Graeme Swann

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Obviously weren't watching the third SA-Aus test in March then. Harris well and truly ripped them open.

I saw the test of course. He got some turn & bowled well - i give him some credit. But he didn't rip them open by any means, the way of Johnson smashed him at the end, showed that maybe again - Australia batting didn't play him with enough conviction.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

That's the batsmen's own stupid fault though.

Exactly. Thats why his record do date, flatters him.

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.

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

He's taken 70-odd wickets at 32 or 33, and that's entirely a fair reflection of his ability. He's decent. He's nothing special, but nor is he a rank pie chucker either.

I have seen him in 14 test, (3 vs IND, 5 vs ENG, 6 vs AUS). In which in SA's 5-man attack where the quicks 90% excpet of Chennai, Lord's & a on 50/50 basis vs AUS - the quicks have had the opposition batting-lineups under control.

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.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by aussie

I saw the test of course. He got some turn & bowled well - i give him some credit. But he didn't rip them open by any means, the way of Johnson smashed him at the end, showed that maybe again - Australia batting didn't play him with enough conviction.

It's odd- you say he only normally gets wickets because batsman are too aggressive to him, but now you're saying he only got wickets in that match because noone was attacking him. There's a bit of a lack of consistency there.

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.

[Richard]

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.

[Son Of Coco]

I haven't seen a lot of Swann so far, but am looking forward to seeing him bowl in The Ashes.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by aussie

I have seen him in 14 test, (3 vs IND, 5 vs ENG, 6 vs AUS). In which in SA's 5-man attack where the quicks 90% excpet of Chennai, Lord's & a on 50/50 basis vs AUS - the quicks have had the opposition batting-lineups under control.

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.

To be expected. SA's quicks are better bowlers than Harris.

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.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

Pietersen is an interesting example to use. At times he's played Warne and Murali very well, even smashed them on a couple of occasions, yet he's got himself into plenty of trouble against spinners who aren't anywhere near as good as those two. Primarily in my opinion because of a lack of respect.

[Oasisbob]

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.

[Bonnie Prince C]

Swann>>>Hauritz

I think Swann will be key to any chance England possess.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's odd- you say he only normally gets wickets because batsman are too aggressive to him, but now you're saying he only got wickets in that match because noone was attacking him. There's a bit of a lack of consistency there.

I'm not changing my position. That one instance in Capetown, the series was already won by Australia & did play a bit lazily. But overall Harris doesn't get wicket because he does anything special with the ball - but rather due to batsmen being stupidy aggressive towards him.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

I don't see how you can give him credit. Harris as i mentioned before, gets wickets given that batsmen as an ease in pressure after Steyn/Ntini/Morkel come out of the attack.

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

I am not judging him on his demenour at all. I'd say if KP & Symo hadn't played such shots againts him he would look even more pedestrian.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

"Controlled aggression" is essentially a figment of imagination. It basically means "aggression that comes-off". If agressive strokes fail they're perceived as reckless; if they succeed they're perceived as controlled aggression.

It's the result that determines the term, not the other way around.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by aussie

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

That's like saying "if batsmen played Shane Warne with more conviction, he wouldn't be so effective". Or "if batsmen weren't so terrified of Curtly Ambrose, they wouldn't get out to him so often." The attitudes batsmen take to you are part and parcel of your bowling, and hence you deserve credit when it benefits you. Batsmen didn't play Warne with more conviction, and they didn't counter the fear factor of Ambrose, so it's a stupid thing to say.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

That's like saying "if batsmen played Shane Warne with more conviction, he wouldn't be so effective". Or "if batsmen weren't so terrified of Curtly Ambrose, they wouldn't get out to him so often." The attitudes batsmen take to you are part and parcel of your bowling, and hence you deserve credit when it benefits you. Batsmen didn't play Warne with more conviction, and they didn't counter the fear factor of Ambrose, so it's a stupid thing to say.

But they could have. It is intimidation. Guy like Ambrose, Warne, Tyson and Lomu (the last 2 I had a conversation about this topic today) were all great players but were better because they could intimidate. Those that could get past that still faced great players but they were mortal. Those that were intimidated faced 'Gods'.

[Richard]

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.

[Jakester1288]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

I haven't seen a lot of Swann so far, but am looking forward to seeing him bowl in The Ashes.

Same here. I'm really keen to see how he goes, how the Aussies handle him, and if the Australian batmsen (particularly the left handers) can nullify him.