Steve Harmison

[sledger]

Since it's been pretty clear for quite some time now that he won't be playing for England ever again, I thought now might be a quite nice point to reflect on his career as an international fast bowler, and attempt to determine exactly what his level of ability was.

I don't regard Harmison as a particularly great bowler by any means, but I always rather liked him, and at occasion felt some sort of strange sympathy for him at the times when he was much maligned. I think by the end of his tenure in the England side, he had become a bit of a joke, but I do remember some great England moments where he would take a key wicket or on rare occasions put in a really devastating spell of bowling. However, having looked back at some videos on youtube of these spells which I remember to be particularly good, I noticed that a large proportion of the wickets that went down were largely due to a collection of incredibly poor shots (particularly the 6/19 against Pakistan in 2006).

I suppose what I am interested in is to see where people really rank Harmison amongst the leading pace bowlers of the last ten years or so. I think for me personally he'd rank in the top 50% (without really analysing anything and just off the top of my head), but the thought of him being ranked as the top bowler in the world back in 2004 (was it?) seems now to be incredibly generous, and surely this can never in fact have been the case.

 

[Furball]

I'd struggle to put him in the top 10 English fast bowlers of the last 10 years tbh. But I say that as someone who never rated him. Wasn't cut out for international cricket at all, was far too soft and his ODI retirement in the midst of the 2006/07 Ashes should have ensured he never played for England again.

It's no coincidence that England's rise to the top coincides with ditching pussies like Harmison.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

You always felt Harmison had the potential to be a proper 'Ambrose' type bowler for England but never actually got close to for-filling it. I'd suggest the reason he didn't become world class was more down to his mental toughness than anything to do with the physical/skill side of things.

Steve Harmison's 7 for 12 against West Indies - YouTube

That bowling spell there though is something I'll always remember. I believe it was mostly down to that that he became world no1 (if I'm not mistaken?) and he fooled me at the time into thinking he had finally come of age

 

[Cabinet96]

Harmison was good on his day, but I don't think he was anything special. As GF said England have become a much better side since we ditched him. He lacked mental toughness and to be honest he was probably the worst bowler in the magic 4 of 2005.

 

[sledger]

You always felt Harmison had the potential to be a proper 'Ambrose' type bowler for England but never actually got close to for-filling it. I'd suggest the reason he didn't become world class was more down to his mental toughness than anything to do with the physical/skill side of things.

Steve Harmison's 7 for 12 against West Indies - YouTube

That bowling spell there though is something I'll always remember. I believe it was mostly down to that that he became world no1 (if I'm not mistaken?) and he fooled me at the time into thinking he had finally come of age

Yeah, I think it was immediately after this match, or at least this series that he was named number one. But even that spell probably says more about the ineptitude of that West Indies side than it does anything else, though granted you can only beat the opposition put in front of you etc...

I think his mental softness (or at least perceived mental softness, for indeed he did often cut a forlorn figure) is probably a lot to do with his differing form. One kind of wonders who someone of that fragility actually manages to rise to such a level in any professional sport to be honest. But that is probably being a bit harsh on my part.

I remember Richard once saying how if you combined Harmison with Martin Bicknell you'd have a really decent bowler, I think this was probably a very fair comment.

 

[sledger]

Harmison was good on his day, but I don't think he was anything special. As GF said England have become a much better side since we ditched him. He lacked mental toughness and to be honest he was probably the worst bowler in the magic 4 of 2005.

It's true, that it's hard to remember anything he really did in that series apart from get 5 wickets in the first innings at Lords and the slower ball that got Michael Clarke out a short while later.

 

[Cabinet96]

Actually the fact that he was so successful in the Championship in 2008/09 showed that he was a cut above the other County bowlers at the time. Maybe the reason he didn't dominate international cricket more was in fact just mentally.

 

[sledger]

Actually the fact that he was so successful in the Championship in 2008/09 showed that he was a cut above the other County bowlers at the time. Maybe the reason he didn't dominate international cricket more was in fact just mentally.

I imagine that, combined with the fact that at International level the standard of opponents was much higher is the crux of the matter to be honest.

 

[morgieb]

Reminded me of Mitchell Johnson to some degree. Could be brilliant, but alas...bowled too much dross. Occasionally got consistent, but often wasn't. Probably England made the right choice by giving up on him.

 

[four_or_six]

An average of 28 at home and 37 away (terrible without the 7/12 I would imagine) pretty much sums up my recollections of him now. He was just absolutely awful so many times on tour.

 

[Eds]

Reminded me of Mitchell Johnson to some degree. Could be brilliant, but alas...bowled too much dross. Occasionally got consistent, but often wasn't. Probably England made the right choice by giving up on him.

Johnson reminded you of Harmison, more like.

 

[Furball]

Actually the fact that he was so successful in the Championship in 2008/09 showed that he was a cut above the other County bowlers at the time. Maybe the reason he didn't dominate international cricket more was in fact just mentally.

I think it's because bowlers who are genuinely fast do well at First Class level - see also Saj Mahmood and Jade Dernbach when it comes to doing well in domestic OD cricket.

 

[fredfertang]

Loved watching Harmison bowl at full tilt - inconsistency was his middle name but when he got it right he was awesome

 

[Pothas]

I'd struggle to put him in the top 10 English fast bowlers of the last 10 years tbh. But I say that as someone who never rated him. Wasn't cut out for international cricket at all, was far too soft and his ODI retirement in the midst of the 2006/07 Ashes should have ensured he never played for England again.

It's no coincidence that England's rise to the top coincides with ditching pussies like Harmison.

Do not entierly buy the mental weakness thing but I will always associate him with that period of English cricket after the ashes win which seemingly failed to reach its potential. In fact I just think he was not a particularly good bowler who always suffered (in a way like Michael Vaughan) in reaching that false position of number one in the world.

Would have to get in the top 10 of the last decade though, can think of about 10 people that might be better bowlers but too many are either too early in their career or never played enoughl test cricket. Always had him firmly behind Hoggard though.

 

[Furball]

Do not entierly buy the mental weakness thing but I will always associate him with that period of English cricket after the ashes win which seemingly failed to reach its potential. In fact I just think he was not a particularly good bowler who always suffered (in a way like Michael Vaughan) in reaching that false position of number one in the world.

Would have to get in the top 10 of the last decade though, can think of about 10 people that might be better bowlers but too many are either too early in their career or never played enoughl test cricket. Always had him firmly behind Hoggard though.

I'd have him behind his quick bowling colleagues from 2005, I'd have all of the top 4 current quicks in front of him, and I'd definitely put Sidearse in front of him as well.

 

[Pothas]

I'd have him behind his quick bowling colleagues from 2005, I'd have all of the top 4 current quicks in front of him, and I'd definitely put Sidearse in front of him as well.

Finn is going to be a better bowler as well no doubt.

Still just about sneaks in the top 10 though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Loved watching Harmison bowl at full tilt - inconsistency was his middle name but when he got it right he was awesome

Yeah, I think that's about right. PEWS has spoken of a cricketer's "ceiling", by which I understand to mean how he can possibly perform when the stars are aligned and the wind's at his back, and Harmy's was very high, which is why I suppose the selectors stuck with him as long as they did.

His artillery was impressive: genuinely quick, great bounce and enough seam movement when it was there to be exploited.

The obvious problem was that, for whatever reason (& personally I suspect a slight mental softness; he seemed to get a little weepy when he came south of South Shields) he reached those heights all too infrequently.

I actually see quite a lot of Harmison the bowler in Finn, but hopefully the younger man has more steel in his soul. His recent filling out and gaining of a yard suggest a player nurturing his talent properly.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah Finn is doing everything right at the moment Englands support for young players is just so good these days.

 

[steds]

I'd struggle to put him in the top 10 English fast bowlers of the last 10 years tbh. But I say that as someone who never rated him. Wasn't cut out for international cricket at all, was far too soft and his ODI retirement in the midst of the 2006/07 Ashes should have ensured he never played for England again.

It's no coincidence that England's rise to the top coincides with ditching pussies like Harmison.

Was never really a fan of Harmison, but this is more than a bit harsh.

 

[wpdavid]

I'd have him behind his quick bowling colleagues from 2005, I'd have all of the top 4 current quicks in front of him, and I'd definitely put Sidearse in front of him as well.

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.