Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[Richard]

McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh & Garner all seemed to cope pretty ok with being over 6' 4".

Well I don't think anyone was saying "it's impossible to bowl well at over 6ft4in" were they? Wasn't actually aware Gillespie was that tall either TBH. Anyways, McGrath, Ambrose and Garner were all complete automatons - think the point Manraj (and Lillee\Willis) were making is that if you're not there's a decent chance you'll struggle. For every Walsh\Gillespie\insert-other, I presume there would be rather a lot of Harmisons.

Funnily enough, WRT Harmy I remember him saying this: "I want to be bowling at 90 mph, not 80 mph. I've taken some steps back up the ladder but I'm not back to the top yet" (linky-poo) after the Windies series. One wonders why the sudden volte face?

Hardly his first, would it be?

 

[Richard]

Full-whack, aggressive, bouncy, fast Harmison is a good bowler. He can almost afford to be a little wayward, if he's bowling quickly, and putting in good bouncers, yorkers etc.

Interesting, exact opposite of a post Fuller once made.

At 80mph, bowling long-hops outside off stump, he's pretty useless.

At 93mph, bowling Long-Hops outside off-stump, he's pretty useless too no?

In modern international cricket, if you want to bowl at 80mph, you need to have swing and be deadly accurate.

Would say that's pretty much always been the case TBH, not just in modern times. And even if you're 15mph on from 80, and don't swing the ball and don't hit the right areas, you're still going to be utterly ineffective.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well I don't think anyone was saying "it's impossible to bowl well at over 6ft4in" were they? Wasn't actually aware Gillespie was that tall either TBH. Anyways, McGrath, Ambrose and Garner were all complete automatons - think the point Manraj (and Lillee\Willis) were making is that if you're not there's a decent chance you'll struggle. For every Walsh\Gillespie\insert-other, I presume there would be rather a lot of Harmisons.

Well, no, but almost as many leading seam-up wicket takers are over 6' 4" as not tho. You can also add Donald & Willis to those mentioned. I don't think being very tall is a disadvantage per se.

 

[Richard]

Donald wasn't that tall was he? I thought he was about 6"3' and this image

of him and (IIRR) 6"6' Stuart Broad tends to suggest about that.

The point, I think, is that bowlers above that height who did well usually did exceptionally well. Bit like the shortaesses (Marshall who managed to be arguably the greatest seam-bowler ever seen from a height few manage to be Test-class seamers from being, of course, the always-quoted example of this). Very rare is the more "standard, decent Test bowler" who has emerged from an extreme height.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Interesting, a depth of analysis I've rarely if ever read before.

I somewhat doubt he'd be up to much had he 3 or 4 inches shorn, anyway, but the lack of coordination is hardly a big secret.

 

[Richard]

Interesting Naughtying there. ITSTL, indeed.

 

[FBU]

The question is why isn't Harmison bowling at 90mph and I am guessing that he doesn't trust his unfit body. He is wearing a brace to support his back when his muscles should be doing the job. He arrived and complained of a stiff back which must have given him some worries. Once again it comes down to his mentality and confidence. If he is fit and confident he is a good bowler that can do things most other bowlers can't. Those days are few and far between. His fitness and confidence affect his action and he keeps on thinking he isn't bowling well because of his action. At nearly 30 his bowling action should be set.

Things that affect Harmison -

1. What the media say about him
2. England's expectations of him being a match winner and their strike bowler. He used to open the bowling but hardly ever took wickets in his first spell but wanted that new ball. Flintoff as captain in Australia started something by taking him away from the new ball. However badly he started he still should have been perservered with. Our batsmen don't want to face him in the nets and felt the opposition would feel the same way.
3. Fitness
4. Wickets that don't suit him
5. Homesickness

Sinclair on Harmison in the warm up game -

Sinclair witnessed Harmison's full range – from his struggles early on when he was somewhat wayward, to his true ability as he improved to finish with 5-100."He was a little bit erratic," revealed Sinclair. "I felt it was quite hard to get some consistency from him from a batting point of view."If someone is spraying it everywhere you never really get a feel for where he's trying to put the ball. I couldn't get a feel for what he was trying to do.

Probably why Harmison picked up the 5 wickets. He does seem to pick up more wickets with bad balls that good ones these days but the impression in the media when he does take wickets is that his bowling is improving.

 

[Manee]

McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh & Garner all seemed to cope pretty ok with being over 6' 4"

I said tend for a reason. Of course there will be exceptions. However, notice how Garner (the tallest), did not have a few intense action and rather went through ensuring that everything is kept in the right direction rather than exploding at the crease.

Keep in mind that this comes from Dennis Lillee's (the best fast bowling coach, imo) book and is quoted in Bob Willis' who was a tall fast bowler himself who admittadly did not have all the qualities of the standard one.

 

[Manee]

I don't think being very tall is a disadvantage per se.

It is not, but it can be.

 

[Jono]

I criticise Richard when he doesn't admit that he was wrong about a player, but here he was dead right, and proved a lot of people wrong. Particularly when he was being criticised left, right and centre for his opinions of him because of Harmison's success at the time.

I know Marc said Harmison was the best bowler in the world back near the end of 2004, and almost every English fan would stick it to Richard for saying Harmy was rubbish despite him being ranked #1 on the test bowlers rankings.

Fair play to him, because Harmison was overrated, but also an underachiever because he shouldn't be THIS bad.

I think the worst thing about Harmison is that if he shows just a little bit of promise, or bowls one good spell or something, everyone (media, commentators, posters on this board) get so excited, and then are let down again. The phrase once bitten, twice shy is relevant here.

 

[Richard]

It'd be indecent to post here without "thanks Jono " first, but I'd just say here what I said in the tour thread: anyone who watched that interview with Harmison before the start of the fourth-day play in the First Test in New Zealand should have found it a deeply revealing one.

One of the most fascinating interviews I've ever seen from a cricketer. Almost makes me feel guily saying "Harmison's rubbish" because I often have reminders about what an extremely nice guy he actually is. That doesn't impact in the slightest on how good a bowler he is, of course, but it makes one think "choose your words".

 

[PY]

I know Marc said Harmison was the best bowler in the world back near the end of 2004, and almost every English fan would stick it to Richard for saying Harmy was rubbish despite him being ranked #1 on the test bowlers rankings.

He was one of the best bowlers in the world at the time. I said it at that time and I stand by it, obviously if I said anything that suggested longevity of that then I withdraw that statement retrospectively but I don't think it was too unreasonable to say it at the time.

 

[Richard]

Well, you see, I never thought he was. I thought what happened then was unsustainable, I never thought it would continue.

In fact, by the time he was ranked #1, he was on the way down. The peak of his performance (a whole 7 Tests) was when he was ranked #2.

I've said it many times - too many people misinterpret the rankings for what they are not. They are not a ranking of calibre - they are a form guide. Harmison in early 2004 was no more than a bowler who had done well (statistically) for a very short time.

I don't feel 7 Tests is enough to call a bowler "one of the best in The World". You'd need 20-odd at least for that, IMO (in this day and age).

 

[PY]

I'm fully aware that those rankings are only a form guide thanks Richard, been following cricket for quite a while now.

He was the form bowler for that period of time and thus one of the best bowlers in the world for that period only (ignoring your 20 Tests comment as that's an imo). Kudos to you for picking him as being not so on a long term basis but I refuse to renege on my original comment!

Shouldn't be anywhere near the side now, needs dropping for at least a year & not picking based on his performances previous or the first couple of games of the new season.

 

[Jono]

He was one of the best bowlers in the world at the time. I said it at that time and I stand by it, obviously if I said anything that suggested longevity of that then I withdraw that statement retrospectively but I don't think it was too unreasonable to say it at the time.

To claim he was better than McGrath and Gillespie at the time was ridiculous. The phrase 'one of' is very different from 'is'.

 

[PY]

I dunno, I reckon a few international batsmen would've fancied seeing anyone but Harmison running at them after that West Indies series away. You are right though, one of the best is a lot different to THE best and I think the former is more suited to his performances at that time.

 

[Jono]

I think one thing that made a lot of people say he was the best was that McGrath was out for most of 2004 (made his test return vs. India in India I believe), and his performances were extremely visually menacing. When Harmison runs through a team, it just looks more dominant than if Pollock or Gillespie do. The same can be said for Shoaib too I reckon (though he's obviously done it for a lot longer, despite his lack of constant cricket)

I'd love to see Gillespie's figures from the end of the India in Aus series 2003/04 to the beginning of Aus in India series 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia only played in SL during that time. If that's the case, I guess its fair to say that when just looking at his performances, there wasn't anyone else putting their hand up yet. Not sure how Pollock and Shoaib were going.

 

[Richard]

I'm fully aware that those rankings are only a form guide thanks Richard, been following cricket for quite a while now.

He was the form bowler for that period of time and thus one of the best bowlers in the world for that period only (ignoring your 20 Tests comment as that's an imo). Kudos to you for picking him as being not so on a long term basis but I refuse to renege on my original comment!

Pah. PROUD+ENGLISH and all...

Seriously - being the best bowler(ish) in The World for 6 or 7 Tests is, frankly, not something I think matters in the slightest. Dominic Cork was unquestionably such a thing for 11 Tests in 1995 and 1996. How many people said such a thing then I wonder?

And I do indeed think many, many people were making-out that it was a much longer time than it was. I don't recall with exactness too much comment from you yourself, so not neccessarily directed at you - if you commented no more than "he has been good these last 7 Tests hasn't he?" good for you.

 

[Richard]

I think one thing that made a lot of people say he was the best was that McGrath was out for most of 2004 (made his test return vs. India in India I believe), and his performances were extremely menacing.

I'd love to see Gillespie's figures from the end of the India in Aus series 2003/04 to the beginning of Aus in India series 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia only played in SL during that time. If that's the case, I guess its fair to say that when just looking at his performances, there wasn't anyone else putting their hand up yet. Not sure how Pollock and Shoaib were going.

Shoaib was out IIRR, Gillespie did indeed play just those 5 games against SL (though 2 at home as well as 3 away) between the home and away India series, Pollock was at the pit of the depths he fell to between 2001\02 and 2005\06, and McGrath, as you say, was out. He made his return the home SL series, though, not the away India one. Warne was banned, of course, but Murali? No such excuse.

BTW, predictable reply from Brumby.

As "I" said of Withnail: "Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day".

 

[BoyBrumby]

I criticise Richard when he doesn't admit that he was wrong about a player, but here he was dead right, and proved a lot of people wrong. Particularly when he was being criticised left, right and centre for his opinions of him because of Harmison's success at the time.

I know Marc said Harmison was the best bowler in the world back near the end of 2004, and almost every English fan would stick it to Richard for saying Harmy was rubbish despite him being ranked #1 on the test bowlers rankings.

Fair play to him, because Harmison was overrated, but also an underachiever because he shouldn't be THIS bad.

I think the worst thing about Harmison is that if he shows just a little bit of promise, or bowls one good spell or something, everyone (media, commentators, posters on this board) get so excited, and then are let down again. The phrase once bitten, twice shy is relevant here.

As "I" said of Withnail: "Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day".