*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[Gaijin-san]

Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?

[Rik]

Originally posted by furious_ged
Harvey has played 3 times as many ODIs. Watson has barely had enough time to adjust to the international scene. If you look at his first class and list a figures they're not too shabby. Give him the chance to play 65 ODIs and he'll eclipse Harvey. Watson has come back with a better and stronger action. The only way that average is going is down.

Besides, Ricky Ponting has said that Shane Watson is part of his and the selectors long-term plans, so you can take it up with him.

Oh yes of course his bowling average is going down, just like his bowling average in FC cricket has gone up 2 runs in the last year...

When I 1st saw Watson's record he averaged over 50 in Domestic OD cricket, but then of course since you said he's rarely played any ODIs and taken less wickets than ODIs he's played when Harvey takes more from less games...of course you must be right :rolleyes:

Harvey is an attacking and often very accurate bowler, people have told me Watson's basically a trundler. I'd go for Harvey any day, especially from his performances in OD cricket over here, where I've basically seen him bowl several times every year and he's been fantastic.

[Rik]

Originally posted by furious_ged
Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?

Yes of course it did, but it still doesn't seem to have occured to you that Harvey's performances in the World Cup were under more pressure than he's facing now, and therefor show his ability as a bowler.

[Gaijin-san]

Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.

[age_master]

Originally posted by furious_ged
And he very nearly lost it for us yesterday by giving India a truckload of runs (his last over goes for 22 and he's one of the best death bowlers?)

that was good batting, not bad bowling, could have happened to anyone

[Gaijin-san]

Wouldn't have been as bad for a really good death bowler.

[Rik]

Originally posted by furious_ged
Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.

Now you are just being pedantic. The World Cup was only about a year ago. Of course you wouldn't pick Border, seriously what a stupid comment! The guy's retired for starters! But also there is a big difference between performing in a WC a year ago and not performing since, and performing in a WC a year ago and performing for the next year after that as well, which, unless you really have been living in a cave, you'd realise Harvey has been doing.

[Tim]

Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

[mavric41]

I'll solve this. Harvey is for now. Watson is for the future.

(p.s. Rik - Watson is not a trundler - he is more like Bichel speed)

[age_master]

Originally posted by Tim
Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

exactly

[Tim]

I don't really think you can call Ian Harvey an all-rounder at international level..but then again I don't think you could play both Harvey & Watson together, unless they dropped Clarke and the selectors were surpremely confident Watson could do the job with the bat.

Harvey may not be one of the most glamourous players around so no doubt the finger 9/10 is going to be pointed at him for not producing the goods but I think you could also look at some of the bowlers & ask why they didn't do the job?

[Rik]

Originally posted by furious_ged
As I said, Harvey has his own legs and his own mouth. He ran himself out.

All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.

[age_master]

Originally posted by Rik
All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.

andre disagrees with me on this one but i really dont think harvey ran hard enough early and as such was caught short

[CDAK]

Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper. I'm sure it's not Harvy's fault, but Yuvraj's batting flexibility scored those 22 runs. More over I personally feel that Indians find Harvy more difficult to handle( because of his less pace) than any other bowler. No need to replace Harvy. THis AUS team is very good except for the form-out Martyn and the third seamer.( McGrath has to come back)
Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by CDAK
Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper.

I wouldn't say Harvey is a very good ODI bowler. His economy is passable at 4.71 and his average decent at 30.13. His a decent, even good ODI bowler at best.

Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204

And? That still doesn't make it good! That's like comparing a century to the standard of a triple century.