho and picking him is really dependent on whether the selectors are minded to gamble.

[Uppercut]

Puts far too negative a spin on things for me. Yes, he's only taken six wickets in a tour match, but if one were pro Harmison one could equally say he's taken double the amount of either of his seam rivals have managed in their last outings. &, whilst it's obviously UC's own opinion, I really don't think of Harmison as a man who doesn't ever make one feel he's going to take test wickets when he comes on. It becomes immediately apparent if it's good Harmy or bad Harmy who's turned up when he's bowled his first couple of deliveries, but he has taken over 200 of them, so the hope is always there in my mind. It's a faint hope often tho and picking him is really dependent on whether the selectors are minded to gamble.

I think good Harmy is a bit overrated anyway. Typical Good Harmy bowling is what he did against South Africa last year, making batsmen uncomfortable, taking an important wicket or two and ending up with respectable figures like 4/120. It's been three years since he took a five wicket haul. Good Sidebottom bowling, on the other hand, is taking piles and piles of wickets with lethal inswing.

My question is, why gamble on Harmison playing well when you get much better value on Sidebottom? Sidey's surely more likely to hit form- after all, his peak was barely a year ago. And not only that, but if he does hit form, he'll be far more dangerous than an on-form Harmison will be. The value just isn't there with punting on Harmison.

Could make the same argument re: Onions if you prefer.

[BoyBrumby]

I think good Harmy is a bit overrated anyway. Typical Good Harmy bowling is what he did against South Africa last year, making batsmen uncomfortable, taking an important wicket or two and ending up with respectable figures like 4/120. It's been three years since he took a five wicket haul. Good Sidebottom bowling, on the other hand, is taking piles and piles of wickets with lethal inswing.

My question is, why gamble on Harmison playing well when you get much better value on Sidebottom? Sidey's surely more likely to hit form- after all, his peak was barely a year ago. And not only that, but if he does hit form, he'll be far more dangerous than an on-form Harmison will be. The value just isn't there with punting on Harmison.

Could make the same argument re: Onions if you prefer.

As I intimated, it depends entirely what slant one wishes to put on things. If I were anti Sid (I'm not, but for the purposes of illustration) I could equally point out that his reputation rests entirely on tests against the West Indies and New Zealand; against better quality oppostion (India, Sri Lanka & SA) his figures are mediocre at best. There's also the issue of his back and weight; bowling top pace seems to do horrible things to his back, weight comes on, pace goes down, swing negated.

Onions has a strong case for selection, he is the leading FC wicket taker in the country after all, but has been outbowled by Harmison in this match and, worringly, hasn't hurried the batsmen in the second innings as he did in the first. A pessimistic reading might be that having had a look at him and deduced he's faster than he looks his shock value has been reduced.

I'm not advocating Harmison's selection, I hasten to add, but I don't subscribe to what I'll call the Dickinson fallacy: that he's never been any good. He supports this by taking out the games where he's performed well and citing the subsequent mediocrity. It's the worst kind of reductive thinking because it's true of any player: good performances are dismissed as aberrations, bad ones that fit his position seized on as irrefutable proof. Sentences like "Steve Harmison, for all his supposed pace and bounce, isn't a man I ever feel is going to take any wickets when he comes on to bowl", seem to sail dangerously close to this.

[Uppercut]

As I intimated, it depends entirely what slant one wishes to put on things. If I were anti Sid (I'm not, but for the purposes of illustration) I could equally point out that his reputation rests entirely on tests against the West Indies and New Zealand; against better quality oppostion (India, Sri Lanka & SA) his figures are mediocre at best. There's also the issue of his back and weight; bowling top pace seems to do horrible things to his back, weight comes on, pace goes down, swing negated.

Onions has a strong case for selection, he is the leading FC wicket taker in the country after all, but has been outbowled by Harmison in this match and, worringly, hasn't hurried the batsmen in the second innings as he did in the first. A pessimistic reading might be that having had a look at him and deduced he's faster than he looks his shock value has been reduced.

I'm not advocating Harmison's selection, I hasten to add, but I don't subscribe to what I'll call the Dickinson fallacy: that he's never been any good. He supports this by taking out the games where he's performed well and citing the subsequent mediocrity. It's the worst kind of reductive thinking because it's true of any player: good performances are dismissed as aberrations, bad ones that fit his position seized on as irrefutable proof. Sentences like "Steve Harmison, for all his supposed pace and bounce, isn't a man I ever feel is going to take any wickets when he comes on to bowl", seem to sail dangerously close to this.

The reason I don't feel he's going to take any wickets is because he so rarely does. I'm not in agreement with Dicko that Harmison was never any good, but it was so long ago. Some people need to get over the fact that he's not who he was in 2005. When I talk about never feeling like Harmison will take a wicket, I'm referring to the present. Five years ago was a different (and completely irrelevant) story.

[BoyBrumby]

The reason I don't feel he's going to take any wickets is because he so rarely does. I'm not in agreement with Dicko that Harmison was never any good, but it was so long ago. Some people need to get over the fact that he's not who he was in 2005. When I talk about never feeling like Harmison will take a wicket, I'm referring to the present. Five years ago was a different (and completely irrelevant) story.

Fair enough and flashes have been thin on the ground since, yes. His selection depends whether one's minded to gamble, as I said. I personally wouldn't be because of what's gone before but equally it seems counter intuitive to say a bowler who has outperformed both of his main rivals doesn't ever give you the feeling he'll take wickets because, if he doesn't, why do they?

[Uppercut]

Fair enough and flashes have been thin on the ground since, yes. His selection depends whether one's minded to gamble, as I said. I personally wouldn't be because of what's gone before but equally it seems counter intuitive to say a bowler who has outperformed both of his main rivals doesn't ever give you the feeling he'll take wickets because, if he doesn't, why do they?

In Onions's case, because he's outbowled Harmison comprehensively for Durham all season. In Sidebottom's case, I don't really, but if he was fit then he certainly would, and if you're going to gamble on someone's fitness why not do it on Sidey's? He's the better bowler.

But I'd take Onions.