Harris is a decent bowler, gets a bit of turn and whenever I've seen him he's generally been tidy and hasn't offered much in the way of free runs.
His role has in most cases has been to block up & end given he is an accurate bowler. But too many times batsmen give him wickets, i remember KP & Symonds playing some awful shots to get out to him & a few others as well.
Besides, i give Harris credit for the attitudes batsman take to him in the same way that Warne should be credited for making batsman play him in awe. Everything about Harris just screams "incompetent", from his horrid bleached hairdo to his ridiculously inept batting style to his inadequate-looking action with no front arm (although aesthetics aside, it's actually a pretty efficient one). Then you throw a few fielding gaffes into the mix and the guy just seems like a clown.
All of which makes Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Symonds think "i'll be hitting this bell-end over long-on" and gifts the man big wickets. Once you get over the fact that Harris looks dire it's evident that he's actually a pretty good bowler.
Yeah there's always a handful of people too quick to judge on cosmetics, and Harris is going to be one of those most spectacularly understimated by such types. Harris is a perfectly OK bowler, as several have said. No worse than Pat Symcox or Nicky Boje, the two fingerspinners to have extended spells in South Africa's Test team post-readmission. And considerably better than Paul Adams.
I haven't seen a lot of Swann so far, but am looking forward to seeing him bowl in The Ashes.
Harris has a role in the South Africa side, and he does it well because he's a decent bowler. Given the right conditions he can pose problems, but if opposition batsmen want to have brain explosions and gift him wickets then that's up to them.
Uppercut put it quite nicely actually. If Warne is bowling beautifully, getting a bit of drift, landing it on a perfect length 6 balls out of 6 and ripping it, no batsman in his right mind would dream of giving him the charge. It's the same with any bowler, you play the ball and not the man.
I think that to a large extent, England's fortunes will depend on how well Graeme Swann bowls to the Australian left handers. In his short career so far he has excelled at bowling against left handed batsmen and has bagged a number of high class batsmen. He has the control and variation to cause them problems if and it's a big if the pitches offer some turn. We are due a hot summer by English standards so fingers crossed he can get the job done.
I'm guessing he will take 22 wickets at 28's - including one match winning performance.
I think Swann will be key to any chance England possess.
If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.
It's the result that determines the term, not the other way around.
That's pretty much exactly the point Will was making. Those who incite a certain reaction in the batsman - whether it be intimidation or contempt or whatever - have done so because of something off their own back. So thus, they deserve credit for it when it benefits them.
Equally, batsmen who are able to be strong-willed enough to play the ball and not the man tend to come rather closer to competing on terms.