• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* (only joking) Stephen Harmison thread

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, someone suggested the *Official* England in Bangladesh thread was getting swamped by the Harmison debate, so here we are:
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Whether you (not you in partincular Richard... it's general) like it or not, Harmison is currently playing for England and is actually doing well. Whether he's a Test class bowler or not, or even if he never will be, the fact is that he's getting it done now and there's no reason to drop him as a result.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Marc71178[/I] [B]I find it hard to believe that you persist in this line. Of 37 wickets said:
Sorry, Richard.

Your argument, although well constructed and thorough, is clearly nonsense for one reason - most batsmen 'get themselves out' every time they bat.

I'm presuming that you never watched any of today's play. After Michael Vaughan scored his first single, he could easily have been dismissed no less than EIGHT occasions before he made another run - and that against Bangladesh. None of them were 'unplayable' balls, all were down to errors brought about by circumstances (on 1 for half an hour, out of nick, not getting forward positively etc etc etc).

One of the most salient points made in this fast-becoming-farcical discussion is the fact that if Harmison is bad, so are the rest of the England bowlers, if not worse.

Harmison is in the side, for better or for worse. He is clearly a popular player amongst the rest of the side, everyone speaks up for him and he tries his guts out every time he plays. Sure, he's a bit like Nantie on occasion, but he looks to me as though he would gladly die for the team unlike others I could mention.

That's good enough for me.
Yes, you are right that most batsmen are more at fault than the bowler is at credit for more of their dismssals than not (though I wouldn’t go as far as almost every time they bat – 65 to 70% is my estimate)
However, what has Vaughan’s poor start got to do with anything? A nick past the leg-stump (for instance) is just part of cricket – not especially lucky, nowhere near as lucky as a let-off, but the bowlers didn’t deserve any credit and they didn’t get anything that allowed anyone to give them some.
I agree that Harmison tries hard – let’s just see what happens. What we say isn’t going to make any difference. But unless he gets good figures, effort and popularity counts for nothing.
The argument that the rest of England’s attack is poor is indeed a farcical one – yes, most of England’s attack in the last 2 years has been rubbish. Fact.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Whether you (not you in partincular Richard... it's general) like it or not, Harmison is currently playing for England and is actually doing well. Whether he's a Test class bowler or not, or even if he never will be, the fact is that he's getting it done now and there's no reason to drop him as a result.
What you mean, Mr. M, is that he is currently getting good figures (statistics!), and as long as he continues to do so his place is guranteed!
That is, as I have recently said, something which goes without saying.
 

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
I don't know what the debate has been. BUT Harmison IS is atest class bowler. His ceiling is very high IMHO. He's tall, quick, getting more and more acurate with every test match. He has an economical action, which should stand him well as far as injuries are concerned.

I think he's possibly the best of Englands current battery of young fast bowlers. My ranking would be:

Harmison
Anderson
Flintoff (if he can learn to move the ball the other way)
Jones (if he recovers fully)
Hoggard (if he ever learns to bowl when the ball doesn't swing ...)

I think it's time to let the likes of Caddick go. He's been an excellent bowler for England over the years (when managed correct). But these young guys have to learn that it's up to them now, and then we'll see if they're up to it. As long as they can rely on the experienced guy to carry the load, then they will never have the impetus to step up to the plate.

Jon
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
JohnnyA

Hullo dere. Jaysus, how der devil are yers? Oh, sorry, that's Dublin.

Very good points - who knows? Marc (or the duck) might start the SWHAS (Steve Wayward-Harmison Appreciation Society). I'm beginning to love the guy - but don't trust me (or Richard) - we like Corky.

When I looked up his economy rate a few days ago, I was simply staggered at just how economical he is (insert derisory joke here <quack> really?).

You've picked my ideal seam attack 100% - and it's definitely time to let jug-ears go, great servant though he has been. Welcome to the boards.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
What you mean, Mr. M, is that he is currently getting good figures (statistics!), and as long as he continues to do so his place is guranteed!
That is, as I have recently said, something which goes without saying.
What I mean is that he is getting batsmen out, not statistics. You should seriously consider legally changing your name to something stat related.
 

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
Can someone find Steve a shirt that fits, and perhaps a razor? He looks like a hobo out there!
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
JohnnyA said:
Can someone find Steve a shirt that fits, and perhaps a razor? He looks like a hobo out there!
That thought struck me when the team were having a drink. The rest were on water, SW-H was on Tennents Super or Carlsberg Special, I reckon.

<quack> you git. That was my idea for next week's column
 

JohnnyA

U19 12th Man
luckyeddie said:
That thought struck me when the team were having a drink. The rest were on water, SW-H was on Tennents Super or Carlsberg Special, I reckon.

<quack> you git. That was my idea for next week's column
what does <quack> mean
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
It's a standing joke round here. luckyeddie writes a column when he feels like it, called Devil Ducky's Column, so the <quack> is for any opinion this duck has.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
What I mean is that he is getting batsmen out, not statistics. You should seriously consider legally changing your name to something stat related.
Yes, and the fact that he has wickets to his name is reflected in statistics - nothing more! "Wickets in Test-cricket" is a statistic. Averages and strike-rates are made out of this statistic.
However, I would dispute that he is "getting batsmen out" through his own skill. As eddie points out, more wickets than not are mostly the batsman's fault, but the small number of pitch-off-move-away-hit-the-edge balls Harmison bowls is simply staggering. He unquestionably is swinging the ball more this match than he has ever done in his Test career, but he's still not bowling the RUDs in that form. He has managed a couple of snorters that again fall into the RUD category, but you can't bowl them without an inconsistent pitch, and this is certainly one of those.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Oh, yes, they can. The description of the dismissals is nothing to judge on
Yet you just judge that they are bad batting?



Richard said:
The argument that the rest of England’s attack is poor is indeed a farcical one – yes, most of England’s attack in the last 2 years has been rubbish. Fact.
If he's outperforming the rest, why do people call for his head?

It is farcical to suggest dropping the one who's performing ahead of others who aren't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Yet you just judge that they are bad batting?
Yes, by looking at the dismissals.
If he's outperforming the rest, why do people call for his head?

It is farcical to suggest dropping the one who's performing ahead of others who aren't.
No - it's farcical to suggest dropping someone who's performing to Test standard. If someone isn't performing, it's farcical to suggest they warrant keeping their place in the side.
If your suggestion was true, someone averaging 70 when the rest were averaging 100 would merit their continued selection.
There are certain standards that should be expected of a player, and if he's not achieving them he shouldn't keep his place.
That's like that bull about "never change a winning team" - if someone isn't playing much of a part in the winning, by playing to the standards, they don't deserve to keep their place.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
I'm not seeing the argument.
The argument is that someone should be judged by the standards of those around them.
I disagree; I think people should be judged by a standard standard - I don't think the inadequecies of those around you should disguise your inadequecies.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Case in point here:

Habibul Bashar averaged around 31 before the Pakistan series. Not good enough for a Test middle order batsman. However the rest of the side all averaged around 20... QED
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And Harmison is averaging about 30, which is not bad in terms of Bowlers at Test level.
If you aim for and accept mediocrity, you'll never get a good side.
30 is not a good average, at any level. If you're averaging over 30 in a form of cricket, your ability at that level must be called into question. A bowler whose average in Test-cricket is under 30 can start to be considered a good bowler. One who averages under 27 can be considered a very good bowler. One who averages under 24 can be considered a very, very good bowler indeed. One who averages under 22 can be considered an all-time great.
In this day and age, anyway. Since 1930. Before that it's different.
And the same applies at domestic-First-Class level.
If your typical home conditions are favourable to your bowling style (which Harmison's in England are) you should be even more disappointed not to make these watersheds.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And Harmison is averaging about 30, which is not bad in terms of Bowlers at Test level.
Yes, and that suggested that they were all very poor and Habibul was a bit better than the rest.
This notion is still in place. Only now it's they're mostly poor and Habibul is almost a good Test batsman. Certainly an above-average one.
 

Top