Simon Jones

[andyc]

Here's the wickets that went to Harmison's name in the scorebook in the 4 Tests of importance:
Clarke bowled - good piece of bowling, though not as good as it's sometimes been made-out
Kasprowicz caught behind - should already have been out to other bowlers 3 times, and is a tailender of very limited ability
Martyn lbw - poor decision, was a clear inside-edge
Ponting caught behind - game almost over by then, and was hardly an impressive delivery anyway, down the leg-side
Clarke lbw - straight ball that was missed, out
Katich lbw - absolutely terrible decision, pitched a mile outside leg
Kasprowicz caught behind - tailender
Tait bowled - tailender, one of the most stupid shots in history to boot
Langer bowled - off the inside-edge, very poor stroke

See? 3 dismissals worth consideration, and none of them were even to particularly special deliveries.

Of course, why would the match winning dismissal be important?

 

[Xuhaib]

Here's the wickets that went to Harmison's name in the scorebook in the 4 Tests of importance:
Clarke bowled - good piece of bowling, though not as good as it's sometimes been made-out
Kasprowicz caught behind - should already have been out to other bowlers 3 times, and is a tailender of very limited abilityMartyn lbw - poor decision, was a clear inside-edge
Ponting caught behind - game almost over by then, and was hardly an impressive delivery anyway, down the leg-side
Clarke lbw - straight ball that was missed, out
Katich lbw - absolutely terrible decision, pitched a mile outside leg
Kasprowicz caught behind - tailender
Tait bowled - tailender, one of the most stupid shots in history to boot
Langer bowled - off the inside-edge, very poor stroke

See? 3 dismissals worth consideration, and none of them were even to particularly special deliveries.

Tbh thats probably the most important ball in english cricket history.

 

[gettingbetter]

I don't really want to get into a a heated discussion with you Rich, I've seen enough on here to know that you won't let go. But, you surely have to place your opinion on Harmison aside and say that he was a vital cog of 2005. He started it all with the blows he gave to Langer and Ponting. Regardless, if he wasn't taking wickets, he was being a mean bastard aka, a spearhead, something England sorely miss now and a reason why you blokes have stagnated in your progress as a team.

Harmison played less of a part in that series victory than anyone else in England colours.

Just to be pedantic - Collingwood.

 

[Xuhaib]

Just to be pedantic - Collingwood.

Dont worry Rich will find a way to argue how Colly played a bigger role than Harmison, his Ian Bell argument was some of the biggest pile of junk you can ever come across.

 

[andyc]

I don't really want to get into a a heated discussion with you Rich, I've seen enough on here to know that you won't let go. But, you surely have to place your opinion on Harmison aside and say that he was a vital cog of 2005. He started it all with the blows he gave to Langer and Harmison. Regardless, if he wasn't taking wickets, he was being a mean bastard aka, a spearhead, something England sorely miss now and a reason why you blokes have stagnated in your progress as a team.



Just to be pedantic - Collingwood.

I know he's not very accurate, but I didn't realise he was that bad.

 

[Richard]

Of course, why would the match winning dismissal be important?

The point, as I said, is that Kasprowicz had already been got out - twice - by Flintoff. Only Bowden's poor Umpiring and Simon Jones' poor catching stopped it going to his name in the book, which given the match he had would have been a far more fitting finale.

Hence, Harmison did nothing more than be fortunate that in his case Geraint Jones hung-on to the catch and the finger was raised.

 

[Richard]

Tbh thats probably the most important ball in english cricket history.

Nah, no way. That series victory was monumental, without doubt, but it doesn't mean Harmison deserves any credit for winning it. That wasn't a good ball, and as I say - the wicket should already have been taken.

 

[Richard]

Dont worry Rich will find a way to argue how Colly played a bigger role than Harmison, his Ian Bell argument was some of the biggest pile of junk you can ever come across.

Well Collingwood certainly did play his part in saving the Oval Test, even if that was hardly massive either.

And no, what I said about Bell wasn't junk, it was quite true.

 

[Richard]

But, you surely have to place your opinion on Harmison aside and say that he was a vital cog of 2005. He started it all with the blows he gave to Langer and Harmison.

... and that match was lost, by 239 runs. So no, I don't think hitting Ponting and Hayden (WOW!!!!!!! HE HIT LANGER!!!!! Not like that's ever been done before is it?) played any part in the series victory, whatsoever. It's merely something people concoct to try and make-out that everything that happened that summer was important and that everyone who wore the jersey contributed, it's like people said the Twenty20 and the ODIs made any impact - they didn't. All that was of any real importance was the Tests at Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and The Oval. Nothing else mattered much.

And Harmison in those 4 games was abysmal, taking 3 legitimate top-order wickets. Even if he had hit loads of batsmen (which he didn't) it wouldn't matter at all, because that's not what cricket's about.

Regardless, if he wasn't taking wickets, he was being a mean bastard aka, a spearhead, something England sorely miss now and a reason why you blokes have stagnated in your progress as a team.

No, he wasn't. The reason we've "stagnated" is because of a lack of wicket-taking bowlers, not bowlers who're perceived as spearheads but in reality do little to nothing.

 

[Swervy]

... and that match was lost, by 239 runs. So no, I don't think hitting Ponting and Hayden (WOW!!!!!!! HE HIT LANGER!!!!! Not like that's ever been done before is it?) played any part in the series victory, whatsoever. It's merely something people concoct to try and make-out that everything that happened that summer was important and that everyone who wore the jersey contributed, it's like people said the Twenty20 and the ODIs made any impact - they didn't. All that was of any real importance was the Tests at Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and The Oval. Nothing else mattered much.

And Harmison in those 4 games was abysmal, taking 3 legitimate top-order wickets. Even if he had hit loads of batsmen (which he didn't) it wouldn't matter at all, because that's not what cricket's about.

No, he wasn't. The reason we've "stagnated" is because of a lack of wicket-taking bowlers, not bowlers who're perceived as spearheads but in reality do little to nothing.

what you don't seem to get about cricket though is the human aspect of the game. Pressure builds, an atmosphere is created by a load of little things happening. The 2020 game in 2005 was important, it sent out a message. As an Australian supporter, that made my heart beat a bit faster. The game itself wasnt important, the message England gave out was.

Things like Harmison cutting Pontings face!!! Its a tone setter.

Unfortunatley, until you accept these types of things in cricket, you will never have a good understanding of the game. Everything about that series WAS important, more than any series I have ever watched. It was so fast moving, the momentum of the games could swing to the other team in minutes (and frequently did). Psychological battles were being won and lost all through that summer.

Re: Harmisons slower ball to Clarke. Yeah Clarke did read the wrong line, but it was because it was a slower ball.

And with regards to that last sentence, you are letting your blinkered view of Harmison completely over-ride any sense you may have on the topic

 

[gettingbetter]

It's merely something people concoct to try and make-out that everything that happened that summer was important and that everyone who wore the jersey contributed

Hypocritical. I don't care how narrow-minded you are, but atleast be a decent bloke and meet me halfway. You can't say that about Harmison and then go off and say that Bell made a significnat contribution. He might be the golden child of English cricket, but he was a liability in the Ashes - moreso than Harmison ever was.

 

[open365]

And Harmison in those 4 games was abysmal, taking 3 legitimate top-order wickets. Even if he had hit loads of batsmen (which he didn't) it wouldn't matter at all, because that's not what cricket's about.

No, he wasn't. The reason we've "stagnated" is because of a lack of wicket-taking bowlers, not bowlers who're perceived as spearheads but in reality do little to nothing.

I acctualy agree with you on Harmison being pretty useless in the ashes, however, he did hit the opposition batsmen more than any other bowler in the series (info from The Times).

 

[open365]

I think it's pretty pointless talking about Jones because he's never going to be fit for a long enough period of time to make any reasonable judgement. He was terrifici in the ashes, but you can't rate a player by 4 matches, no matter how well they did.

 

[Richard]

what you don't seem to get about cricket though is the human aspect of the game. Pressure builds, an atmosphere is created by a load of little things happening. The 2020 game in 2005 was important, it sent out a message. As an Australian supporter, that made my heart beat a bit faster. The game itself wasnt important, the message England gave out was.

Suggesting Jonathan Lewis (the biggest reason behind England's victory in that game, along with Darren Gough and Paul Collingwood) played any real part in the Ashes victory, to me, is ludicrous, sorry.

Aside from the fact, this is, that the Australians were - sometimes overwhelmingly - the better side on all bar 1 occasion (the Headingley ODI) from that Twenty20 game onwards. I indeed had a high heartbeat in that 20-over game (the one and only time in my life that I have had from such a game) but it soon went down again, and did not rise in a like manner until that morning at Edgbaston.

To suggest that pressure built because of that Twenty20 game is crazy. Corey (Top_Cat) summed it up best at the time - the Australians weren't worried, they were bemused. The attitude after said game was best summed-up as "cripes, they took that seriously didn't they? "

Things like Harmison cutting Pontings face!!! Its a tone setter.

A tone-setter for a 239-run defeat?

Honestly, people get too hyped-up about there being blood. Had the blow been at a slightly different angle and no blood appeared, no-one would have talked much about it.

Unfortunatley, until you accept these types of things in cricket, you will never have a good understanding of the game. Everything about that series WAS important, more than any series I have ever watched. It was so fast moving, the momentum of the games could swing to the other team in minutes (and frequently did). Psychological battles were being won and lost all through that summer.

Yes, indeed, and until Edgbaston the Australians were winning virtually the lot. The momentum shifted, completely, on that opening morning of the second Test. The Australians had dominated most of the last 16 years. But from that moment to the end of the series, England dominated the vast majority.

Re: Harmisons slower ball to Clarke. Yeah Clarke did read the wrong line, but it was because it was a slower ball.

I don't think so. Why would speed make a batsman misread the line?

 

[Richard]

Hypocritical. I don't care how narrow-minded you are, but atleast be a decent bloke and meet me halfway. You can't say that about Harmison and then go off and say that Bell made a significnat contribution. He might be the golden child of English cricket, but he was a liability in the Ashes - moreso than Harmison ever was.

I didn't say he made a significant contribution, just a greater one than Harmison. I quite clearly stated:

Bell scored 6, 21, 59 (thanks to a let-off), 65, 3, 3, 0 and 0, which is hardly impressive

Bell was indeed a liability for most of the series. So, for that matter, was Vaughan. He made several significant contributions, however, which Bell didn't.

Bell is certainly no "golden child" of English cricket, either.

 

[Richard]

I acctualy agree with you on Harmison being pretty useless in the ashes, however, he did hit the opposition batsmen more than any other bowler in the series (info from The Times).

I know, I read the same Times article. But most of those hits came in the First Test (along with those for almost every other bowler) because that Test was played on an extremely awkward pitch on which to bat. Even Brett Lee took 5\95 (at 3-and-a-half-an-over) in that game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And Richard hijacks yet another thread do he can spout complete bollocks about Harmison.

 

[Pup Clarke]

(fully deserved as well)

 

[Richard]

Nope, I comment on comments that are there. Get your blinkered glasses off.



Actually, we know full well there's no chance of that.

 

[Richard]

Haha, mate, I agree with your sentiments but that's not really the wisest thing to say, TBH. Can't see the Mods being best pleased there.