ImpatientLime
International Regular
two fantastically skillful and accurate australian seamers who broke out in the second half of their careers, but who was the superior bowler?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ryan Harris v Stuart Clark
- Thread starter ImpatientLime
- Start date
Bijed
International Regular
If we're talking just tests, then I really don't think I could choose between them on their bowling alone, though I guess there are arguments to be made regarding the support they had from other bowlers. Even taking into account other non-bowling factors, I'm not really sure - Harris' extra batting is useful, but there's also the increased risk of him breaking down during a match. Can't really remember either of them fielding.
Considering ODIs, I'd have to go with Harris for taking more wickets whilst being as economical as Clark. Clark's T20 record is better, but neither of them played many games at all.
So, in all, Harris, but happy to be told I'm wrong.
Considering ODIs, I'd have to go with Harris for taking more wickets whilst being as economical as Clark. Clark's T20 record is better, but neither of them played many games at all.
So, in all, Harris, but happy to be told I'm wrong.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
really?
my understanding is that he was nowhere near the bowler we saw play tests for australia in the first half of his career. he's the definition of a late bloomer.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
was clark a late bloomer too?
i saw him play a few times live in 2005 for middlesex and was incredibly underwhelmed.
18 months later he was wrecking england.
i saw him play a few times live in 2005 for middlesex and was incredibly underwhelmed.
18 months later he was wrecking england.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
No he wouldn't have. Part of Rhino's charm is that he was genuinely rubbish* for years.
* rubbish obviously being relative, on reflection 'barely First Class standard' would have been a better choice of words.
Last edited:
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Rhino was gun his whole, late-starting, international career whereas Clark broke onto the scene, cleaned up for a couple of years then iirc got worked out/became very ineffective, very quickly.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Kinda. He did start late but not as late as Harris, was a very good Shield bowler for a number of years (IIRC there was a post from 2002 here that said that Clark should be in the mix for Australia), just didn't get the chances he could've because of the strength of Australian bowling at the time. Not quite a Harris-like situation.
Anyway, Harris clearly IMO. Clark had a great year or so and was a fine, fine bowler but he was never the wrecking ball that Harris was, and did lose effectiveness on flatter surfaces after a while - hardly something you could Harris of doing.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
The answer is Harris but when I watched Clark bowl at Headingley 09 I was genuinely in awe (I was there on day one, not day three when Broad/Swann had fun) . From memory I think Siddle took more wickets but Clark had impeccable control. I never saw McGrath bowl in the flesh and guess that's a fraction of what it would have been like.
As referenced, it fell apart second dig and I think The Oval carried that form on and he was done. No idea how his domestic form was from thereon in but based on the form of the Aussie seamers outside Siddle first dig at Brisbane and the whole Perth test, I feel like he might have done a job the following year.
Possibly the best bowler in the 06-07 Ashes too??
As referenced, it fell apart second dig and I think The Oval carried that form on and he was done. No idea how his domestic form was from thereon in but based on the form of the Aussie seamers outside Siddle first dig at Brisbane and the whole Perth test, I feel like he might have done a job the following year.
Possibly the best bowler in the 06-07 Ashes too??
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Clark fairly comfortably for mine.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
no you don't recall correctly
he aged. Not quite the same as "being worked out" lol
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Happy to be proven wrong. I had thought he had simply just ended up being saw off by batsmen who could deal with his accuracy and the wickets stopped coming.
He stopped playing at, what, age 34 or so? Tests anyway.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah fair call, I'll cop this and what IL said........was poor wording by me.
Let me rephrase.....If Harris could have had an 80+ test career at the standard he was for his 25 odd tests, then he would have been in ATG discussions. I really wasn't considering his first class career at all when I said that.
My memory maybe fading in regards Clark, but apart from being absolutely awesome in the 06/07 Ashes did he ever reach those heights again? I really don't recall him being particularly special after that. I do remember him not making the Aussie side in '09 and there being a bit of an uproar about it.........but when they did bring him in I don't think he did much did he?
Edit:
Just checked to see what GIMH was wetting his pants about at Headingly '09 and see Clark took 3/18 in the first innings........suppose that would have been pretty good. But he followed that up with 0/74 and then 0/41 and 1/43 at the Oval.
Last edited:
He got 20 odd wickets in SA in 2008/9
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Interesting take, hard to see how either is 'fairly comfortably' better than the other.