*Official* (only joking) Stephen Harmison thread

[luckyeddie]

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.

Totally agree on both counts. I don't like Vaughan as a captain one iota - and the sooner he makes way, the better. Now as to who should be skipper? It strikes me that there isn't an obvious candidate in the side (I don't think there's an obvious candidate NOT in the side either) so I suppose Vaughan is stuck with it.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

<rest snipped>

It never used to be the case. Geoff Boycott was once asked the same thing. His answer? "Too much bottled milk".

The point he was making is that it's a more sedentary lifestyle nowadays than in the old "walked 15 miles and worked 12 hours down t' pit" days, too many burgers and pathetic footwear.

Those great clodhoppers cricketers used to wear weren't just to save on rolling the pitch.

 

[marc71178]

It's interisting how everyone is either ignoring or trying to patch-up the fact that against Test-Class nations he's been dreadful.

Yet you ignore the fact that the rest of the team has been even more dreadful.

 

[marc71178]

Quite simply you can't rule out the games in Australia because the Australian bowlers didn't have any problems with them,

Yes, but they weren't bowling to the Australian batting line-up where they?

The flat wickets? Can't remember Pollock, Ntini, et al having problems...oh and the case of James Kirtley playing in his 1st 2 test matches, yes he really had a problem didn't he, 6-34 on debut, appauling!

I'm talking about 2002.

You can, however, rule out the results against the 2 weakest teams, since they arn't even County Standard...

But they are still International teams, Bangladesh recently ran Pakistan very close (the same Pakistan that have just beaten South Africa) - so are definitely no push-over.

Oh, but he's performed well against them, so that's why you have to rule them out.

You know exactly why the England team average is worse than his, it is because we picked players like Dawson, Giles who averages 70-odd per series, Flintoff who trundles in without any penetration, Anderson who was shattered...

Funny that, I've never seen you calling for the majority of the attack to be dropped, even though they're not performing.

 

[Richard]

It never used to be the case. Geoff Boycott was once asked the same thing. His answer? "Too much bottled milk".

The point he was making is that it's a more sedentary lifestyle nowadays than in the old "walked 15 miles and worked 12 hours down t' pit" days, too many burgers and pathetic footwear.

Those great clodhoppers cricketers used to wear weren't just to save on rolling the pitch.

The fact of injuries is one that baffles the new and causes the old to go into transports of regret.
With technological advances and improvement in understanding of human biology, there should in theory be far less injuries than there were in the more reticent days. Especially when you consider that far less cricket is now played than it was in the 1950s and 1960s especially.
Poor footwear, laziness, overcooked and ill-planned training, terribly planned tours (far too many b2b Tests and not enough rest and acclimatisation) due to overdone international cricket, are all factors that seem logical to blame.
ICC's decision to use a ten-year plan was a poor one for me; a 12 or even 14-year plan would have been much better. Too much one-day-cricket is played by general consensus everywhere except in the offices of Cricket Boards (and quite frankly while subcontinental countries and Zimbabwe play too much, England and possibly West Indies still don't play enough).
Lots of cricket is great for spectators in the short-term and good for players' pockets, but damaging for long-term enjoyment of both.
While I don't agree with the notion that eminent former cricketers should run cricket, I do think bosses should be more sensitive.

 

[Richard]

The Rik-marc argument about Harmison is going round in eternal circles. I'll not need to reiterate that I see Rik's side of the argument and I don't see Marc's, but I guess it must exist otherwise he wouldn't be able to argue it.

 

[David]

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 know it's possible to die from a lengthy spell of sitting down.

Its not surprising that he got injured, happens to people all the time.

 

[marc71178]

Johnson, Saggers and most hillariously, Clarke. And for Bangladesh, Rafique...

And those 3 English players have played solely against Banglasdesh and Zimbabwe, games which you want to discount when discussing Harmison's bowling...

Because he's taken wickets very cheaply against Bangladesh, as the ratings are week by week, I don't think it means that much. He'll loose some points for missing this match and after Sri Lanka I doubt he will be too near the top 20 with an inflating average, like usual.

The ratings take into account quality of opposition when being calculated - so the "it's only against Bangladesh" is invalid.

Oh dear, selective memory? You have claimed he's pulled out world-class performances many a time, none of which I can remember, or for the record, can anyone else.

That is meant to be ironic I assume?

I have never claimed him to be a world class player, merely defended his selection when others were attacking him without just reason (IMO)

 

[Richard]

And those 3 English players have played solely against Banglasdesh and Zimbabwe, games which you want to discount when discussing Harmison's bowling...

Yes, and Harmison's average includes games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe - there, it's even. Harmison has also played against Australia, India and South Africa - and he got one spell of good figures against each (3 for 50-odd against India in the second-innings, 7 for 156 in the last 3 innings in Australia, 4 for 33 in the last innings in the SA series). Other than that, no-one's got themselves into too much trouble with him, except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, whose batting is clearly inept and so it's no surprise that he's been gifted so many wickets.
Saggers, Johnson and Clarke have not yet had the opportunity to play against Test-standard batting-line-ups on decent wickets (and, as a matter of fact, I don't expect either to achieve much when they do either) so we can only say "they've taken their opportunities, now let's wait and see them against better batting in conditons most seamers find harder".
Harmison has already played in these conditions and, with the exception of the above, has failed miserably (never has he taken more than 2 wickets in an innings).

I'm talking about 2002.

2002, where Harmison played one Test.

 

[marc71178]

So despite all this poor bowling he's done against very strong batting line ups, his average is under 30 and his (not full yet) world ranking 18 - can't be that bad a player as a lot of people make out.

 

[Richard]

Forget the Rankings, they're a farce - they're supposed to correct averages, not just offer an alternative way of showing them.
All right, they "take into account quality of opposition" but that's complete nonsense anyway - someone can bowl well against poor batsmen and it's no worse than bowling well against decent batsmen.
Lesser standard batsmen are more likely to play more poor strokes while scoring less runs, but you can't just assume that because someone's got 15 wickets against the 10-ranked Test nation that these wickets are inferior to 15 against South Africa or New Zealand (NEW ZEALAND! Ranked 3rd! Just shows the ludicrous nature of "taking into account quality of opposition").
You have to take each case as it comes, and you also have to account for the bowler's own side's fielding incompetance, and Umpiring errors. If someone's had three lbw shouts turned-down with beautiful in-swinging Yorkers that would have knocked leg-stump down that's no reflection on their lack of ability.
Generalisation when attempting to rank cricketers accurately simply doesn't work.

 

[Neil Pickup]

NEW ZEALAND! Ranked 3rd! Just shows the ludicrous nature of "taking into account quality of opposition

New Zealand are comfortably, and deservedly, third-ranked.

 

[luckyeddie]

The Rik-marc argument about Harmison is going round in eternal circles. I'll not need to reiterate that I see Rik's side of the argument and I don't see Marc's, but I guess it must exist otherwise he wouldn't be able to argue it.

I should have thought that you would have recognised by now that you don't have a monopoly on intransigence.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

in·tran·si·gent also in·tran·si·geant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-trns-jnt, -z-)
adj.
Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intransigence.




:saint:

 

[luckyeddie]

mo-no-po-ly

a) A sad game played by sad people with too much time on their sad hands.

b) Exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action.

Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?
RIP Lord Sutch

 

[marc71178]

New Zealand are comfortably, and deservedly, third-ranked.

Aren't they now 4th though?

 

[marc71178]

Forget the Rankings, they're a farce - they're supposed to correct averages, not just offer an alternative way of showing them.

Right, so how do you propose separating players?

By what they "deserve"?

I which case, how do you decide whether X deserved to bowl Y or get Z caught at slip - an official ICC "Playing (did they really deserve it" Committee?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Aren't they now 4th though?

I refuse to recognise the ICC rankings :P

 

[Richard]

Right, so how do you propose separating players?

By what they "deserve"?

I which case, how do you decide whether X deserved to bowl Y or get Z caught at slip - an official ICC "Playing (did they really deserve it" Committee?

It would be better than the current system, but there would be no way that would appease everyone.
The point, simply, is that Rankings are a waste of time because they're just averages put across in a different way.

 

[Richard]

I should have thought that you would have recognised by now that you don't have a monopoly on intransigence.

I never claimed I had sole ownership of uncompromising.
Did I?