Steve Harmison v Brett Lee

[pietersenrocks]

Lee for his consistency

 

[pietersenrocks]

I'd pick McGrath :{

Mcgrath is always the best.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Lee for his consistency

Consistently what tho?

Some of the arguments in this thread are pretty ridiculous, in Tests I'll go with Harmison... because he's err... *better* - absurd basis that it is for actually choosing one or the other.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Consistently what tho?

Some of the arguments in this thread are pretty ridiculous, in Tests I'll go with Harmison... because he's err... *better* - absurd basis that it is for actually choosing one or the other.

One usually accompanies "better" with a reason. Harmison has been better over the course of his career because, even though he regularly goes to pieces like Lee, he's a more dangerous bowler when he gets it right. Lee's been improving to the point where he no longer goes to pieces and gets 0/100 off 20 overs every 5th match, and that consistency could make him a better bowler than someone who is occasionally very good and usually quite poor.

There's certainly no question that in the last 12 months Lee has been a better test bowler than Harmison, and that in the couple of years before that Harmison was much better. It's actually quite hard to pick where it will go from here.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hmmm... I've been writing an article on this topic for the past month or so...

 

[wpdavid]

One usually accompanies "better" with a reason. Harmison has been better over the course of his career because, even though he regularly goes to pieces like Lee, he's a more dangerous bowler when he gets it right. Lee's been improving to the point where he no longer goes to pieces and gets 0/100 off 20 overs every 5th match, and that consistency could make him a better bowler than someone who is occasionally very good and usually quite poor.

There's certainly no question that in the last 12 months Lee has been a better test bowler than Harmison, and that in the couple of years before that Harmison was much better. It's actually quite hard to pick where it will go from here.

Given the trend over the last 20 months or so, I'd expect Lee to leave Harmison miles behind. You couldn't honestly say that Harmy was good for a couple of years It was about 6 months really, followed by two years of what could generously be described as mediocrity, apart from 2 good innings (Lords 1 in 2005 & OT 1 in 2006). It was obvious that Lee was showing signs of progress in the Ashes, even if his series average wasn't pretty, and his subsequent performances against SA have confirmed that he's on the up. Harmy may be extremely dangerous when he gets it right, but it's incredibly rare, and he's incredibly lucky to be an automatic pick. If he's a non-event again this winter then I'd call it a day. If he proves me wrong then iI'll be delighted to admit it.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Hmmm... I've been writing an article on this topic for the past month or so...

Longest article in the history of CW?

Oh, and incidentally, started uni yet Liam? (The lectures part I mean, not the week-long binge that is Freshers' Week )

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Given the trend over the last 20 months or so, I'd expect Lee to leave Harmison miles behind. You couldn't honestly say that Harmy was good for a couple of years It was about 6 months really, followed by two years of what could generously be described as mediocrity, apart from 2 good innings (Lords 1 in 2005 & OT 1 in 2006). It was obvious that Lee was showing signs of progress in the Ashes, even if his series average wasn't pretty, and his subsequent performances against SA have confirmed that he's on the up. Harmy may be extremely dangerous when he gets it right, but it's incredibly rare, and he's incredibly lucky to be an automatic pick. If he's a non-event again this winter then I'd call it a day. If he proves me wrong then iI'll be delighted to admit it.

Lee's still got a bit to prove obviously, especially against batsmen who really attack him. He lorded over the likes of Smith and Kallis last summer, but they never really went after him, and England will obviously do that. I expect he'll go okay though, and if he has another summer like last one he'll certainly be among the best fast bowlers in the world in tests.

I've never really rated Harmison that highly, so I guess I agree generally. He's a good bowler when he has the right sort of conditions, but Shane Watson's taken 11 wickets in a match on a helpful pitch too (albeit a first class match). The test of a good bowler is obviously performing in a range of conditions, and Harmison just isn't consistent enough to be rated among the best in the world. He's a handy part of a strong five-man attack including Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff, but I wouldn't want to rely on him to lead a bowling attack.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Its a very good question, and Im going to say Harmison. Theyve both been sent for alot of runs off not alot of overs, but have also taken quite a number of wickets. But Harmison in the WI 2004 (7-12) is the man who practically got me interested in cricket, so I go for him

 

[grecian]

Lee is the most underrated bowler on these forums his performances in the last 8-10 test matches matches up to his performances in the first 7, and only an idiot can say Lee dosent do much with the ball he is one of the best exponents of swing bowling.

Hmm, resident idiot here. I saw the guy bowl at the Oval* , and have been told that was an atypical performance, I didn't see him move it off the straight and narrow once.

I only talk about tests, as I'm not a massive fan of pyjama cricket.

* Yes I was there, thank you Daily Telegraph Fantasy cricket comp.

 

[FRAZ]

Was Harmi ,now Lee !!

 

[open365]

Mmmmm....

Harmison as people have said is great on his day, but i'm begining to think more and more now that he relys more on conditions to get his wickets than any other bowler in test cricket.

I mean, most days he's absolutely useless, but compare that to when he takes wickets and it's crazy, that gap between his bowling in incredible, there seems to be no middle ground.

 

[GIMH]

General consensus seems to be that harmison is more talented but that Brett lee is more...reliable.

If I was to have the option of picking one of them for a five Test series, I would select harmison. He would most likely have 1 stinker, 2 quiet games, 1 good game, and one mesmerising game, his mesmering performances are generally matchwinning ones, and even when he has a quiet game, he is more than capable of pulling something out of nowhere all of a sudden, ie Clarke last ball day 3 Edgbaston.

Brett Lee is good, but I'd rather have Harmy, but then you all knew that I'd say that anyway, didn't you?

 

[haroon510]

bret lee
he is more consistent.

 

[silentstriker]

Shane Warne.















/Ok, I'll stop trolling now.

 

[adharcric]

Ok, I'll stop trolling now.

We're all quite accustomed to it by now.

 

[Natman20]

How about Shane Bond (prob not proven enough I guess)

Lee is a threat in Tests but not as great as that of bowlers such as McGrath or even some of the others in Australia that are slightly slower than him. I think both bowlers are suited to different conditions and if everything clicks either of them have potential to produce devastating spells. I think as fast bowlers their spells generally can't be very long so they have to produce the goods from go.

 

[age_master]

Generally speaking, Harmison is better in tests. Lee's come a long way in the last year or so though, and if he bowls like he did last summer in tests all the time, he'll be better.

Incidentally, when I say "last summer" I'm referring to the Australian summer, not the Ashes.

agreed. Lee is also an excellent fielder and a handy batsman

 

[silentstriker]

We're all quite accustomed to it by now.

Err, actually, I almost never troll. I just disagree with your assertions that the current Indian pace attack is the second coming of Marshall and Ambrose.



Yes, I know you didn't actually say that.

 

[UncleTheOne]

agreed. Lee is also an excellent fielder and a handy batsman

Again Harmison is fairly good with the bat down the order when he bothers, should be above Hoggard. But most of the time he looks as though he'd rather be somewhere else.