• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Botham vs Flintoff

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
True, that should be twice he (Hoggard) was dropped, not once (it was very complicated in 2000 - his debut came in the last Test before a ODI series, and after that ODI series there was little doubt over a) the return of the captain and b) the need for a spinner. What I'd also question is - can a player called-up because of injury be dropped?), during The Ashes 2002\03 and SL 2003\04.
Still, given his performances I'd have dropped him many more times, and I still maintain that Harmison isn't a Test-class bowler and will go eventually unless he makes improvements.
I suppose the question over an injury replacement being dropped also applies to Harmison, who, IIRC, replaced the injured Jones against India in 2002 and didn't play at the start of the Ashes tour that winter. I didn't view that as a dropping either, FWIW.

Harmy's in the balance, isn't he. I struggle to believe that he could have taken over 60 test wickets in 2004 with the sort of crap we've seen in SA and beyond but I thought he still bowled poorly at Durham, despite picking up his fivefor. At least he did in the bits I saw. Why someone who bowls for a living can't make the batsmen play more than 2 or 3 times an over is beyond me. I do find him interesting though. We don't get any of the self-justification and removal from reality that we used to get from Caddick after a bad day - Harmison is usually pretty honest about his performances. He just doesn't seem to sort it out! And I don't know if you saw the interviews after the Lord's test, but I thought he looked terrified. Maybe it is still about nerves.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I just think it's about lack of basic skills.
I also thought you were one of the few who realised that Harmison being exposed did not start in SA but in the home WI series.
Fact is, Harmison had 7 miraculous Tests where he bowled, admittedly, better than he's ever bowled but still not extraordinarily well. And we've seen people do that before, even if not often for such spectacular results as this. There were times - only a few overs, at the start - where Harmison bowled better at The Riverside, but for most of the Bangladesh series he bowled every bit as poorly as he did in his last 9 Tests.
And given that his last 9 Tests matched exactly the pattern of his first 10-and-a-half, I hardly see that there's much justification for getting as excited about Harmison as almost everyone has done.
Oh - and yes, I too feel that the first time Harmison was picked as a first-choice was Adelaide 2002\03. And aside from that Headingley match he hasn't missed one (apart from the back-injury 4 in late 2003) since then.
 
Last edited:

Steulen

International Regular
Harmison is a strange fellow, surely.

He was hopeless in SA, apart from one over to Kallis (I think it was in the Cape Town Test) which invoked memories of Donald vs. Atherton. Then he went back to pie-throwing.

He's just horribly inconsistent. An unstable mind, perhaps? (Worse, he seems to have infected former Mr. Reliable Hoggard with the same virus).

Harmy's first spell in the first Ashes Test may well make him or break him for the series
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Even that one over wasn't amazing - Kallis survived, didn't he?
I don't think Harmison's particularly unstable in the head, indeed as Dave Lewis says he's not one to shy away from what's gone wrong, just nowhere near as talented as some have seemed to think.
 

Steulen

International Regular
Kallis did survive, but it still was an over of exceptional bowling. Kallis (not exactly the worst batsman) was clueless. That he survived was a minor distraction. IIRC, he got hit on the glove and was beaten twice.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And getting beaten and hitting the glove doesn't get wickets. Yes, it was a good over but it wasn't really much to shout about.
If he'd bowled a few more like it maybe it might be.
I've just watched a Martin Bicknell over that was far better.
 

Steulen

International Regular
Richard said:
And getting beaten and hitting the glove doesn't get wickets. Yes, it was a good over but it wasn't really much to shout about.
If he'd bowled a few more like it maybe it might be.
I've just watched a Martin Bicknell over that was far better.
Interesting that you, of all people, should base your opinion on the outcome more than on the actual quality on show :).

I've been listening to the radio commentary of Middlesex vs. Surrey...apparently the bowlers were very unlucky with the opening pair consistently playing and missing, yet going into lunch with an unbeaten 89-run stand. Three quick dismissals after lunch have brought back the balance..Styris has just gone into bat, close LBW shout first ball as well.
 

Steulen

International Regular
Richard said:
And getting beaten and hitting the glove doesn't get wickets. Yes, it was a good over but it wasn't really much to shout about.
If he'd bowled a few more like it maybe it might be.
I've just watched a Martin Bicknell over that was far better.
...which was my whole point on Harmy...how can he bowl one over like that and throw pies for months before and after.

BTW, is this how you guys get those 10,000 posts? Replying twice to the same message? :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Steulen said:
Interesting that you, of all people, should base your opinion on the outcome more than on the actual quality on show :).
Why? The outcome is almost always actually reprisentative of the quality on show, and in Harmison's case it applied too - the quality, for the most part, was execrable and a series average of 70-odd reprisented that very well.
I've been listening to the radio commentary of Middlesex vs. Surrey...apparently the bowlers were very unlucky with the opening pair consistently playing and missing, yet going into lunch with an unbeaten 89-run stand. Three quick dismissals after lunch have brought back the balance..Styris has just gone into bat, close LBW shout first ball as well.

...which was my whole point on Harmy...how can he bowl one over like that and throw pies for months before and after.
Thing is, of course, Bicknell has thrown pies only about half the time this season - and he's almost always mixed-in wicket-taking deliveries with it when he has.
Styris, incidentally, was absolutely plumb 1st ball - and was then given lbw when it was not as dead as first looked.
BTW, is this how you guys get those 10,000 posts? Replying twice to the same message? :)
I have done that very occasionally, but not incredibly often. Nor, where I've noticed, have Liam or Neil or the like.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
And getting beaten and hitting the glove doesn't get wickets. Yes, it was a good over but it wasn't really much to shout about.
If he'd bowled a few more like it maybe it might be.
I've just watched a Martin Bicknell over that was far better.
Is the game actually on the telly, or are you down at Lord's?
 

Shounak

Banned
Richard said:
The outcome is almost always actually reprisentative of the quality on show
You were mentioning in this post and this one that the fact that the fact that Sehwag was dropped twice is "everything" in determing how (Sehwag) the batsman played. Despite the outcome being a mammoth 309. You were arguing that two drop catches in some way discount his 309.

Yet in the above quote you say that the outcome is representative of the quality on show.

Do you think the outcome is representative or not?
 

Steulen

International Regular
shounak said:
You were mentioning in this post and this one that the fact that the fact that Sehwag was dropped twice is "everything" in determing how (Sehwag) the batsman played. Despite the outcome being a mammoth 309. You were arguing that two drop catches in some way discount his 309.

Yet in the above quote you say that the outcome is representative of the quality on show.

Do you think the outcome is representative or not?
Exactly what I meant with the "you of all people" remark
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Err - do you not understand that a chance being given is an outcome?
I can make it no simpler than that.
 

Shounak

Banned
Richard said:
Err - do you not understand that a chance being given is an outcome?
I can make it no simpler than that.
A chance being given is not an outcome.. It's simply part of the process.. You say Sehwag was dropped twice in the 70's, a chance was given but that does not mean the outcome was a score in the 70's. The outcome was a 309.

An outcome results from utilising a chance. Ie, Sehwag could've thought to himself, "damn, i got dropped, that must mean the outcome will be I will only end up with an outcome of 70". But no, he made best use of the chances afforded to him by Pakistan and created an outcome of a score of 309..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Whether or not the outcome of the innings was 309, fact is another outcome was 2 dropped catches in the 70s, and nothing will change the fact that he doesn't deserve any credit for those.
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
Chances are a part of cricket mate, I'm going to use AFL for an example, if I kick seven goals nine, that doesn't mean the outcome is that I get 16 goals.
 

Steulen

International Regular
Richard, you said Harmison didn't deserve credit for his one over to Kallis, because at the end of it Kallis was still there. That's pure outcome reasoning (or "scoreboard journalism", as a Dutch soccer coach of some fame calls it).

But you have on countless occasions derided big batting scores (notably, Lara's big innings, Sehwag's 309) as lucky extensions after spilled catches, etc; the opposite of outcome reasoning.

I can't see the consistency in your argumentation.
 

Top