*Official* (only joking) Stephen Harmison thread

[marc71178]

30 is not a good average, at any level. If you're averaging over 30 in a form of cricket, your ability at that level must be called into question. A bowler whose average in Test-cricket is under 30 can start to be considered a good bowler. One who averages under 27 can be considered a very good bowler. One who averages under 24 can be considered a very, very good bowler indeed. One who averages under 22 can be considered an all-time great.

You cannot just look at the average - by your definition he is now good but before he took his last wicket today, he was poor.

By comparing the figures with the figures of the other bowlers in the innings, you get a better perspective of their performance - Harmison's early career was played in matches where almost every innings was 400+ because it was so batsman-friendly. In that case does that mean that every bowler in the series was poor?

 

[Craig]

If you aim for and accept mediocrity, you'll never get a good side.

Richard mate, dont be surprised to see Marc making that sort of a comment - he is the number 1 Ashley Giles and Andrew Flintoff fan on here.

Both with poor records.

*Places $5 to be called someone who looks at numbers, stats dont tell the full story, Flintoff was England's best bowler etc."

BTW Liam, have you ever seen Harmison bowl or any of his latest cricket he has played? If not, I'm interested in how you can ever be the position to question one's judgement then. Or is it because Marc said so that such and such is bowling well? If you have, I take it back.

Marc, you should note that Richard is a cricket fan before he supports Yorkshire and England whereas you are the other way around (not calling you a Yorkshiremen).

 

[marc71178]

Marc, you should note that Richard is a cricket fan before he supports Yorkshire and England whereas you are the other way around (not calling you a Yorkshiremen).

And how exactly do you know what I am?

The reason I rate Giles is that he is the best English spinner and I think a team needs a bit of variety.

As for Flintoff, he bowled some stunning spells this summer but didn't have any luck whatsoever.

But those who look at the stats just write him off as useless.

 

[Richard]

And how exactly do you know what I am?

The reason I rate Giles is that he is the best English spinner and I think a team needs a bit of variety.

As for Flintoff, he bowled some stunning spells this summer but didn't have any luck whatsoever.

But those who look at the stats just write him off as useless.

How do we know Giles is the best English spinner? IMO Croft is, but there's no way of proving it. It can only ever be opinion. Someone once said that Richard Dawson was the best English spinner. If someone can say that, then someone can say Croft and Giles are.
Flintoff may have bowled some spells that you'd describe as "stunning" that I would describe as "innocuous". He didn't have any luck and he, like anyone else, doesn't deserve any. His stats don't lie. He does not offer penetration. His stats reflect that.

 

[Richard]

You cannot just look at the average - by your definition he is now good but before he took his last wicket today, he was poor.

By comparing the figures with the figures of the other bowlers in the innings, you get a better perspective of their performance - Harmison's early career was played in matches where almost every innings was 400+ because it was so batsman-friendly. In that case does that mean that every bowler in the series was poor?

If someone plays in batsman-friendly conditions and the batsmen play well, their average says something about them (the bowler, not the batsman). It says they can't exploit conditions that don't suit seam. And most of the bowlers that played in those games do fit the description "poor". There aren't many good bowlers around ATM in international cricket, bowlers who can exploit all conditions.
The only English bowlers who can exploit all conditions (and it doesn't mean they do every time, because they've both been less consistent than I'd like) are Gough and White. Even Caddick and Cork will struggle in conditions which don't suit seam.
Harmison, when played well in good batting conditions, won't get wickets. I maintain that this hasn't changed, and I expect Sri Lanka to murder him.

 

[luckyeddie]

The conditions in Bangladesh can in no way be construed as 'bowler-friendly'. Sure, there was a little movement in the air on occasion but the wicket was low and slow. The reason that Hoggard and Harmison took 16 wicikets between them and the spinners managed just 3 is that the pair bowled exceptionally well as a team with precious little help from the two men selected specifically for the prevailing conditions.

Regarding Giles/Croft comparison, how can Richard, champion of statistics, have the audacity to state that the less incompetent of the pair is a 'matter of opinion'? Condemned by your own keyboard.

Don't play 'pedantics' with the master of the science.

 

[Richard]

The conditions in Bangladesh can in no way be construed as 'bowler-friendly'. Sure, there was a little movement in the air on occasion but the wicket was low and slow. The reason that Hoggard and Harmison took 16 wicikets between them and the spinners managed just 3 is that the pair bowled exceptionally well as a team with precious little help from the two men selected specifically for the prevailing conditions.

Regarding Giles/Croft comparison, how can Richard, champion of statistics, have the audacity to state that the less incompetent of the pair is a 'matter of opinion'? Condemned by your own keyboard.

Don't play 'pedantics' with the master of the science.

The pitch at Bangibandhu was uneven. Sure, it was low and slow, but that assisted slow scoring-rates. There was plenty of movement in the air on occasions, and I'd consider them bowler-friendly. If we got McGrath and Gillespie in these conditions, I'd fancy any side, their own and India's included, wouldn't make 200 in any innings.
I trust you are the master of science?
However, I'd say Croft and Giles' records are as subjunctive as they come. Both have averages in excess of 60 at home, and Croft's average away full-stop is good. Giles' record on the subcontinent is pretty good, though it's got much worse after this game. He bowled well in good spin-bowling conditions at Basin Reserve and profited from his customary ability to clean-up the tail in Australia, but elsewhere away his record is as poor as at home. And not surprisingly.
The point, however, is that neither should be selected at home and Batty shouldn't be selected full-stop.

 

[Craig]

And how exactly do you know what I am?

Judging by your comments at times have lead me to believe that.

 

[marc71178]

To believe what?

 

[Top_Cat]

That's like that bull about "never change a winning team" - if someone isn't playing much of a part in the winning, by playing to the standards, they don't deserve to keep their place.

Yet how many times have we all seen a team performing, a player dropped because they might not have been performing as well as the others and the team fall in a heap? It's happened so often, in fact, that you can't just point at the phenomena and dismiss it, as much as you might want to.

Sometimes, also, a player contributes in ways which aren't reflected in the batting and bowling stats. Brad Hogg, for example, has been a solid contributor for Australia, nothing outstanding. Yet, he brings enthusiasm, fielding ability and the ability to 'chip-in' when it counts. Sometimes that's more important than someone else who might have superior ability with the ball (such as Stewie MacGill).

Don't underestimate the value of a 'team'. Sometimes the players with the most ability don't make it to the top level because they're not 'team players'. Even if they're performing better than the incumbent in the team, if they can't fit into the team, their inclusion may hurt it so they should miss out.

A team of champions does not neccessarily make a champion team. Sure the WI of the 80's was a team of champions but they were a team of champions well before they became a champion team. It just took them a while to mesh together. If you keep chopping and changing players around just because one guy might be going through a rough trot, you make the others nervous and they play for their places rather than their team which, inevitably, results in a failure of the team.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

BTW Liam, have you ever seen Harmison bowl or any of his latest cricket he has played? If not, I'm interested in how you can ever be the position to question one's judgement then. Or is it because Marc said so that such and such is bowling well? If you have, I take it back.

If I have said that Harmison is a good bowler at any point on this forum, I stand corrected - it certainly wouldn't have been intentionally. AFAIC I have abstained from making judgements on Flintoff and Harmison and the like on the grounds that I have not seen them play recently (Harmison at all). I try to be ambiguous in my examples used to support my point. I've used alot of 'maybe's and 'perhaps's. If you can provide these alleged posts, I sincerely apologize for any emotional damage I may have inflicted, but I think you are either mistaken or misguided.

 

[Craig]

Yet how many times have we all seen a team performing, a player dropped because they might not have been performing as well as the others and the team fall in a heap? It's happened so often, in fact, that you can't just point at the phenomena and dismiss it, as much as you might want to.

Sometimes, also, a player contributes in ways which aren't reflected in the batting and bowling stats. Brad Hogg, for example, has been a solid contributor for Australia, nothing outstanding. Yet, he brings enthusiasm, fielding ability and the ability to 'chip-in' when it counts. Sometimes that's more important than someone else who might have superior ability with the ball (such as Stewie MacGill).

Don't underestimate the value of a 'team'. Sometimes the players with the most ability don't make it to the top level because they're not 'team players'. Even if they're performing better than the incumbent in the team, if they can't fit into the team, their inclusion may hurt it so they should miss out.

A team of champions does not neccessarily make a champion team. Sure the WI of the 80's was a team of champions but they were a team of champions well before they became a champion team. It just took them a while to mesh together. If you keep chopping and changing players around just because one guy might be going through a rough trot, you make the others nervous and they play for their places rather than their team which, inevitably, results in a failure of the team.

This may seem a stupid question, you would rather pick somebody who is a better team man yet is ok but nothing special then somebody is a better player who is really their own man and more of a individual?

 

[Top_Cat]

This may seem a stupid question, you would rather pick somebody who is a better team man yet is ok but nothing special then somebody is a better player who is really their own man and more of a individual?

If picking them results in the team winning and picking the individual results in team destabilisation, absolutely. The team comes first as far as I'm concerned and whoever is picked, regardless of their performances, if the team keeps winning whilst they're in it and they're a part of that, there's no reason not to pick them.

Also, having said that, if a brilliant player results in a winning team, well great. Obviously the first concern is to pick the very best team from available players. Then other considerations come into play; do we have the best 'team' or the best 'group of players'? It's been shown time and again that stacking your team with great players, if they don't play as a team, won't guarantee you victory. I've seen it in my playing time too; when playing for my grade team, the A-grade side had 6 out of 11 players with Sheffield Shield-level experience (including the two SA opening bowlers of the time and the two opening batsmen) after an off-season recruiting drive. They didn't even make the finals that year and several disgruntled lower-grade players left the club becasuse of the insistence on picking the higher-credentialled players with no regard for how well they meshed as a team.

When it's line-ball and there are several similarly talented players vying for selection, you have to look at what else they offer. Brad Hogg and Ian Harvey keep getting selected for Australia despite their modest records at interstate level even. Why? Probably because they bring to the team something that other players don't. Stuart MacGill doesn't get picked for the one-day team anymore even though when he DID play ODI cricket he was quite successful and has been extremely successful for NSW. His batting is inferior to Hogg's but you have to wonder what else he was missing (as that sort of wicket-taking ability is potent) and I get the feeling it's that Hogg is more of a team player.

 

[Richard]

Regarding the example of Hogg - I personally don't rate the guy, but the fact of the matter is, since the end of the game where he got 3 wickets, his figures have been excellent. He has almost invariably either taken wickets or been economical. A spell of 0 or 1 for 50+ has been rare.
For me, that's the simple reason he's been selected ahead of MacGill - who may offer wicket-taking, especially when the batsmen are looking to score as many as they can - is because MacGill hasn't been getting as good figures in domestic one-day-cricket (in England or Australia) as Hogg has in ODIs.
I don't know how many times teams have collapsed because someone who's not been meriting his place has been dropped, but I've only been watching cricket seriously for about 4 years. I can think of few examples of teams who've consistently had the same side and dropped one or two underperforming players and collapsed. Surrey and Australia are the only dominant sides in my era, and Australia have had few blips, while Surrey have used as many players as anyone (up to 18 in a season).
Perhaps you could provide some more examples, Corey. Aside from that of your own team.

 

[Richard]

And regarding Harvey - the reason I can see for his continued selection is the same as Shane Watson. Australia don't have very many good all-rounders but (unusually) they are selecting on quantity rather than quality (ie "the all-rounder" rather than "the best man for a place in the side").
Harvey and Watson have always managed to perform just enough to keep the selectors interested. A three or four wicket-bag here, an economical spell there, a vital innings there. But nowhere near regularly enough to get good overall figures.
Honestly, though, the way pundits over here carry-on, you'd think Harvey was one of the best all-rounders in one-day history. In spite of a disappointing season for Gloucs in terms of economy-rate last season in both forms of the game (sadly, his last for them), they still talk as if Harvey was a fixture in your ODI side and when someone points-out that he's a bit-part player, they say stuff along the lines of "not wishing to criticise your selectors, it's a mystery to us why this guy's not a fixture in your ODI side".

 

[JohnnyA]

BBC Sports say he's likely to miss the second test:

Harmison Back Injury

I think we can safely blame the fact that he was overbowled in the first test, and indirectly, we can blame Englands useless "spinners" (I prefer "Rollers") for not picking up the slack.

It's only Bangladesh (no disrespect). We should rotate the fast bowlers to make sure they do not play back to back tests of this kind. Injuries will multiply if this is not managed better in the future.

Unless it's a crucial test against a major test playing nation, (Oz, India, SA, even SL after this series), fast bowlers should no longer play B2B tests.

When everyone is fit again, England should use their depth and set up a rotation. It's not a question of banning b2b games (as some old foggies want), it's a question of teams properly managing their players.

We should play more test match cricket in my view. This will force teams to rotate their fast bowlers.

 

[luckyeddie]

BBC Sports say he's likely to miss the second test:

Harmison Back Injury

I think we can safely blame the fact that he was overbowled in the first test, and indirectly, we can blame Englands useless "spinners" (I prefer "Rollers") for not picking up the slack.

The report seems to be blaming a protracted journey for the injury

 

[JohnnyA]

The report seems to be blaming a protracted journey for the injury

Well that's what they say ... they're not likely to blame the new captain or the other bowlers. if it is due to the journey, it doesn't bode well for the future if he can get injured by a lengthy spell of sitting down!

You really have to question the conditioning of the players if this really is the case. Even though this has improved greatly over the last 4 or 5 years, I'm still of the opinion that most take it easy.

 

[Swanny]

I don't think its any wonder that so many fast bowlers get injured. Think about the make up of the body, and when you actually sit and think about the motion, fast bowling is an incredibly unnatural thing to do.In an ideal world, especially in that heat and conditions against Bangladesh, our spinners would have done the donkey work, allowing Hoggard and especially Harmison to come in with short sharp very fast spells.
As this didn't happen i think the options are go in with 3 seamers and one spinner or play 5 bowlers and move Reid up the order to 6.
Personally i'd like to see the second happen for a number of reasons. Clarke isn't good enough for Test cricket but i won't go any further on this as its been said before. As the guy on the BBC website says we will play 2 spinners in Sri Lanka, so resting one of them now when they badly need match practice(I know the ability to turn it off the straight would help but one thing a t a time), doesn't make much sense. Therefore a top six of Vaughan, Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe and Reid will be enough to score enough runs to win the game. For all the abuse about his aparent lack of stats, its becoming obvious how much we miss Freddies balance of being a good batsman who can also bowl more than just a few overs of better than medium pace trundlers.

 

[Richard]

And why are we missing Flintoff? For exactly the same reason - he was overbowled during the summer (and pointlessly so too - he has never looked like taking wickets) and got injured because of it.
Vaughan is too present-minded and doesn't think about 2 or 3 months time. That is one thing you could never criticise Hussain for, though he tried to criticise himself for it at one point - without reason.