How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[Richard]

Earlier, you said So now you are contradicting yourself .

No, I'm not - I quite clearly differentiated between the series in West Indies and the home series. West Indies handled him abysmally (except at Antigua) away and New Zealand handled him equally poorly at home.
West Indies (at home) and South Africa then handled him much, much better, except for the one Test at The Oval.

And wot do you mean WI don't have a decent batting line-up with the likes of Gayle, Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul. Gayle and Chanderpaul were in exceptional form, Lara was alright, only Sarwan was having a nightmare time of it.

If you look carefully, you'll see I didn't say WI don't have a decent batting-line-up, I just said they played abysmally - and if you look at some of the strokes played in that series, you'll see I was justified in saying that.
And if you seriously think Chanderpaul was in good form that series, I suggest you take a look back. He looked so awful that there was even talk of premature retirement. Gayle could barely lay bat on ball, either, and Lara before Barbados looked in terrible touch, too.

Well for a bowler who bowls the wrong length and doesn't move the ball must have been a hell lot lucky to take 40 wickets in 2 series against them. If he was so easy to handle could the WI batmen have figured him out after a full seies of headache from him.

He was, indeed, unbelievably lucky to take 44 (not 40) wickets in the first 2 series of 2004.
If you look carefully, too, you'll see that West Indies actually had figured him out in the home series - before he cleaned-up the tail at Old Trafford he'd taken 5 wickets 75.6; he then took 12 for 124 at the end of the series (not something unusual for him, either - having taken 6 for 156 at the end of The Ashes 2002\03 and 4 for 33 at the end of the 2003 SA series) which vastly confused the picture (as it had in the other 2 series - turning 3 wickets at 100 into 9 at 50.55; and 5 at 76 into 9 at 45.88).

i personally don't give 10 damns about Harmy fogures. only thing i am going to judge him by is wot i have actually seen him do on the pitch. Yes he was poor against the Saffies but then again, he was majestic against WI and NZ. I am not one of those people with short memories and i am not going to start rubbishing Harmison just yet. As i said earlier, he is the most menacing bowler i have seen since Ambrose [IMHO] and i assure you, even the much vaunted Aussie line-up are not going to keep a lid on him if he bowls like he did last year [IMHO]

And yet - since the start of 2004, he's had one 7-Test period where he's had 6 good Tests (the only bad one being at Antigua); that has been followed-up by a 9-Test period including just 1 good one (The Oval).
This was preceded by him getting good figures only at the end of series against the up-to-standard sides.
I, too, couldn't give 10 damns about his figures - but those I don't care about are the ones where he's done well, not those where he's done badly.
I have never, ever, had a short memory and I did not start singing his praises from the rooftops when he took 44 wickets in 7 Tests at 18.31, the way just about everyone else did.
I remembered the past - I also looked beyond the figures, and noticed he was not bowling very many exceptional deliveries, simply benefiting from poor strokes aplenty.
And I was not surprised, at all, by the events of the home West Indies series and the South Africa tour.

Before last year, people were not talking of the ashes being as tight as they think it will be this time. but after seing Harmison's exploits last year, he has given some of us some hope this Ashes.

Every Ashes series, people talk about it being tighter than in recent series - and in every one of the last 3 series they've been totally wrong.
Because the same things have happened every time - injuries, dropped catches and the loss of the bowling radars. And it always starts a Test or two before The Ashes (Sri Lanka 1998, Pakistan 2001, India 2002) And if the same thing doesn't happen again, I'll be delighted, but surprised.

 

[Richard]

i cannot really put my finger on wot went wrong in SA [ hopefully it was homesickness, but then again how about the tour of WI last year].

1.This could be it although it is a pretty lame excuse [and a horrible weakness to have.]
Remember the way De Villiers tucked into him on the first morining of the series, i feel that could have shattered a good part of his confidence. It's abit of a stab in the dark but never know.

2.also, there was the niggle that he had that continued into the start of the ODI series.

3.Micheal Atherton kept saying that the problem was that he was trying to slow himself down in order to put the ball on a spot but that tactic just made things worse.

i thought he had bowled the over that could get him back to 2004 standards
90.1 Harmison to Kallis, no run, bounces on him and takes the bottom
hand off the bat as it gloves him, calling for the magic spray
The English Captain Michael Vaughan is currently off the field
after being hit on the finger in the nets this morning
He has gone off to hospital for a precautionary xray
90.2 Harmison to Kallis, no run, vicious bouncer keeps his eye as long
as he could and then whips it away ending up on his rear end
90.3 Harmison to Kallis, no run, outside off, fuller and leaves this
alone quite thankfully
90.4 Harmison to Kallis, no run, another great bouncer good stuff first
up from the premium English bowler rips the head away as he is
worked over
90.5 Harmison to Kallis, no run, rising one outside off and the
unsettled batsmen is beaten
90.6 Harmison to Kallis, legbye: two runs, down legside and goes away
fine Harmison gets substantial applause and justly so great over

Unfortunately, it was not to be.

Exactly - just about every excuse people might come-up with can be covered.
Homesickness - West Indies tour, and there was not a peep of a lack of effort at any point in the Test-series.
Fitness - bowlers, himself included, have bowled through small injuries many, many times. It's more unusual to bowl when 100% fit than less these days. And before the calf injury he certainly never had any major problems - even with the gammy calf he was still bowling the same way he had been previously.
Pace - he bowled plenty of deliveries clocked over 90mph during the series, just like he had in West Indies 8 months back.
A long time off before the series - wasn't a problem for Hoggard or Flintoff
And that over on the 2nd morning at Newlands.
The only possible conclusion is that the batsmen have simply played him better in these Tests than these.
I like this passage, myself:

From David Lewis' Tour Review
And, perhaps most important of all, what should be done about Harmison?

England's most successful bowler in 2004 has now been ineffective in seven of his last nine tests, and I could list half a dozen England quicks who would dearly love to have had that degree of patience from the selectors at various times over the past 30 years. However, given what Harmison has produced in the past, not many would seriously argue that he shouldn't be persevered with. He remains a potential match winner, and any strategy to upset the Australians will require a significant contribution from the Durham pace man. Theories attempting to explain his loss of form this winter have focused on a lack of match practice before the tour, his subsequent lack of confidence and his self-processed homesickness. To be honest, I struggle with this line of thought. Hoggard and Flintoff had no more time in the middle before the start of the series, but performed infinitely better. Whilst some have applauded Harmison's honesty in the infamous Heathrow interview where he bemoaned the need to be away from home, others felt it was just the latest example of him feeling sorry for himself instead of thanking his lucky stars for his God-given ability and making the most of it. This, remember, is the same player who publicly complained about not receiving a central contract sixteen months ago, so perhaps one or two of us can be forgiven for wondering why he isn't happier with the consequences of now having one. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, possibly the biggest task facing Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan is how to get the best out of the player who should be the spearhead of England's attack. Perhaps, if his confidence really is shot, Harmison should just encouraged to spend time every day watching his DVD of last winter's Caribbean tour between now and the start of the season. If he is still convinced that life has dealt him a raw deal, then he should also find time to visit some of the local workingmen's clubs in his beloved North East and spend time with some of the long term unemployed who have no prospect of finding work in that part of the country. Does that make me unduly unsympathetic? Maybe. But twelve months ago, we were being told that Harmison was the new Curtly Ambrose. I really couldn't handle the disappointment of him being the new Andy Caddick.

 

[SpeedKing]

If he has sorted out that injury, i expect Troy Cooley to get hold of him. Mr. Cooley always seems to have a solution to Harmy's problems and i am hoping that he has another solution up his sleeve.

Another stab in the dark but could Cooley's depature from SA early on in the series have resulted in Harmy not getting the right tutoring. especially as he was replaced by a spin bowling coach like as if spinners were ever going to have a say in that series.

 

[Richard]

Mr. Cooley's a coach, not a miracle-worker.
You can't correct problems when there aren't any.

 

[marc71178]

Rubbish, to compare Harmison to Ambrose is ludicrous.

Even by people who actually have faced him?

But what would they know?

 

[Richard]

So... who's faced Ambrose and Harmison, then?
I can't think it'll be more than a handful.

 

[marc71178]

Surprisingly enough the West Indians.

 

[Richard]

So.. Lara, Chanderpaul, Gayle (maybe a few times), Jacobs.
Wow.
And remind me... how easily did they play him the second time they came across him... so easily that he took 5 wickets at 75.6.
Funny thing, that.
Don't recall Ambrose ever having such a poor spell.

 

[marc71178]

So you're ignoring these player's views because they've actually faced both of them.

Far better for them to listen to you isn't it?

 

[Richard]

Or it could be better to actually look at the deliveries both of them have bowled, and the regularity they could keep up bowling what they've bowled.
But no, so many other things matter so much more.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to see any comments from them - in considered interviews, rather than just post-match diplomacy - where they said Harmison was as good as Ambrose.

 

[marc71178]

Or it could be better to actually look at the deliveries both of them have bowled, and the regularity they could keep up bowling what they've bowled.

Oh yes, it's far easier to compare them by watching then by facing isn't it?

Incidentally, I'd be interested to see any comments from them - in considered interviews, rather than just post-match diplomacy - where they said Harmison was as good as Ambrose.

Where did anyone say anything about saying he was as good as?

 

[Richard]

Oh yes, it's far easier to compare them by watching then by facing isn't it?

Certainly is - because batsmen are vulnerable guys and regularly feel discomfited by something that had little or no chance of getting them out.
Not to mention the fact that they also know the players they've played against and they're hardly going to say "he bowled a load of rubbish", are they?

Where did anyone say anything about saying he was as good as?

Lots of people have said he could be as good as Ambrose, could bowl like Ambrose (and that means consistently, not once or twice).

 

[marc71178]

Certainly is - because batsmen are vulnerable guys and regularly feel discomfited by something that had little or no chance of getting them out.

So how exactly can you compare facing the 2 if you've not done it?

You now know more than those players about what they've experienced do you?

 

[Richard]

I've compared facing them where...?
I've compared the deliveries they've bowled.

 

[marc71178]

You've also disputed what they've said about facing the 2 - how did you do that without also batting against the 2?

 

[Richard]

I haven't, actually, I haven't even heard what they said.
I have, however, pointed-out why Harmison is not as good as Ambrose.

 

[marc71178]

No, you've said to compare the bowling of the 2 is ludicrous.

Since the West Indian batsmen who faced him said the bowler they're reminded most of when facing him is Ambrose, you're therefore saying that they're being ludicrous.

So that is you who has faced neither deciding you know more than them who've faced both.

 

[Richard]

I must say I wonder whether they'd have said that before he took the last 3 wickets for 3 at Old Trafford.
Personally I think not.

 

[marc71178]

I think the WI tour was before they toured us, but no doubt you know better on that as well.

 

[Richard]

Exactly.
They may have been saying in during our tour there - and I somehow doubt they were saying it during their tour here.
Until, that is, he took that 12 for 126 as the series drew to a close.
Because before then, they'd very clearly worked him out.