Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think good Harmy is a bit overrated anyway. Typical Good Harmy bowling is what he did against South Africa last year, making batsmen uncomfortable, taking an important wicket or two and ending up with respectable figures like 4/120. It's been three years since he took a five wicket haul. Good Sidebottom bowling, on the other hand, is taking piles and piles of wickets with lethal inswing.Puts far too negative a spin on things for me. Yes, he's only taken six wickets in a tour match, but if one were pro Harmison one could equally say he's taken double the amount of either of his seam rivals have managed in their last outings. &, whilst it's obviously UC's own opinion, I really don't think of Harmison as a man who doesn't ever make one feel he's going to take test wickets when he comes on. It becomes immediately apparent if it's good Harmy or bad Harmy who's turned up when he's bowled his first couple of deliveries, but he has taken over 200 of them, so the hope is always there in my mind. It's a faint hope often tho and picking him is really dependent on whether the selectors are minded to gamble.
My question is, why gamble on Harmison playing well when you get much better value on Sidebottom? Sidey's surely more likely to hit form- after all, his peak was barely a year ago. And not only that, but if he does hit form, he'll be far more dangerous than an on-form Harmison will be. The value just isn't there with punting on Harmison.
Could make the same argument re: Onions if you prefer.