Howz dinesh karthik?

[tooextracool]

Because before 2004 he'd only had success against against the substandard sides.
He's still got a hell of a lot to prove.

and since then hes modified his action, improved his direction and has been extremely consistent.

 

[luckyeddie]

and since then hes modified his action, improved his direction and has been extremely consistent.

I'd go along with that - Harmison is now an extremely accurate bowler - and at a pace up to and above 96 mph off such a short, easy run, that is simply amazing.

 

[Richard]

and since then hes modified his action, improved his direction and has been extremely consistent.

Wrong, the modification in his action actually came in the spring of 2003 - his action was very noticably different at the start of that summer (and his economy-rate in the Championship bore-out the improvement in his accuracy - 2.13-an-over in his first 2 games) to how it had been the previous summer and in the winter in Australia.
And it took all but a year for that change in action to result in a change in figures? No, the two had nothing to do with each other and rather the change in figures had to do with batsmen's playing him going downhill.
As borne-out by the fact that nothing in his bowling changed between the South Africa and West Indies series and rather that far, far, far, far more poor strokes were played than previously.

 

[Richard]

Harmison is now an extremely accurate bowler

So that's why he went for 3.87-an-over in the first 5 innings of the West Indies series, then?
He's accurate sometimes, but there are times when he can be every bit as wayward as he is accurate at his good times.

 

[luckyeddie]

Wrong, the modification in his action actually came in the spring of 2003 - his action was very noticably different at the start of that summer (and his economy-rate in the Championship bore-out the improvement in his accuracy - 2.13-an-over in his first 2 games) to how it had been the previous summer and in the winter in Australia.
And it took all but a year for that change in action to result in a change in figures? No, the two had nothing to do with each other and rather the change in figures had to do with batsmen's playing him going downhill.
As borne-out by the fact that nothing in his bowling changed between the South Africa and West Indies series and rather that far, far, far, far more poor strokes were played than previously.

.
The change in action had EVERYTHING to do with him becoming a better bowler, but these things take time. The change was made in order to bring the key points into a single line - wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee, foot. People pick up on the wrist position but it was far, far more than that.

I am a sports coach (tenpin), have coached international players and played the sport myself at an exceedingly high level. The differences between the two types of bowling are far fewer than their similarities.

Two words immediately spring to mind when any change is made in what is a mechanical event - muscle memory. Bad habits are terribly difficult to break (me ranting at tosspots like Scallywag for example) and under pressure they creep back in again.

A change as fundamental as Harmison's would take at least 3,000 repititions before it became second nature.

 

[luckyeddie]

So that's why he went for 3.87-an-over in the first 5 innings of the West Indies series, then?
He's accurate sometimes, but there are times when he can be every bit as wayward as he is accurate at his good times.

Time to start munching on another computer, methinks.

There's Glenn McGrath 80 mph outside off stick accuracy, then there's Harmison 96 mph into your ribs with 5 slips and 2 short legs accuracy

 

[Richard]

.
The change in action had EVERYTHING to do with him becoming a better bowler, but these things take time. The change was made in order to bring the key points into a single line - wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee, foot. People pick up on the wrist position but it was far, far more than that.

It's all well and good, but what improvement was supposedly made, coinciding with the improvement in figures?
It really doesn't make sense to say that the improvements take time to take effect.
What that would mean is that the improvements took time to increase his pace\accuracy\movement. But they didn't. As I mentioned, his accuracy had improved by the summer of 2003. His pace had gone up by, well, maybe 2 or 3 mph which won't make much difference. He does swing the odd ball nowadays but still doesn't take many wickets with them. He seams the ball as little as anyone can possibly seam the ball on a typical wicket of 2002-... He still can't bowl cutters to order; he occasionally bowls one that is clearly due to fortune.
The only thing that has coincided with his improvement in figures has been poor strokes.

I am a sports coach (tenpin), have coached international players and played the sport myself at an exceedingly high level. The differences between the two types of bowling are far fewer than their similarities.

Two words immediately spring to mind when any change is made in what is a mechanical event - muscle memory. Bad habits are terribly difficult to break (me ranting at tosspots like Scallywag for example) and under pressure they creep back in again.

A change as fundamental as Harmison's would take at least 3,000 repititions before it became second nature.

Then it's probably not yet second-nature.

 

[luckyeddie]

One must assume, then, that if Harmison is incapable of bowling any better, then all the batsmen he has played against have got worse.

Your call. Harmison better, 30 or so batters (including BCL) worse. Harmison better, 30 batters worse. One up, 30 down. If a coin lands heads-up 99 times in succession, what are the odds on the next one being a tail?

Pure logic tells you that for such a dramatic improvement in figures, there must have been an equally dramatic improvement in performance.

How tasty ARE motherboards? You must be on about your third by now.

 

[Richard]

Time to start munching on another computer, methinks.

I've never mentioned eating my computer in anything to do with Harmison.

There's Glenn McGrath 80 mph outside off stick accuracy, then there's Harmison 96 mph into your ribs with 5 slips and 2 short legs accuracy

Harmison touches 94mph only on very occasional occasions.
More often he's around about 87-89. And still, top-class batting has seen this cause not many problems.

 

[Richard]

One must assume, then, that if Harmison is incapable of bowling any better, then all the batsmen he has played against have got worse.

Your call. Harmison better, 30 or so batters (including BCL) worse. Harmison better, 30 batters worse. One up, 30 down. If a coin lands heads-up 99 times in succession, what are the odds on the next one being a tail?

Pure logic tells you that for such a dramatic improvement in figures, there must have been an equally dramatic improvement in performance.

How tasty ARE motherboards? You must be on about your third by now.

As inconceivable as it might seem, have you actually watched Harmison's bowling? Did you watch it in 2003, or 2002?
He was perceived to be troubling them plenty then, too. But he still came-out with occasional good sets of figures towards end of series only, and otherwise generally took wickets at over 100.
Why has the batting against him been so generally awful? I don't know. But it's not like there has been the constant of quick wickets, batsmen's names, or indeed Harmison's performance (he's had 6 terrible sets of figures amongst these 14 good ones). Some of it can be explained by him getting to bowl at tail-enders far more (in his Australia and South Africa Tests it was very common for him and the rest to be so ineffective against the top-order that the tail never batted, so the cheap wickets weren't available), and only some, before anyone tries to jump on that.
If anyone seriously reckons there's been any difference between Harmison in most of 2004 and Harmison in the preceding games then IMO they're wrong.
I've watched his bowling with very intense attention-to-detail, and as far as I can see there is no difference in pace, length, variation or good balls which take wickets. The batting has simply been uniformly worse. And that is borne-out in a lesser way in the figures of the other bowlers, too.

 

[Swervy]

I've watched his bowling with very intense attention-to-detail, and as far as I can see there is no difference in pace, length, variation or good balls which take wickets.

a case of not seeing the wood for the trees maybe????

 

[luckyeddie]

I've never mentioned eating my computer in anything to do with Harmison.

Harmison touches 94mph only on very occasional occasions.
More often he's around about 87-89. And still, top-class batting has seen this cause not many problems.

Harmison bowled one ball at over 96 mph in the one-dayer against New Zealand (the game when England were out for 101). In his last one-dayer, his AVERAGE was almost 91 - and he has made plenty of top-class batting jump around.

For crying out loud, he has now got over 100 test match wickets - they're not all rubbish players, you know.

 

[Richard]

a case of not seeing the wood for the trees maybe????

How so?

 

[Richard]

Harmison bowled one ball at over 96 mph in the one-dayer against New Zealand (the game when England were out for 101). In his last one-dayer, his AVERAGE was almost 91 - and he has made plenty of top-class batting jump around.

For crying out loud, he has now got over 100 test match wickets - they're not all rubbish players, you know.

I KNOW they're not all rubbish players.
But please, just check over the stuff that's happened this year (well, 14 of the 20 innings in the year). See how many of them are good balls, and how many are poor strokes.
Compare some similar deliveries from the previous era.

 

[luckyeddie]

As inconceivable as it might seem, have you actually watched Harmison's bowling? Did you watch it in 2003, or 2002?
He was perceived to be troubling them plenty then, too. But he still came-out with occasional good sets of figures towards end of series only, and otherwise generally took wickets at over 100.
Why has the batting against him been so generally awful? I don't know. But it's not like there has been the constant of quick wickets, batsmen's names, or indeed Harmison's performance (he's had 6 terrible sets of figures amongst these 14 good ones). Some of it can be explained by him getting to bowl at tail-enders far more (in his Australia and South Africa Tests it was very common for him and the rest to be so ineffective against the top-order that the tail never batted, so the cheap wickets weren't available), and only some, before anyone tries to jump on that.
If anyone seriously reckons there's been any difference between Harmison in most of 2004 and Harmison in the preceding games then IMO they're wrong.
I've watched his bowling with very intense attention-to-detail, and as far as I can see there is no difference in pace, length, variation or good balls which take wickets. The batting has simply been uniformly worse. And that is borne-out in a lesser way in the figures of the other bowlers, too.

Oh, I have watched him a damned sight more than you, quite obviously.

The significant change in Steve Harmison as an athlete came in the winter of 2003 - there were two significant pieces of training which Harmison underwent, culminating in a number of changes.

Firstly, at Loughborough, he underwent remodelling of both his approach to the wicket (notice how 'bouncy' he is now?), his hand position, gather and delivery. The hand position involved carrying the ball further forward, in front of his elbow to negate the old 'side-to-side' motion. The 'gather' was to produce a more upright bowler, enabling him to not fall away at the moment of delivery (the reason for the huge leg-side wides and loss of control) and to take pressure off his lower back. A by-product of all these things was to bring fingers, wrist, elbow and shoulder into line at the gather, and to be able to propel his torso OVER the leading knee instead of around it, thus generating more LEVERAGE. From this came speed - and consistency.

Secondly, at Newcastle United Football Club, he underwent intensive strength training under the guidance of the club physiotherapists. The significance of this cannot be underestimated. It was to pack on muscle - and it has improved his stamina no end.

 

[luckyeddie]

I KNOW they're not all rubbish players.
But please, just check over the stuff that's happened this year (well, 14 of the 20 innings in the year). See how many of them are good balls, and how many are poor strokes.
Compare some similar deliveries from the previous era.

Richard, no-one will ever convince you of the benefits of cramping a batsman up, spearing one into the ribs then firing in the yorker. It's not always the ball which hits the top of off stump which is the good ball - sometimes it's the half-volley two feet wide of the sticks which draws the batsman into the injudicious slash because he's been forced to defend the previous 3 or 4 from hip or chest.

You seem eager to give credit to bowlers you have never seen (I doubt you've seen much of Mike Hendrick or Graham Dilley at all) - so obviously you listen to what other people say about those. Why don't you listen to what professionals and pundits say about Harmison now?

Because you think you know better.

 

[Richard]

Because I have had the chance to think I know better.
Don't tell me you've never thought you know better than any professionals and pundits, because you have, and you know you have.
WRT Dilley, Hendrick etc. I have been able to watch only limited amounts of them - and of course, any highlights packages can make bowlers look far better than they were.
The reason no-one will ever be able to convince me of the benefits of cramping a batsman up, spearing one into the ribs then firing in the yorker is because I've seen it tried so many times and it's not worked.

 

[Richard]

Oh, I have watched him a damned sight more than you, quite obviously.

The significant change in Steve Harmison as an athlete came in the winter of 2003 - there were two significant pieces of training which Harmison underwent, culminating in a number of changes.

Firstly, at Loughborough, he underwent remodelling of both his approach to the wicket (notice how 'bouncy' he is now?), his hand position, gather and delivery. The hand position involved carrying the ball further forward, in front of his elbow to negate the old 'side-to-side' motion. The 'gather' was to produce a more upright bowler, enabling him to not fall away at the moment of delivery (the reason for the huge leg-side wides and loss of control) and to take pressure off his lower back. A by-product of all these things was to bring fingers, wrist, elbow and shoulder into line at the gather, and to be able to propel his torso OVER the leading knee instead of around it, thus generating more LEVERAGE. From this came speed - and consistency.

Secondly, at Newcastle United Football Club, he underwent intensive strength training under the guidance of the club physiotherapists. The significance of this cannot be underestimated. It was to pack on muscle - and it has improved his stamina no end.

Yes, I know about both of them.
Look, shall we just leave it at let's wait and see for the next 24 months, then see if these poor strokes continue? If so, I might just possibly admit that he might be doing something to cause them.
Indeed, if he conquers my beloved Graeme I might act in one of two ways.

 

[Swervy]

The reason no-one will ever be able to convince me of the benefits of cramping a batsman up, spearing one into the ribs then firing in the yorker is because I've seen it tried so many times and it's not worked.

Oh Boy!!!

You have a lot to learn....

I think us older ones remember how the greatest fast bowling team ever (WI) used to do things.

LE..you are gonna have try harder crack this nut

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, I know about both of them.
Look, shall we just leave it at let's wait and see for the next 24 months, then see if these poor strokes continue? If so, I might just possibly admit that he might be doing something to cause them.
Indeed, if he conquers my beloved Graeme I might act in one of two ways.

OK - but watch out for the USB ports - they tend to get stuck in the teeth.