Harmison and the 2005 Ashes

[Swervy]

This is something that cropped up in the Simon Jones thread which was locked.

I think it is worthy of further discussion to be honest. Richard has basically said that Harmison only deserved credit for 3 wickets in important situations, ie the last 4 tests. Seems a bit harsh, considering Harmison took a lot of wickets in the first test, which England eventually lost heavily, but in fact the games result could have gone either way for a large chunk of the game.

Now for me, Harmison was every bit a part of that England series performance as anyone. I feel he was part of a high quality pace attack which gave Australia very little respite through out the series.

Now this is how Richard has broken Harmisons wickets down:

Here's the wickets that went to Harmison's name in the scorebook in the 4 Tests of importance:
Clarke bowled - good piece of bowling, though not as good as it's sometimes been made-out
Kasprowicz caught behind - should already have been out to other bowlers 3 times, and is a tailender of very limited ability
Martyn lbw - poor decision, was a clear inside-edge
Ponting caught behind - game almost over by then, and was hardly an impressive delivery anyway, down the leg-side
Clarke lbw - straight ball that was missed, out
Katich lbw - absolutely terrible decision, pitched a mile outside leg
Kasprowicz caught behind - tailender
Tait bowled - tailender, one of the most stupid shots in history to boot
Langer bowled - off the inside-edge, very poor stroke

See? 3 dismissals worth consideration, and none of them were even to particularly special deliveries.

Is breaking things down like this a fair way of doing it?

Don't all bowlers get the benefit of dodgy decisons, and don't they all get the fuzzy end of them as well. Any bad/debatable decisions against Harmison havent been included in the above.

Is looking at wickets alone the best way of assessing a bowlers contribution?

My memories of that series are that England bowled as a team as well as they have done for as long long as I can remember, and Harmison was an integral part of that team performance. Each bowler had a role, and I think Harmison did a job for England which contributed. Whether England lost the first test or not, when he took a bulk of wickets, seems irrelevent to me to be honest. Poor batting by England and good bowling by McGrath and Warne shouldn't detract from Harmisons bowling performance.

Any views?

 

[Richard]

A few...

Harmison's percentage of wickets from poor decisions was higher than any of the other England bowlers in that series;

No, Harmison was not part of a high-quality seam attack in the 4 Tests that mattered to England's victory, he was a single weak-link which didn't matter because someone of Flintoff, Jones or Hoggard always stepped-up to the plate.

There was never any real chance of England winning the First Test; after McGrath's spell (massively, massively superior to Harmison's, McGrath taking top-order wickets with high-calibre deliveries all, Harmison knocking-over the last 4 wickets with nothing balls) on the opening afternoon we were always doomed, and only stupid optimists thought we had any real chance from then on.

Even though the First Test was irrelevant to England's series victory, Harmison did not bowl well in it! He took 1 top-order wicket with a decent ball in each innings (Ponting in the first, Martyn in the second) and every other wicket was either a tail-ender or Katich gifting his wicket because he was batting with the tail. Yeah, wow, he hit Hayden and Ponting - ****loads of batsmen got hit by bowlers from both teams in that game, it was a very difficult batting pitch.

Saying "each bowler had a role and Harmison did his" is nothing more than that thing that people like to do sometimes, and credit everyone possible. Heck, even Gary Pratt usually benefits in this case. And IMO it's nonsense. A bowler's role is to take wickets at a good rate, nothing more. Harmison did not do this in the Tests that earned the series victory. Hence, I don't care if he was perceived to be ruffing-up batsmen or any nonsense like that, because he wasn't, he was just letting the valve off by usually gifting a few runs, before Vaughan took him off and brought someone else on who covered for his inadaquecies.

 

[Swervy]

A few...

Harmison's percentage of wickets from poor decisions was higher than any of the other England bowlers in that series;

No, Harmison was not part of a high-quality seam attack in the 4 Tests that mattered to England's victory, he was a single weak-link which didn't matter because someone of Flintoff, Jones or Hoggard always stepped-up to the plate.

There was never any real chance of England winning the First Test; after McGrath's spell (massively, massively superior to Harmison's, McGrath taking top-order wickets with high-calibre deliveries all, Harmison knocking-over the last 4 wickets with nothing balls) on the opening afternoon we were always doomed, and only stupid optimists thought we had any real chance from then on.

Even though the First Test was irrelevant to England's series victory, Harmison did not bowl well in it! He took 1 top-order wicket with a decent ball in each innings (Ponting in the first, Martyn in the second) and every other wicket was either a tail-ender or Katich gifting his wicket because he was batting with the tail. Yeah, wow, he hit Hayden and Ponting - ****loads of batsmen got hit by bowlers from both teams in that game, it was a very difficult batting pitch.

Saying "each bowler had a role and Harmison did his" is nothing more than that thing that people like to do sometimes, and credit everyone possible. Heck, even Gary Pratt usually benefits in this case. And IMO it's nonsense. A bowler's role is to take wickets at a good rate, nothing more. Harmison did not do this in the Tests that earned the series victory. Hence, I don't care if he was perceived to be ruffing-up batsmen or any nonsense like that, because he wasn't, he was just letting the valve off by usually gifting a few runs, before Vaughan took him off and brought someone else on who covered for his inadaquecies.

an I ask, why discount the first test???? Why was it not important to the series??
What ever you say Richard, England werent completely out of it after the 5 wicket burst on the first day by McGrath. There is no way when KP was flogging McGrath and Warne around on day two that anyone could consider England to be out of that game...and I don't really see that that is important, that first test was actually a part of that Ashes series (although I do seem to remember you saying something incredibly 'out there' a while ago like that test should really be roped in with the previous Ashes series, or something like that anyway). There is no doubt in my mind that the Australians considered Harmison a huge threat in that series.

It is interesting to note that Harmisons economy rate was better than Jones and Hoggards and only 0.03rpo worse than Flintoffs.

Your problem though Richard, is, especially when talking about Harmison, your view is so black and white. You don't see the bigger picture, and you don't appear to have much understanding of context. For example, the slower ball to Clarke. Yeah Clarke missed the ball, he wasnt particularly early on the shot, he just missed it. For that reason , you do not credit Harmison for bowling a brilliant ball. You see it as all error on Clarkes part. Firstly, look at the context. Clarke was batting well, and I think there had been a bit of a thing going with Flintoff and Clarke. Clarke was playing quite aggressively, and tension was high. The crowd were going bananas. For Harmison to bowl the ball that he did at that time, with perfect accuracy, was firstly off pretty brave, but what it did do is exploit the circumstances. Adreneline was obviously all over the place at that time. The very best ball you can bowl in those circumstances is the slower ball, because it goes against all natural instinct. That was part one of what was so good about it. The execution of the delivery was the second good thing. Thats the context!!!!!!

Regarding Clarke playing the wrong line. Have you ever faced fast bowling before? You dont have much time to react. As I say, the last thing Clarke was expecting was a slow, full ball. I think he spotted it , but I think in those situations, your mind goes into a mini-panic mode, where you know what to do, but you cannot react. For a split second, in those situations, your brain is trying to deal with the immediate crisis, ie. ooops this ball isnt where it should be, and the issue of line takes a brief back seat. You see it happening quite a lot at all levels of the game, and I myself have been undone by it whilst batting (ie picking up a slower ball and still completely playing around it and getting bowled)

Its why slower balls are so effective, its not just the timing which goes, its other aspects of a batsmans play which plays up as well.

 

[wpdavid]

Without signing up to every last point that Richard makes, I agree with him that Harmison's contribution to 2005 is massively over-played in some quarters. And I certainly don't buy the argument that he was the spearhead of the attack, whose lead others were able to follow. All too often, he did nothing whatsoever with the new ball, and others had to retrieve the situation. I can't recall the exact figures, but I made a similar point to Richard's when reviewing the series regarding the number of top order batsmen he legitimately dismissed in tests 2-5, and it really wasn't impressive.

For mine, he produced two good spells after Lord's. Last thing on day 3 at Edgbaston, which culminated in the Clarke slower ball dismissal. And mid-afternoon on Saturday at the Oval, when he gave a well set Langer something of a working over, shifted him, and gave us a glimpse of daylight which Fred went on to take full advantage of. But that really was it. The rest of the time, he just looked very limited. Flintoff & Jones' contributions were so much more significant. And Hoggard, to a lesser extent.

 

[NUFAN]

I agree with Richard on most parts. Harmison was by no means terrible, but as the series went on the less effective he got, while others improved.

Would England have won if Harmison wasn't playing?

 

[Richard]

an I ask, why discount the first test???? Why was it not important to the series??
What ever you say Richard, England werent completely out of it after the 5 wicket burst on the first day by McGrath. There is no way when KP was flogging McGrath and Warne around on day two that anyone could consider England to be out of that game...and I don't really see that that is important, that first test was actually a part of that Ashes series (although I do seem to remember you saying something incredibly 'out there' a while ago like that test should really be roped in with the previous Ashes series, or something like that anyway).

I didn't say it was actually part of the previous 8 series, at all, I said (and still very much believe) that the happenings of that Test were part of the same thing that those 8 series saw, ie, Australian dominance. England had a chance at certain points in most of the Tests in those previous series, too. However, those chances didn't often last that long, and they didn't at Lord's in that First Test of 2005, either. No, I didn't hold-out much hope even when Pietersen played that superlative innings on the second morning. I still thought we were out of it due to our terrible first-innings bowling... and yes, I was right, as we served-up an even worse fest in the second-innings.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Australians considered Harmison a huge threat in that series.

I think not, frankly. If they did, they were out of their minds, because it was very obvious to any observer that Flintoff and Jones, and later on Hoggard, were far, far greater threats.

It is interesting to note that Harmisons economy rate was better than Jones and Hoggards and only 0.03rpo worse than Flintoffs.

No, not really. If you look beyond the simplistic overall series figures, you'll see why. Harmison bowled economically in the second-innings of the First Test, at the end at Old Trafford when the Australians were looking to save the game, and at Trent Bridge during the most slow passage of the series when all the England bowlers bowled economically.

None of the England bowlers bowled especially accurately in the series, even Flintoff. That didn't matter with Flintoff and Jones, however, because they were never far away from producing a magic ball. And Hoggard got better as the series progressed.

Your problem though Richard, is, especially when talking about Harmison, your view is so black and white. You don't see the bigger picture, and you don't appear to have much understanding of context. For example, the slower ball to Clarke. Yeah Clarke missed the ball, he wasnt particularly early on the shot, he just missed it. For that reason , you do not credit Harmison for bowling a brilliant ball. You see it as all error on Clarkes part. Firstly, look at the context. Clarke was batting well, and I think there had been a bit of a thing going with Flintoff and Clarke. Clarke was playing quite aggressively, and tension was high. The crowd were going bananas. For Harmison to bowl the ball that he did at that time, with perfect accuracy, was firstly off pretty brave, but what it did do is exploit the circumstances. Adreneline was obviously all over the place at that time. The very best ball you can bowl in those circumstances is the slower ball, because it goes against all natural instinct. That was part one of what was so good about it. The execution of the delivery was the second good thing. Thats the context!!!!!!

Regarding Clarke playing the wrong line. Have you ever faced fast bowling before? You dont have much time to react. As I say, the last thing Clarke was expecting was a slow, full ball. I think he spotted it , but I think in those situations, your mind goes into a mini-panic mode, where you know what to do, but you cannot react. For a split second, in those situations, your brain is trying to deal with the immediate crisis, ie. ooops this ball isnt where it should be, and the issue of line takes a brief back seat. You see it happening quite a lot at all levels of the game, and I myself have been undone by it whilst batting (ie picking up a slower ball and still completely playing around it and getting bowled)

Its why slower balls are so effective, its not just the timing which goes, its other aspects of a batsmans play which plays up as well.

If a slower-ball is obvious (which Harmison's is - more than any other bowler I've ever seen attempt one) there's no excuse for having trouble with it. It really is that simple. If Harmison had a well-disguised slower-ball, everything you say there would be fine. But he doesn't.

Note, if you will, the case of Brett Lee in the same series. It's utter bull**** to say "my view is so black-and-white and I'll never give an ounce of credit to someone I don't rate". I rate Lee every bit as poor as I rate Harmison (well, maybe a bit better after 2005\06, but only a bit). Yet his slower-ball to Strauss at Old Trafford was a quite magnificent piece of bowling. Why? Because it was well-disguised. Lee might be a crap bowler in most ways, but that was a magnificent piece of deception, and you'll see that. Clarke and Harmison, wasn't. It was just an error.

 

[Swervy]

Without signing up to every last point that Richard makes, I agree with him that Harmison's contribution to 2005 is massively over-played in some quarters. And I certainly don't buy the argument that he was the spearhead of the attack, whose lead others were able to follow. All too often, he did nothing whatsoever with the new ball, and others had to retrieve the situation. I can't recall the exact figures, but I made a similar point to Richard's when reviewing the series regarding the number of top order batsmen he legitimately dismissed in tests 2-5, and it really wasn't impressive.

For mine, he produced two good spells after Lord's. Last thing on day 3 at Edgbaston, which culminated in the Clarke slower ball dismissal. And mid-afternoon on Saturday at the Oval, when he gave a well set Langer something of a working over, shifted him, and gave us a glimpse of daylight which Fred went on to take full advantage of. But that really was it. The rest of the time, he just looked very limited. Flintoff & Jones' contributions were so much more significant. And Hoggard, to a lesser extent.

I see your point, however, you yourself have stated in there about Harmison doing the business on Langer which opened the way for the other bowlers. I think Harmison had a different role to play than the others. He was just a different type of weapon to use, and the culmination of these 4 completely different types of bowlers added to each others effectiveness. Thats why I think Harmison was an important cog in that England victory, not everyone can play the top dog role, by definition there can only be one (and that was Flintoff by a mile for me), but the contribution Harmsion gave was as important..(and I just don't understand why the First test is disregarded.)

What Richard said about Ian Bell contributing more is simply ludicrous

 

[Richard]

I can't recall the exact figures, but I made a similar point to Richard's when reviewing the series regarding the number of top order batsmen he legitimately dismissed in tests 2-5, and it really wasn't impressive.

Whose article d'you think I first spotted that in?

For mine, he produced two good spells after Lord's. Last thing on day 3 at Edgbaston, which culminated in the Clarke slower ball dismissal. And mid-afternoon on Saturday at the Oval, when he gave a well set Langer something of a working over, shifted him, and gave us a glimpse of daylight which Fred went on to take full advantage of.

As regards the latter point... not so sure there, TBH. Got Langer out, yes, but it was a little while after that that the glimpse of daylight (or not - it first came-up due to the murky conditions on day-four when the Australians batted on) came through, which Flintoff and then Hoggard grabbed.

 

[Richard]

What Richard said about Ian Bell contributing more is simply ludicrous

No, it's not. It's not about being macho, it's about runs and wickets. Bell was decidedly average, indeed, but he contributed to the dominance and so nearly the victory at Old Trafford, something Harmison certainly didn't in any of the 4 Tests.

 

[Swervy]

I agree with Richard on most parts. Harmison was by no means terrible, but as the series went on the less effective he got, while others improved.

Would England have won if Harmison wasn't playing?

who knows??? The thing is he did play and he took wickets and England won.

Would England have won if McGrath hadnt tripped on the stray cricket ball?? Who knows?

Would Australia have won the series if a) Langer hadnt been called for the one run short which wasnt at Edgbaston b) Warne didnt have a leg bye disallowed because the umpire didnt think he had played a shot at it at Edgbaston, c) Kasper hadnt been given out on that last ball at Edgbaston, when strictly speaking he shouldnt have been given out....well the answer is WHO KNOWS!!!

So what is the point in asking the question in the first place?

 

[Swervy]

No, it's not. It's not about being macho, it's about runs and wickets. Bell was decidedly average, indeed, but he contributed to the dominance and so nearly the victory at Old Trafford, something Harmison certainly didn't in any of the 4 Tests.

what has being macho got to do with anything?????

 

[NUFAN]

who knows??? The thing is he did play and he took wickets and England won.

Would England have won if McGrath hadnt tripped on the stray cricket ball?? Who knows?

Would Australia have won the series if a) Langer hadnt been called for the one run short which wasnt at Edgbaston b) Warne didnt have a leg bye disallowed because the umpire didnt think he had played a shot at it at Edgbaston, c) Kasper hadnt been given out on that last ball at Edgbaston, when strictly speaking he shouldnt have been given out....well the answer is WHO KNOWS!!!

So what is the point in asking the question in the first place?

Yeah exactly. What's the point of this debate? Harmison did a job. The selectors didn't want to change a winning combination, Harmison was the 4th best English bowler that's it, but I have to say he did better then Ian Bell who was out classed in 4 of the tests.

 

[wpdavid]

I see your point, however, you yourself have stated in there about Harmison doing the business on Langer which opened the way for the other bowlers.

Indeed - IIRC Fred was able to get rid of Ponting cheaply, and then we were into their middle order. But, I do think that's about the only time that happened in test 2 to 5.

I think Harmison had a different role to play than the others. He was just a different type of weapon to use, and the culmination of these 4 completely different types of bowlers added to each others effectiveness. Thats why I think Harmison was an important cog in that England victory, not everyone can play the top dog role, by definition there can only be one (and that was Flintoff by a mile for me), but the contribution Harmsion gave was as important..(and I just don't understand why the First test is disregarded.)

We're probably in agree-to-disagree territory regarding Harmison's contribution after Lord's. Agreed that it was no crime not to be as great as Flintoff, but I think we were entitled to expect rather more. As for the first test (first innings, itbt), it might have set the tone if we'd won the game, but the 239 run defeat did for that. Plus he was actually pretty anodyne in the 2nd innings at Lord's, so he clearly held no terrors for the Aus batters thereafter.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah exactly. What's the point of this debate? Harmison did a job. The selectors didn't want to change a winning combination, Harmison was the 4th best English bowler that's it, but I have to say he did better then Ian Bell who was out classed in 4 of the tests.

hahaha..yeah you are right

 

[Richard]

Yeah exactly. What's the point of this debate? Harmison did a job. The selectors didn't want to change a winning combination, Harmison was the 4th best English bowler that's it, but I have to say he did better then Ian Bell who was out classed in 4 of the tests.

The point is that being the 5th best bowler (which is what he was - even Giles made more contribution to the dominance with excellent first-innings spells at Edgbaston and Old Trafford) is worthy of virtually no praise whatsoever. I think it's pretty likely that had he missed the entire series, we'd still have won. We might, possibly, have lost even worse at Lord's (or we might have not, as someone else might have been gifted the tail-end wickets he was) but our dominance of the last 4 games would have remained unaltered I think.

Nonetheless, there's not one single thing about that series that I'd change, including even McGrath stepping on that ball (which was a shame, no doubts, I never like to see injuries be able to be argued as something that decided a series) because I'm a big believer in the butterfly-earthquate theorem, and it's always possible that just a tiny, seemingly insignificant tweak (say a girl in the crowd having hay-fever and sneezing and putting McGrath off so he did something 5 seconds later and didn't step on the ball) can make all the difference in The World.

 

[Richard]

what has being macho got to do with anything?????

Macho is just the first word that came into my head, there are probably more accurate ones. You know full well what I mean - Harmison is big, Bell is tiny, and Bell was perceived (possibly with some validity, though I maintain that most of the deliveries he got that series would have dismissed most right-handed batsmen) as a rabbit-in-the-headlights in 2005, which Harmison tends not to be.

The fact that Harmison hit Hayden and Ponting early on adds, from what I can see, a lot to that perception. Hence, "macho" is something close to the word I'd use to describe the reasons that people think Harmison did more than Bell to win The Ashes.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah I believe in the butterfly effect too.

I agree with you that he didn't have a brilliant series, but yeah life goes on, it's common knowledge that Flintoff and Jones were the pick of the English bowlers..

 

[Swervy]

We're probably in agree-to-disagree territory regarding Harmison's contribution after Lord's. Agreed that it was no crime not to be as great as Flintoff, but I think we were entitled to expect rather more. As for the first test (first innings, itbt), it might have set the tone if we'd won the game, but the 239 run defeat did for that. Plus he was actually pretty anodyne in the 2nd innings at Lord's, so he clearly held no terrors for the Aus batters thereafter.

My point is though that maybe Harmison might not actually get enough credit from some people, whilst maybe he gets too much from elsewhere. I guess all I think is that fair enough he didnt have earth shatteringly brilliant figures, but his presence was vital to the balance of that team, and so warants credit for the contributions he made directly and maybe some of the less obvious things as well.

As an Australian, I remember how I felt when Harmison hit Langer on the arm and Ponting in the face on the first day of the series. It was like 'right ok,these guys are ready for action, this aint going to be easy'.

It is easy to dismiss this kind of symbolism, but those psychological landmarks are so vital in any sport, but especially cricket.

Its why before the last Ashes series, when I was a bit concerned about whether it would be too easy for Australia to win, as soon as that first wide ball was bowled by Harmison, I turned to my English mate and said we (Australia) had won the Ashes there and then. Harmison blew it big style, England were trying to make a psycological statement by opening with harmison then, but it was high risk and it failed, the tone was set for the series.
Its because those things are huge, when really it isnt accepted by most people that they are.

Anyway....thats my tuppence worth!!

 

[Richard]

My point is though that maybe Harmison might not actually get enough credit from some people, whilst maybe he gets too much from elsewhere. I guess all I think is that fair enough he didnt have earth shatteringly brilliant figures, but his presence was vital to the balance of that team, and so warants credit for the contributions he made directly and maybe some of the less obvious things as well.

As an Australian, I remember how I felt when Harmison hit Langer on the arm and Ponting in the face on the first day of the series. It was like 'right ok,these guys are ready for action, this aint going to be easy'.

It is easy to dismiss this kind of symbolism, but those psychological landmarks are so vital in any sport, but especially cricket.

Its why before the last Ashes series, when I was a bit concerned about whether it would be too easy for Australia to win, as soon as that first wide ball was bowled by Harmison, I turned to my English mate and said we (Australia) had won the Ashes there and then. Harmison blew it big style, England were trying to make a psycological statement by opening with harmison then, but it was high risk and it failed, the tone was set for the series.
Its because those things are huge, when really it isnt accepted by most people that they are.

Anyway....thats my tuppence worth!!

TBH, I was fairly certain our chances were low even before that wide.

Why you base anything on someone hitting Langer I really don't know. If you worried about someone hitting Langer, you'd be worred just about every single Test-match.

And I'll say it again... what about the numerous England batsmen that were hit that match? That was no statement of intent of any sort, it was just a reflection on a pitch that made short-pitched bowling very awkward. I doubt the players perceived it as anything but - you'll notice how virtually none of them have ever mentioned it. It's always the armchair "experts" who bring it up.

 

[NUFAN]

Its why before the last Ashes series, when I was a bit concerned about whether it would be too easy for Australia to win, as soon as that first wide ball was bowled by Harmison, I turned to my English mate and said we (Australia) had won the Ashes there and then. Harmison blew it big style, England were trying to make a psycological statement by opening with harmison then, but it was high risk and it failed, the tone was set for the series.
Its because those things are huge, when really it isnt accepted by most people that they are.

Anyway....thats my tuppence worth!!

I hate this argument. The series was not lost from that ball at all. If he Harmy goes back to his mark and bowls the rest of the over straight and managed an early wicket, the wide would have been seen just as a loosener.