Steve Harmison pulls out of Zimbabwe tour

[Richard]

Yeah, you must have seen that before?
I've had 20 out of 21 before (le interrupted to say "sorry for intruding, now no-one will be able to skip that because they'll have to stop to read the sense I've put in the middle").

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeah, you must have seen that before?
I've had 20 out of 21 before (le interrupted to say "sorry for intruding, now no-one will be able to skip that because they'll have to stop to read the sense I've put in the middle").

I just scroll down a long way

 

[Richard]

You and almost everyone else.
Why count here, BTW?

 

[Langeveldt]

You and almost everyone else.
Why count here, BTW?

just for a laugh...

 

[Richard]

Sam not been on Off Topic today, eh?

 

[marc71178]

Of course he has - just not helped as much as the other bowlers!

So by that pathetic reasoning a bowler who bowls 10 overs for 100 has also played his part in keeping it down because he could've gone for 150

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't matter if you take 0 wickets if you bowl well - ie less than or just over 4-an-over.

Erm yes they do.

Someone who constantly bowled 10-0-42-0 wouldn't keep his place for long.

 

[marc71178]

Except that relative expensiveness doesn't matter if that's only relative to an exceptionally low rate.

Even though on you've written off other performances on the same wicket as being helped significantly by the conditions?

That would surely make the economy a lot worse.

Of course if it were Gough 10-1-30-1 and Harmison 7-0-34-0, you'd be criticising Harmison, but when it's this way round you say the only reason he's got these figures is because the conditions have helped him, but Gough's aren't so bad because the others are exceptional.

 

[Richard]

So by that pathetic reasoning a bowler who bowls 10 overs for 100 has also played his part in keeping it down because he could've gone for 150

No, because 10-100-0 has never been acceptible by anyone's standards.

 

[Richard]

Erm yes they do.

Someone who constantly bowled 10-0-42-0 wouldn't keep his place for long.

I think they would - if they bowled constantly at the end of the innings.

 

[Richard]

Even though on you've written off other performances on the same wicket as being helped significantly by the conditions?

Not written them off, just said they should be taken in context.

That would surely make the economy a lot worse.

Of course if it were Gough 10-1-30-1 and Harmison 7-0-34-0, you'd be criticising Harmison, but when it's this way round you say the only reason he's got these figures is because the conditions have helped him, but Gough's aren't so bad because the others are exceptional.

10-30-1 is good by anyone's standards. 7-34-0 is poor by anyone's.
Gough's haven't been good in the last 2 matches, given or regardless of conditions, but before then he was doing just about as well as Harmison.

 

[marc71178]

No, because 10-100-0 has never been acceptible by anyone's standards.

Yet because it's Gough, he's allowed to not only be far more expensive than the rest of the team, but also gets praised for keeping the runs down

 

[marc71178]

Gough's haven't been good in the last 2 matches, given or regardless of conditions, but before then he was doing just about as well as Harmison.

Of course he was:

Natwest series he clearly was:

Gough 2 wickets @ 85.5, Harmison 7 @ 26.71.

But wait, Gough's economy was a whole 0.01 per over better, so he's clearly done better than Harmison

 

[Richard]

Yet because it's Gough, he's allowed to not only be far more expensive than the rest of the team, but also gets praised for keeping the runs down

If he's still going at less than 4-an-over or just over, yes, he is - and no, it's not just him.

 

[Richard]

Of course he was:

Natwest series he clearly was:

Gough 2 wickets @ 85.5, Harmison 7 @ 26.71.

But wait, Gough's economy was a whole 0.01 per over better, so he's clearly done better than Harmison

No, he's not "clearly done better", but had he not been a sacrificial lamb and bowled again when not even Brett Lee could have dragged back that final West Indies game, his economy-rate for The NatWest Series would have been easily under 4-an-over and quite a bit better than Harmison's.
In any case, all I ever said was he was doing as well as Harmison, not better - which is true.

 

[marc71178]

He is not doing as well, as those figures clearly show.

 

[Richard]

Maybe he's not taking as many wickets. But he was doing just about as well - until the Australia game.
Certainly he was doing more than enough to keep his place secure.

 

[marc71178]

2 wickets in that many games at that average is not good, no matter which way you try and dress it up.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't need any dressing-up (and hence I've never tried to provide any).
It simply needs pointing-out that it is overridden by a good economy-rate.

 

[marc71178]

A good economy rate only lasts so long before a chronic lack of wickets starts to tell.

If the team had 5 Gough's then they'd be conceding a lot more than just 200 a game.