four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not sure you can rank Jones clearly ahead of him, just because he played so few matches. His physical fragility had a much worse impact than Harmison's mental fragility.
It's all speculative, but in his last few appearances for England, Jones began to look seriously good. I'd be very interested to see how he would have gone if he managed to avoid all those serious injuries.I'm not sure you can rank Jones clearly ahead of him, just because he played so few matches. His physical fragility had a much worse impact than Harmison's mental fragility.
Jones' physical fragility caused him to miss games, Harmison's mental fragility saw him send deliveries to 2nd slip and lost us games.I'm not sure you can rank Jones clearly ahead of him, just because he played so few matches. His physical fragility had a much worse impact than Harmison's mental fragility.
This is an excellent point, and is why I think Johnson of today reminds me of him. Harmison was a bowler with all the right ingredients but clueless on 'how' to bowl. He just ran up, bowled fast and short and hoped. Occasionally he got into a rhythm, but only very occasionally.Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard, Anderson & Broad all have enough on their CVs to be rated ahead of Harmison. tbf we haven't seen enough of Bresnan, Finn & Tremlett to say for sure. Not sure about Sidearse actually. Good for a while against weak opposition but impotent against tougher nuts to crack. Bit like Harmison, although obviously a different type of bowler
As for GBH, partially mental, but also a pretty ****e technique meant that he rarely looked like he knew how he was going to take wickets unless the batsmen were intent on giving it away. I never felt he had a stock wicket-taking plan, which had to be a disadvantage.
Nobody is questioning his mental state with regards to his integrity as an individual though. If they were then I'd agree with you, as there's no place for that. But with regards to his performances, I think to some extent it's fair comment.Yes, he wasn't mentally up to it away from home. Calling him a ***** is also weak, incidentally. He's a devoted family man who got home sick. People in all walks of life have phobias/fears/issues etc and I would suggest that goes for this forum too.
.
That's fair. I would regard calling someone a '*****' as somewhere you shouldn't go..but I understand the criticism of his performances overseas. People expect those who play for their country to serve them well in any environment and if a player makes themselves available then they should be able to do so.Nobody is questioning his mental state with regards to his integrity as an individual though. If they were then I'd agree with you, as there's no place for that. But with regards to his performances, I think to some extent it's fair comment.
This is my overwhelming memory of Harmy. Too much making batsmen look mildly uncomfortable, not enough in the wickets column. And that's when he was bowling well.As for GBH, partially mental, but also a pretty ****e technique meant that he rarely looked like he knew how he was going to take wickets unless the batsmen were intent on giving it away. I never felt he had a stock wicket-taking plan, which had to be a disadvantage.
What's your view on Marcus Trescothick? I suspect Harmison had a similar condition to him in many ways, just not as extreme.His retirement from ODIs in the middle of an Ashes tour was soft. It smacked of a man who just didn't want to be away from home representing his country in the sport he plays for a living.
It's a fair point. With Tres tho, until his condition became public knowledge, it was never immediately apparent from his performances that he didn't really want to be there.What's your view on Marcus Trescothick? I suspect Harmison had a similar condition to him in many ways, just not as extreme.