Harmison and the 2005 Ashes

[adharcric]

Harmison was not England's best bowler in 05 but was part of an effective package which was very tough on the Aussies. Who, at that time would have done a better job for England? Every other bloke they've trotted out since has frankly been complete and utter dross:

Plunkett? Ker plunk.
Sidebottom? Mouth-watering prospect for Australia next time. God I hope he plays.
Anderson? Too busy worrying about his hair style.
Mahmood? Embarassing. At least Harmison has had some good times in the past, including to an extent 05.
Broad? Too soon to tell, and wasn't around in 05 anyways.
Lewis? A crock.

See, you can analyse and qualify any player's achievements to the extent that it simply becomes ridiculous. Now we all love cricket and are all keen students of the game, but it just becomes paralysis by analysis.

Look at Michael Clarke in the last Ashes series here. Now you can qualify his efforts by saying "Well, Ponting & Hussey were better than him, he came in after good starts, he bats down the order, England were crap, the bowlers were tired, the conditions were good for him, he hardly faced Flintoff & Hoggard & got to play the other bowlers' dross, he got dropped a couple of times, his helmet wasn't on straight, he made 23 of his runs against Pietersen's part timers, he dyes his hair, there was a good lbw shout against him on 13 in the 2nd test and I think he may have feathered th one ball Anderson moved in the entire series but was given not out, so really his contribution was not as good as his numbers make out". But the fact is, he made runs and he contributed to a great team performance.

It's like this Hussain v Hayden & Knight v Gilchrist thing. Everyone can have their opinion on players, as is their right. But simply saying "This bloke, despite averaging 15-20 runs less per innings in tests than the other bloke despite batting further down the order, is a better player than the other bloke because the bowling was always better when Hussein played and Hayden's nothing more than a flat track bully who always faces weak bowling and Hussain was in a crap side and Hayden's in a great side" is complete and utter bollocks. Whoever says that has pIainly never seen the India 2001 series or seen Hayden advance down the wicket in a test match on the first morning and drop kick a new ball bowler 100 metres over long-on. It takes a special talent to do that, frankly. And if Hussein was so good, why did he only make 2 tons in 23 tests against Australia? The argument might have some merit if the runs per average wicket had gone up by 16 each since the earlier era, but it hasn't.

Never occurs to people to even think that one of the reasons Hayden's side is so great may well be Hayden himself, does it? Ask that question and we get the inevitable "Great bowlers make great sides, not batsmen" stuff trotted out. Try seeing how great your bowlers are if they're defending 150-200 every test instead of 450-500. Try telling anyone who knows which end of a stump goes into the ground that Don Bradman wasn't the greatest match and series winner in cricketing history because of the runs he scored and how quickly he scored them. Mind you, the pitches were flat, he had Woodfull and Ponsford in front of him, the bowlers weren't fast, and on and on and on and on we go..........

Then we have the Gilly v Nick Knight argument. I've posted on this in the other forum, but quickly - to compare a bloke whose career highlights package could be written on a postage stamp with a 4 inch wide paint brush to a bloke who has scored at least 50 in three (3!!!!) consecutive WC finals, including one of the great ODI innings against a good attack in the biggest game of all is an insult to the latter bloke. Doesn't mean Knight couldn't play, doesn't mean he wasn't decent, but the other fella has a proven track record in massive games which count most. By contrast, Knight played for England.

Excellent post but I disagree on one point. How can you bash Knight for not playing huge WC final knocks when his team was never good enough to give him an opportunity to do so?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Excellent post but I disagree on one point. How can you bash Knight for not playing huge WC final knocks when his team was never good enough to give him an opportunity to do so?

He still played in ODI finals, World Cup, Champions Trophy and didn't do very well.

 

[aussie]

It doesn't matter as to how he performed, but it does matter as to how much of an effect he had on the series victory.

As I say, however, I don't feel he bowled remotely well in the Lord's Test anyway.

Haven't been really following this argument due the headache i know it would cause be by getting into it, but this statement just stands out, geez how can you say Harmison didn't bowl well @ lord's?. Geez did you miss something man, he was totally brilliant on that first day even though he only took only 1 top order wicket & blew away the tail with his 5-for it was fairly obvious that he was at his best on that first morning. Even in the second innings he was pretty solid as well.

 

[Richard]

Nope, the chance created by Harmison was an easy one as opposed to the one created by Flintoff. Flintoff was lucky that the batsman chose to scoop a harmless delivery. That was not a wicket taking delivery whereas Harmison's was.

Harmison's was not, either. Both were pretty rubbish deliveries. The inswinging-Yorker Flintoff trapped Kasprowicz 1st ball with, however, was not, it was a magnificent ball, and should have won an lbw decision.

Neither did Flintoff, just because there was an appeal doesn't mean the batsman was out and the Jones's chance was a tougher than the chance Harmison created. So yes, Harmison did more than Flintoff to get the last wicket and that's a fact no matter how many times you repeat it.

No, he didn't. I'll repeat it as often as I like. The lbw was absolutely plumb, and there was no difference between the calibre of the balls bowled by Flintoff for the S Jones drop or Harmison for the G Jones catch.

Hence, Flintoff getting the last wicket would have been justice; Harmison getting it was injustice.

 

[Richard]

I know this thread is about Harmy, but for you to say that Peitersens innings was overrated in the final test is a joke. Yes he got dropped, but without Peitersen's 158 Australia would have won the test and regained the Ashes

And? Without Warne dropping him, he'd not have scored it. Simple as. So, in other words, Australia would (barring a miracle) have won the Test.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, Flintoff would have bowled them out for 94

 

[Richard]

Every other bloke they've trotted out since has frankly been complete and utter dross:

And so is Harmison. If Harmison could take what little he took in 2005, so could virtually any of the others.

See, you can analyse and qualify any player's achievements to the extent that it simply becomes ridiculous.

And I don't think that extent has been reached.

Look at Michael Clarke in the last Ashes series here. Now you can qualify his efforts by saying "Well, Ponting & Hussey were better than him, he came in after good starts, he bats down the order, England were crap, the bowlers were tired, the conditions were good for him, he hardly faced Flintoff & Hoggard & got to play the other bowlers' dross, he got dropped a couple of times, his helmet wasn't on straight, he made 23 of his runs against Pietersen's part timers, he dyes his hair, there was a good lbw shout against him on 13 in the 2nd test and I think he may have feathered th one ball Anderson moved in the entire series but was given not out, so really his contribution was not as good as his numbers make out". But the fact is, he made runs and he contributed to a great team performance.

Personally I thought Clarke was quite superb in The Ashes 2006\07, TBH.

It's like this Hussain v Hayden & Knight v Gilchrist thing. Everyone can have their opinion on players, as is their right. But simply saying "This bloke, despite averaging 15-20 runs less per innings in tests than the other bloke despite batting further down the order, is a better player than the other bloke because the bowling was always better when Hussein played and Hayden's nothing more than a flat track bully who always faces weak bowling and Hussain was in a crap side and Hayden's in a great side" is complete and utter bollocks. Whoever says that has pIainly never seen the India 2001 series or seen Hayden advance down the wicket in a test match on the first morning and drop kick a new ball bowler 100 metres over long-on. It takes a special talent to do that, frankly. And if Hussein was so good, why did he only make 2 tons in 23 tests against Australia? The argument might have some merit if the runs per average wicket had gone up by 16 each since the earlier era, but it hasn't.

Never occurs to people to even think that one of the reasons Hayden's side is so great may well be Hayden himself, does it? Ask that question and we get the inevitable "Great bowlers make great sides, not batsmen" stuff trotted out. Try seeing how great your bowlers are if they're defending 150-200 every test instead of 450-500.

I'm kinda reluctant to get into this again, but...

I've seen Hayden walk down and hit a bowler over his head, yeah. And I also know that a really good bowler would simply not let anyone do that. I've already said, haven't I, that Hayden is indeed better than most at bashing rubbish bowlers.

Nor have I ever said Hayden can't play spin, he's one of if not the best player of spin I've ever seen. It's purely and simply against high-quality seam that I'm on about. And being an opening batsman, that's supposed to be your biggest test, but hasn't been these last 6 years.

Finally, yes, Australia's dominance has indeed had a hell of a lot to do with Hayden. I've never said otherwise there, either. But that doesn't change the fact that had he played against better bowlers, I don't think he'd have lasted long. Hence, maybe, Australia might have been less dominant.

 

[Richard]

Haven't been really following this argument due the headache i know it would cause be by getting into it, but this statement just stands out, geez how can you say Harmison didn't bowl well @ lord's?. Geez did you miss something man, he was totally brilliant on that first day even though he only took only 1 top order wicket & blew away the tail with his 5-for it was fairly obvious that he was at his best on that first morning. Even in the second innings he was pretty solid as well.

I don't set too much stall by getting tailenders out with average deliveries, myself.

Virtually everyone bar McGrath on the first afternoon bowled terribly in that match. On such a helpful wicket, the game could easily have lasted less than 2 days with two high-class bowling-attacks.

 

[iamdavid]

I've seen Hayden walk down and hit a bowler over his head, yeah. And I also know that a really good bowler would simply not let anyone do that. I've already said, haven't I, that Hayden is indeed better than most at bashing rubbish bowlers..

Rubbish bowlers ?....Like Craig White, Andrew Caddick, Shaun Pollock etc etc.

I know Hayden's methods arent the prettiest but he's mighty effective and he's been about as prolific as its possible to be the last 6 years I think he is due more credit from you.
However you do I must agree have a point on him regarding high quality seam bowling, Im not saying there is an outright weakness there but theres certainly a box he hasnt ticket yet, he's faced a bare minimum of it throughout his carear (bowlers capable of moving the ball off the seam regularly and decent pace in remotely helpful conditions), and the only lean periods since that 01 tour of India have come at the hands of such bowling (2001 ashes against Gough and Caddick in patches, 2005 against Flintoff/Hoggard and on a few occasions agsinst Shane Bond)

 

[Richard]

Rubbish bowlers ?....Like Craig White, Andrew Caddick, Shaun Pollock etc etc.

White was hardly bowling specially in that Test in question (MCG 2002\03) no. Don't actually remember him doing it to either Caddick or Pollock in a Test, I must confess, but neither are exactly special on a flat wicket anyway.

However you do I must agree have a point on him regarding high quality seam bowling, Im not saying there is an outright weakness there but theres certainly a box he hasnt ticket yet, he's faced a bare minimum of it throughout his carear (bowlers capable of moving the ball off the seam regularly and decent pace in remotely helpful conditions), and the only lean periods since that 01 tour of India have come at the hands of such bowling (2001 ashes against Gough and Caddick in patches, 2005 against Flintoff/Hoggard and on a few occasions agsinst Shane Bond)

And the rest... Kyle Mills and Shoaib Akhtar in 2004\05.

 

[Burgey]

Rubbish bowlers ?....Like Craig White, Andrew Caddick, Shaun Pollock etc etc.

I know Hayden's methods arent the prettiest but he's mighty effective and he's been about as prolific as its possible to be the last 6 years I think he is due more credit from you.
However you do I must agree have a point on him regarding high quality seam bowling, Im not saying there is an outright weakness there but theres certainly a box he hasnt ticket yet, he's faced a bare minimum of it throughout his carear (bowlers capable of moving the ball off the seam regularly and decent pace in remotely helpful conditions), and the only lean periods since that 01 tour of India have come at the hands of such bowling (2001 ashes against Gough and Caddick in patches, 2005 against Flintoff/Hoggard and on a few occasions against Shane Bond)

But which batsman doesn't struggle if you put them up against high quality fast bowling in helpful conditions with the ball nipping around off the deck?

As AB said to Bob Simpson when he became Aussie coach and started them running up sand hills and doing all this physical training stuff: "Doesn't matter how many sit ups you do, if it pitches leg and hits off, it's still ****ing out".

I can accept that if Hayden faced some better bowling his average would come down. But how far is the question? If it came down to, say 40, then he's not much worse than Taylor or Slater who opened for much of the 90s for Australia.

Another thing, of course, is that we're happy to say that batsmen like Hayden would struggle in these conditions. How would some of the bowlers who were around cope with the wickets & conditions today? We just don't seem to hear that if so and so who took bulk wickets in the 70s, 80s or 90s had to bowl today their average would blow out to some extent or another. It can't be a one-way analysis. Which is why I thought the standardised average threads were a good attempt at giving us some guidance on these points.

As for this point that good bowlers don't let batsmen come down the wicket to them, how does that explain Pietersen's charging of McGrath? Personally, I thought McGrath wasn't too bad a bowler, albeit he was not in his pomp last Ashes series.

On the 1st test at Lords in 05, that 1st day really showed how great McGrath was as a bowler. As cheaply as England rolled Australia, McGrath dead-set gave them a lesson on bowling in those conditions. Wonderful exhibition.

 

[Richard]

I thought it was hugely revealing that first day - Australia might have been out cheaply, but all bar a couple of the wickets were gifts - England didn't actually bowl well at all and pretty much wasted the conditions.

McGrath, on the other hand, exploited them as he and only a few others could.

 

[aussie]

I don't set too much stall by getting tailenders out with average deliveries, myself.

Ha, your unbelievable yo. Its pretty obvious that if you can be so blunt about Harmo's 5 for at Lord's that you have some for of dislike for the bloke.

Of his 5 wickets, the one's to Katich was the only poor delivery & Warne's delivery was good since if you remember Warne was walking outside off-stump alot & bowled him smart bowling.

Virtually everyone bar McGrath on the first afternoon bowled terribly in that match. On such a helpful wicket, the game could easily have lasted less than 2 days with two high-class bowling-attacks.

WTF?. So now Warne, Lee, Flintoff & Jones also bowled crap too at lord's. Ha, what is going on in that head of yours dawg??

 

[Richard]

Ha, your unbelievable yo. Its pretty obvious that if you can be so blunt about Harmo's 5 for at Lord's that you have some for of dislike for the bloke.

Of his 5 wickets, the one's to Katich was the only poor delivery & Warne's delivery was good since if you remember Warne was walking outside off-stump alot & bowled him smart bowling.

I don't have any dislike for the bloke, he's never done me any harm.

His only decent wicket-taking balls in the match were those to dismiss Ponting (first-innings) and Martyn (second). Both Katich balls were rubbish, the Warne first-innings one was a nothing ball (hit the pad if you remember, rather than going straight onto the stumps, and was highly unlikely to have been intentional), and the Lee, Gillespie and Warne-second-innings balls were nothing ones that saw pretty typical tail-end batting.

WTF?. So now Warne, Lee, Flintoff & Jones also bowled crap too at lord's. Ha, what is going on in that head of yours dawg??

Erm, Warne certainly didn't, Lee bowled OK but hardly sensationally (as I've always said), and yes, Flintoff and Jones bowled terribly (as I've also always said).

What's going on in this head of mine? Probably an ability to look at how someone bowled rather than just their figures (which were hardly great in any case).

 

[Burgey]

I don't have any dislike for the bloke, he's never done me any harm.

His only decent wicket-taking balls in the match were those to dismiss Ponting (first-innings) and Martyn (second). Both Katich balls were rubbish, the Warne first-innings one was a nothing ball (hit the pad if you remember, rather than going straight onto the stumps, and was highly unlikely to have been intentional), and the Lee, Gillespie and Warne-second-innings balls were nothing ones that saw pretty typical tail-end batting.

Erm, Warne certainly didn't, Lee bowled OK but hardly sensationally (as I've always said), and yes, Flintoff and Jones bowled terribly (as I've also always said).

What's going on in this head of mine? Probably an ability to look at how someone bowled rather than just their figures (which were hardly great in any case).

Yeah but some bowlers have a happy knack of getting wickets with "nothing" balls. Others seem to beat the bat endlessly yet not get as many wickets as they probably should.

For example, Botham was regarded by many who played against him as a "lucky" bowler. Not lucky in the sense he didn't deserve his wickets, but lucky in the sense that he had the happy knack of getting wickets, sometimes with balls which batsmen would ordinarily put away. I remember him strangling Greg Chappell down leg side for example, and having a half tracker hit straight to point. Doesn't mean he couldn't bowl though, he was just talismanic. In fact, being a "lucky" bowler (or batsman for that matter) is a pretty fair asset to have.

Then you look at a bloke like Gillespie, J. who for a period there in the early 2000s bowled some great spells without picking up many 5 fors or a great deal of wickets. Doesn't mean he couldn't bowl either.

 

[The Sean]

Harmison was not England's best bowler in 05 but was part of an effective package which was very tough on the Aussies. Who, at that time would have done a better job for England? Every other bloke they've trotted out since has frankly been complete and utter dross:

Plunkett? Ker plunk.
Sidebottom? Mouth-watering prospect for Australia next time. God I hope he plays.
Anderson? Too busy worrying about his hair style.
Mahmood? Embarassing. At least Harmison has had some good times in the past, including to an extent 05.
Broad? Too soon to tell, and wasn't around in 05 anyways.
Lewis? A crock.

See, you can analyse and qualify any player's achievements to the extent that it simply becomes ridiculous. Now we all love cricket and are all keen students of the game, but it just becomes paralysis by analysis.

Look at Michael Clarke in the last Ashes series here. Now you can qualify his efforts by saying "Well, Ponting & Hussey were better than him, he came in after good starts, he bats down the order, England were crap, the bowlers were tired, the conditions were good for him, he hardly faced Flintoff & Hoggard & got to play the other bowlers' dross, he got dropped a couple of times, his helmet wasn't on straight, he made 23 of his runs against Pietersen's part timers, he dyes his hair, there was a good lbw shout against him on 13 in the 2nd test and I think he may have feathered th one ball Anderson moved in the entire series but was given not out, so really his contribution was not as good as his numbers make out". But the fact is, he made runs and he contributed to a great team performance.

It's like this Hussain v Hayden & Knight v Gilchrist thing. Everyone can have their opinion on players, as is their right. But simply saying "This bloke, despite averaging 15-20 runs less per innings in tests than the other bloke despite batting further down the order, is a better player than the other bloke because the bowling was always better when Hussein played and Hayden's nothing more than a flat track bully who always faces weak bowling and Hussain was in a crap side and Hayden's in a great side" is complete and utter bollocks. Whoever says that has pIainly never seen the India 2001 series or seen Hayden advance down the wicket in a test match on the first morning and drop kick a new ball bowler 100 metres over long-on. It takes a special talent to do that, frankly. And if Hussein was so good, why did he only make 2 tons in 23 tests against Australia? The argument might have some merit if the runs per average wicket had gone up by 16 each since the earlier era, but it hasn't.

Never occurs to people to even think that one of the reasons Hayden's side is so great may well be Hayden himself, does it? Ask that question and we get the inevitable "Great bowlers make great sides, not batsmen" stuff trotted out. Try seeing how great your bowlers are if they're defending 150-200 every test instead of 450-500. Try telling anyone who knows which end of a stump goes into the ground that Don Bradman wasn't the greatest match and series winner in cricketing history because of the runs he scored and how quickly he scored them. Mind you, the pitches were flat, he had Woodfull and Ponsford in front of him, the bowlers weren't fast, and on and on and on and on we go..........

Then we have the Gilly v Nick Knight argument. I've posted on this in the other forum, but quickly - to compare a bloke whose career highlights package could be written on a postage stamp with a 4 inch wide paint brush to a bloke who has scored at least 50 in three (3!!!!) consecutive WC finals, including one of the great ODI innings against a good attack in the biggest game of all is an insult to the latter bloke. Doesn't mean Knight couldn't play, doesn't mean he wasn't decent, but the other fella has a proven track record in massive games which count most. By contrast, Knight played for England.

Afridi.

 

[Pup Clarke]

You do know that was posted...9 days ago.

 

[The Sean]

You do know that was posted...9 days ago.

So, what's your point?

Shows how long since I'd looked at that thread.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I was posting towards Sanz, I needed to be fairly simplistic.

I've not read this thread before - thus the delayed word, but that isn't necessary.

 

[Richard]

Point taken, there's been a fair crackdown on that of late.