So......was Richard Dickinson right about Harmo and Graeme Smith ?

[adharcric]

He's bowled rubbish about five times. His good spells and high strike rate seem to make up for that, but when the pitch does less or a batting lineup is more determined, he'll struggle for sure.

He has had a very good series, but not top class, regardless of his average. Zaheer Khan is averaging 32.37 with the ball in two very bowler friendly wickets, but you wouldn't say he is having a rubbish series, would you? Zaheer Khan has had a good series and Sreesanth a very good one.

Not top class, no.

That's a load of rubbish. Sreesanth has bowled only two or three bad spells and he's delivered huge partnership-breaking wickets with the old ball for Dravid. You may have your own definition of top-class, but if Sreesanth hasn't been top-class in this series ... no one has. He's been the standout performer.

Also, you know who has had a 'Top Class' series? Pollock. In two test matches, he is averaging 13.75, with hardly a bad spell to speak of.

Ntini: average 15.92
Nel: average 24

So he'd be the #3 pace bowler in this series if you go on averages. But in reality, Pollock is the only one who has had a top class series, Ntini and Sreesanth a very good one, and Nel and Zaheer a good one.

Pollock has been very good as well, but he doesn't compare to Sreesanth in this series. His average is low because he's been so economical, but test cricket is about taking wickets and that's where Sreesanth stands out. Pollock's strike rate is a brilliant 43, but Sreesanth ... 34. You should appreciate that because you breathe stats and only stats. Stats don't tell the whole story though. Sreesanth has produced match-winning spells in this series while Pollock has been consistently very good but not quite dominant. Please don't compare Ntini to Sreesanth - he's bowled several bad spells and hasn't really earned most of his wickets. Pollock and Ntini are miles ahead of Sreesanth in terms of class right now, but Sreesanth has been the best bowler on display. Let me deliver the final blow - Sreesanth has 17 (out of 18) top-order wickets and Pollock has 6 (out of 12) top-order wickets.

Sreesanth >>> Pollock >> Nel/Kumble >> Ntini. Note that Nel has bowled very well but hasn't gotten as many wickets. Like Liam said, stats don't tell the whole story.

FFS, get over your preconception that Indian pace bowlers are rubbish by default. You said you would give them credit when it's due and it's time you live up to that.

 

[Richard]

I hope people will forgive me a dig here TBH... but delete it if you must.

Some of the posts here really frustrate me, ITBT. I cannot believe people really think the sort of stuff they said here - if they do, they're hopelessly wrong.

Now if I can remember correctly, Richard always used to deride Harmison as overhyped and a 'lucky' bowler ....ie a bowler who got most of his wickets not thru his own skill but the batsmen gifting them away...

Richard also used to say that Graeme Smith was a great batsman in the making.....


Just wondering what people make of his views a year or so after he expressed them ?

It was more than a year, Sal, quite a bit more...

And I'm attaching evidence that the best of us can and do change our minds. In the form of your current sig complete with this post.

He was certainly right about Harmison. I don't know about the "luck" element, but about him not being accurate enough to be a consistent success at test level. Obviously way off the mark about Smith though, who he called the best since Bradman.

It's worth remembering that Richard called heaps of bowlers lucky. Basically anyone who ever got wickets in any way other than with deliveries that swung two feet was lucky. McGrath was lucky because deliveries that seam 2-3 inches aren't any good because a batsman can "adjust" to that amount of movement. Mark Ealham on the other hand was brilliant because he swung the ball. Basically, his theories about bowling were totally warped and the fact that he was more or less correct about Harmison doesn't matter much.

I know that you really do believe this, but I honestly question how you got the impression. You really could not have been reading my posts with any great clarity, and I'd not normally put you down as the sort to construct strawmen to knock down.

I never really thought Richard understood enough about bowling...which is why he put a lot of player's successes down to luck. He was right about Harmison though, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that with that action, and not enough application, things will go horribly wrong.

Yep. Let's not forget he (unironically) claimed to know more about Flintoff's bowling than Fred himself.

This is another misconception-ridden thing.

He seemed to think a lot of bowlers were crap, one of them was bound to prove him right.

Particularly disappointing from you TBH. Yes, a lot of bowlers are crap. Not just Harmison.

Well seeing as one of his proclamations on Harmy was "Steve Harmison is unable to bowl well", I'd give him 0/2.

Well, yeah, I'd say he isn't, and hasn't. Yes, I know most like to believe he did on the occasion he bowled better than he normally did (in West Indies and at home to New Zealand in early 2004) and plenty even that he did when he bowled his usual heap of rubbish (pretty much for 2 years after said better-than-usual period). But he never actually got batsmen out, even on the exceptionally rare occasion he managed to get the ball in the right place. There have been other instances since that series where he's put the ball in the right place, too, and on these occasions that batsmen haven't got out to him.

 

[Perm]

Graeme Smith is gun.