Chris Harris:Better Fielder or All-Rounder???

[Jonty Lathwal]

We were discussing about it in the "Best fielder after Rhodes??" too........

 

[Richard]

Harris was a superb fielder and a merely pretty good ODI all-rounder. He wasn't out of the top drawer, but his bowling was oft-underestimated and I guess his batting might've been too.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Harris was a superb fielder and a merely pretty good ODI all-rounder. He wasn't out of the top drawer, but his bowling was oft-underestimated and I guess his batting might've been too.

merely pretty good ODI all-rounder??????????

 

[Prince EWS]

merely pretty good ODI all-rounder??????????

Well he was hardly awesome, was he?

He averaged under 30 with the bat, over 35 with the ball and had an economy rate of about 4.3.

As a bowler he knew his role as a middle overs strangler and did it well - he was very hard to get after due to his surpreme accuracy and multitude of subtle variations. As a batsman he was pretty dependable and saved New Zealand a few times, but he struggled a bit when he had to change gears. Sometimes you got the feeling he could have been New Zealand's Bevan, but after the initial bail-outs he'd get himself out trying to push the pace.

I've always felt he was a bit under-rated as an ODI player, but if you think he was better than "pretty good" then that's over-rating him.

The biggest travesty, IMO, was that he never got more of a chance to cement a Test place for himself. His bowling was never going to be particularly effective but his First Class record with the bat justified a few more opportunities than he was given. I think he could have been a pretty decent Test batsman given more of an opportunity in that role - he failed early on as a middle order batsman, and was repeatedly recalled as a bowling allrounder which was never going to suit him.

 

[_Ed_]

Absolutely superb fielder, best I've ever seen play for NZ by a long way.

 

[Richard]

Well he was hardly awesome, was he?

He averaged under 30 with the bat, over 35 with the ball and had an economy rate of about 4.3.

As a bowler he knew his role as a middle overs strangler and did it well - he was very hard to get after due to his surpreme accuracy and multitude of subtle variations. As a batsman he was pretty dependable and saved New Zealand a few times, but he struggled a bit when he had to change gears. Sometimes you got the feeling he could have been New Zealand's Bevan, but after the initial bail-outs he'd get himself out trying to push the pace.

I've always felt he was a bit under-rated as an ODI player, but if you think he was better than "pretty good" then that's over-rating him.

The biggest travesty, IMO, was that he never got more of a chance to cement a Test place for himself. His bowling was never going to be particularly effective but his First Class record with the bat justified a few more opportunities than he was given. I think he could have been a pretty decent Test batsman given more of an opportunity in that role - he failed early on as a middle order batsman, and was repeatedly recalled as a bowling allrounder which was never going to suit him.

Ind33d. On all counts.

 

[Smudge]

The problem for Harris with the bat as he got older was his slow starts. He would push forward with his pad regardless and try to work the ball from there, but would get tangled up, soaking up dot balls by the half-dozen. Sure, he could push on after 30 or so balls, but by that stage, momentum would be lost.