Bradman vs The others

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It is on bouncy wickets. Australia did the same to you in 1998/99.

As I recall we drew that series 2-2 which is more than many teams have been able to do against the Aussies.

Devon Smith does not have a good enough defence to succeed consistently at Test level.

The Richards continue to pop up!

He's done nothing special in the Tests before and after that series.

The sense continues to flow! 8/202 in the last Test vs New Zealand, including and important 4/76 in the second innings. 4/33 in the 5th Test against South Africa.

Regardless of strength of opposition. It would have to be a blind man, an ignorant man, a stupid man, or a nice balanced blend of all three to deny that Harmison bowled superbly in that series. Ignore the results and tell me that Harmison didn't bowl well.

 

[badgerhair]

Those ratings are rather random. They suggest that Gillespie and Botham are the best bowlers ever, that Ambrose, Marshall, Akram, McGrath and Imran are nothing special and all worse than Harmison, Fraser and Thomson.

I would be interested to know the ratings for SF Barnes and Muralitharan, who I consider to be the two best bowlers ever.

They aren't all that random. It suggests that Botham was amazing in his early years - and he was, since he could swing it a mile, both ways. It suggests that Gillespie was pretty devastating when he started, which he also was. And it makes it clear that Marshall, McGrath, Imran and Wasim Akram took quite a bit of time to get to the levels we remember them for, which is also entirely true. I admit to being very surprised at how low down Ambrose features.

Murali was also a fairly slow starter 61 31.31 72.48 47.63
although Barnes, whom I also revere as the best bowler ever, has the rather better figures of 97 21.23 53.02 33.55. Both of them considerably improved their figures thereafter. As did almost all of the people listed above. After all, you expect people to carry on getting better as their career goes on past 17 matches and starts getting towards the 40 mark.

You appear not to want to accept that it is even possible that a bowler whose career so far stands comparison with great bowlers and is considerably superior to bowlers who never got better than very good might actually belong in the higher echelon.

Why not?

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He has struggled on the pacey bouncy wickets at times along with all the West Indians, and there is more to a team than one individual.

But your post stated the players named by Marc as poor on bouncy wickets, of which Brian Lara was included.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Those ratings are rather random. They suggest that Gillespie and Botham are the best bowlers ever, that Ambrose, Marshall, Akram, McGrath and Imran are nothing special and all worse than Harmison, Fraser and Thomson.

I would be interested to know the ratings for SF Barnes and Muralitharan, who I consider to be the two best bowlers ever.

Those stats aren't random. They suggest that Gillespie et al are statistically the best bowlers ever... after 17 Test matches - statistically accurate based on what he presented.

 

[badgerhair]

He's done nothing special in the Tests before and after that series.

You don't remember his spell before and after tea on the fourth day of The Oval Test then, when he ripped the South African middle order out for zilch and set up a famous victory?

You didn't see him on the second morning at Lord's either, when he bowled very well indeed. If you think that getting whacked by Cairns in that mood is a mark of bad or wayward bowling, you know absolutely nothing about cricket. I suppose that next you'll be telling us that Dennis Lillee was a rubbish wayward bowler when Botham tonked him around Headingley in 1981.

As Liam has said, you would have to be blind, stupid or ignorant, or a combination of one or more to come out with this drivel.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a massive zebra]

The sense continues to flow! 8/202 in the last Test vs New Zealand, including and important 4/76 in the second innings. 4/33 in the 5th Test against South Africa.

8/202 is not special, although those 4 second innings wickets were important. His 4/33 against South Africa was the only innings that he had any success against them, I think his series bowling average before that innings was over 70.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

8/202 is not special, although those 4 second innings wickets were important. His 4/33 against South Africa was the only innings that he had any success against him, I think his series bowling average before that innings was over 70.

And finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel! A hint of sense! Indeed, his average was poor before that innings and what is it now? What has it been since? Perhaps, just perhaps... maybe, just maybe, he's been bowling well since? That may just be the oxygen speaking though.

 

[a massive zebra]

And finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel! A hint of sense! Indeed, his average was poor before that innings and what is it now? What has it been since? Perhaps, just perhaps... maybe, just maybe, he's been bowling well since? That may just be the oxygen speaking though.

Please don't talk in such a patronising manner, im sure you have not seen as much of Harmison as me. His Test record excluding the winter tours is a more appropriate 40 wickets in 12 matches at an average of 33.45. That is the true reflection of his abilities.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Please don't talk in such a patronising manner, im sure you have not seen as much of Harmison as me. His Test record excluding the winter tours is a more appropriate 40 wickets in 12 matches at an average of 33.45. That is the true reflection of his abilities.

I've seen Harmison when he is bowling well (these winter tours which you seem so happy to disregard) and you've seen him bowl well. I'm just willing to admit that he's bowling well. Subtle difference.

 

[marc71178]

Face it. Harmison has had 3 good games against a poor team that cannot play on bouncy wickets and you are jumping to a conclusion.

This argument is beginning to wear a little thin.

He's had more than just 3 good games out of 17 (the number of wickets he's got tells you that)

 

[marc71178]

8/202 is not special.

In the context of that match it was.

And it's still an average of 25 runs per wicket - you're saying that's not special?

 

[marc71178]

His Test record excluding the winter tours is a more appropriate 40 wickets in 12 matches at an average of 33.45. That is the true reflection of his abilities.

Why? Because you say so?

He's made slight modifications to his action and is picking up a lot of wickets, so why are you counting his pre-modification figures as a true reflection?

 

[luckyeddie]

He's done nothing special in the Tests before and after that series.

A-ha-ha-ha-etc

Rik's got a new sign-on.

8 wickets against New Zealand on a track which he would hardly want to roll up and carry round with him (look at how the supposedly superior Tuffey performed on the same surface) - not bad for starters.

 

[badgerhair]

Why? Because you say so?

He's made slight modifications to his action and is picking up a lot of wickets, so why are you counting his pre-modification figures as a true reflection?

Oh, leave the poor thing alone now. He's made his position extremely clear, and now all we have to do is compare his predictions with the actual results as they unfold.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[PY]

Why? Because you say so?

He's made slight modifications to his action and is picking up a lot of wickets, so why are you counting his pre-modification figures as a true reflection?

Not only that but he has had an attitude change as well which I think may be the reason why the other things have happened to some extent.

I like Bobby Robson even more now.

 

[luckyeddie]

Please don't talk in such a patronising manner, im sure you have not seen as much of Harmison as me. His Test record excluding the winter tours is a more appropriate 40 wickets in 12 matches at an average of 33.45. That is the true reflection of his abilities.

Yes!!!!!

I have finally found a member on Cricket Web more stupid than me.....

Oh, wait, that doesn't sound right.

Steve Harmison has two god-given gifts - pace and bounce.

These are natural for him - they are part of his physical makeup and provided he doesn't do a Freddie for a couple of years and use Ronald McDonald as his nutritionist, he's got them for the next two or three years at least.

Those two gifts help a great deal, and can take you into an international team even - certainly one with an injury-hit attack like England's was when Harmison broke through (more like fell through) but they won't establish you as anything special.

No, you need something more than that - you need a brain on top of your shoulders, and you need at least some element of control (including self-control).

The control isn't perfect - I don't think it ever will be, and SH's unlikely to be a Shaun Pollock type bowler, but by gum it's pretty good by any standards now - just look at the side-by-sides - like the old 'before and after' shots they use on carpet-cleaner adverts.

'BUT THAT'S NOT ALL.......'

The self-control and the headwork is magnificent - look what he did to Gayle when he took 3 successive fours off him - how many times do you see him get out the guy who has been tonking him around the field? Harmison is now a 'clever' bowler as well.

You certainly cannot talk about Harmo being in the same league as Fred Trueman, John Snow or Ian Botham (that's a chronological order) but I'll tell you what - I've not seen many English bowlers show such a staggering improvement in such a short period of time.

 

[twctopcat]

Yes!!!!!

I have finally found a member on Cricket Web more stupid than me.....

Oh, wait, that doesn't sound right.

Steve Harmison has two god-given gifts - pace and bounce.

These are natural for him - they are part of his physical makeup and provided he doesn't do a Freddie for a couple of years and use Ronald McDonald as his nutritionist, he's got them for the next two or three years at least.

Those two gifts help a great deal, and can take you into an international team even - certainly one with an injury-hit attack like England's was when Harmison broke through (more like fell through) but they won't establish you as anything special.

No, you need something more than that - you need a brain on top of your shoulders, and you need at least some element of control (including self-control).

The control isn't perfect - I don't think it ever will be, and SH's unlikely to be a Shaun Pollock type bowler, but by gum it's pretty good by any standards now - just look at the side-by-sides - like the old 'before and after' shots they use on carpet-cleaner adverts.

'BUT THAT'S NOT ALL.......'

The self-control and the headwork is magnificent - look what he did to Gayle when he took 3 successive fours off him - how many times do you see him get out the guy who has been tonking him around the field? Harmison is now a 'clever' bowler as well.

You certainly cannot talk about Harmo being in the same league as Fred Trueman, John Snow or Ian Botham (that's a chronological order) but I'll tell you what - I've not seen many English bowlers show such a staggering improvement in such a short period of time.

By 'eck there's some sense there, just wish mz could see it, do u watch cricket (in particular harmison) zebra? If you cannot see his talent then there is something seriously wrong. 8/202 where he didn't bowl well by his own admission is pretty damn good. You're the sort of person who will need Harmsion to get 40 wickets in an ashes series before he's close to mcgrath,pollock etc.

 

[a massive zebra]

.Of his 72 test wickets, Harmison has 41 against WIndies, Zimbabwe and BDesh in 7 tests at under 14 each. And Windies have one of the worst batting records in recent years.

His other 31 wickets cost him nearly 40 runs apiece.

One understands Englands paucity of bowling class and hence the desperation to blood heroes but still....

Finally someone with sense.

 

[luckyeddie]

Finally someone with sense.

I wish you'd stop being a prat
as you wish his career to fall flat.
He's the best that we've got
and if you say he's not -
ask the Kiwis what they think of that.

 

[SJS]

I wish you'd stop being a prat
as you wish his career to fall flat.
He's the best that we've got
and if you say he's not -
ask the Kiwis what they think of that.

Harmison rules - so you say
Kiwis ? 'cause they struggle to play
don't you think
he's yett too 'pink'
to be your 'Titan' this a way ?