Norwood's on Fire
You could argue that his injury woes are partially down to poor fitness on his part, though
He made the captian draw blood and didn't show any concern, set the tone which puts his name in the forefront of the mind when looking for a key moment in the series.The Australians apparently thought Harmison was bowling well in 2005 too - he still made sod-all contribution to the four matches England dominated.
Agreed.Hopefully the selecters are stupid enough not to pick Harmison because he'll cause our batsman far more problems then Broad will. Harmison's troubled our best batsman in the past, Ricky Ponting and our inform batsman Phillip Hughes and I don't see Broad causing any problems for these two.
Maybe. We'll see. Broad had too much for Sarwan recently, with intelligent aggressive fast bowling - exactly the sort of stuff we wish Harmison could produce more regularly.
A slight overstatement. If your fast bowler takes 1-60 in every innings, he will be rightly dropped, even if the wicket he gets is a top-order player. Hughes is a really good prospect and was in great form until recently but I don't think England will be, or should be, quite as worried about him as you seem to think. You may also be underestimating the rest of the England attack, which is pretty decent.I don't really see what the poms are complaining about. If Harmison takes 1-60 and that one wicket is Hughes cheaply then it's better then having Hughes flay the rest of the England bowlers to all parts and play a brilliant knock that seperates the two teams.
With all due respect to Ramnaresh Sarwan, he is not in the same class as Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke. I've seen Broad bowl over the last few months and he didn't look nearly as threatening as what Harmison was to Hughes and Ponting.Maybe. We'll see. Broad had too much for Sarwan recently, with intelligent aggressive fast bowling - exactly the sort of stuff we wish Harmison could produce more regularly.
To be fair that was in the first test when he also took a Michelle, so I think is excluded from the remit of Dicko's "four tests we dominated". Not that 2 draws, a win of 2 runs and another of 3 wickets fits my definition of "dominated", but that's beside the point.
I don't want us to get side-tracked too far off topic here, but Sarwan is of similar class to all those, with the exception of Ponting who's a class above nearly every batsman I've ever seen.With all due respect to Ramnaresh Sarwan, he is not in the same class as Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke.
I don't think that moment was relevant at all. When Simon Jones, the real hero of 2005, was shattering Aussie stumps with prodigious inswing it wasn't because Steve Harmison hit Ponting on the chin a few weeks earlier.
You don't have to use an average - I could if you really wished go through every game and show how mostly Harmison had negligable impact on it.The point I was making is that the "picture" is an average: a number. And that sort of number doesn't necessarily mean what it appears to mean. It can only be properly understood in its proper context, which is that it's the result of an extremely careful exercise in sample-selection. And saying that someone averages (say) 48 after that process is fairly meaningless in itself unless you can compare it with similarly-selected figures for other bowlers.
You might be surprised to hear I don't dispute this at all. It is useful to have a bowler who unsettles batsmen - though I'll always prefer one who gets them out, by miles - but the mists of time have obscured things. Harmison didn't do this in 2005. Look at the last four Tests - he was occasionally whistled-up for a 4 or 5 over spell of waywardness to loosen the stranglehold on the Australians before being banished again for a lengthy period as one of Flintoff and Giles (at Edgbaston); Flintoff and Jones (at Old Trafford); Hoggard and Jones (at Trent Bridge); or Hoggard and Flintoff (at The Oval) put the batsmen under the pump once again.The other point about Harmison (when he's bowling decently), and I don't expect you to agree with this Richard but I regard it as pretty important, is that batsmen don't like facing him. He unsettles them. This helps to build up pressure on the batting line-up. Even when he wasn't taking wickets, he was a factor in the success of the England team in 2005.