• 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.

Steve Harmison

Steve Harmison for the first Test?


  • Total voters
    52

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough then - you view being Test-class as a little different to how I do. Simple difference of opinion never hurt no-one. :)
Quite. Actually I'm not even sure that I agree with myself in saying the following
But even if he was, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he wasn't Test class.
It's worth it for a bit of good-natured bickering, though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I said I didn't want to get sucked into this, but what the hell.

As for the tailenders point, you can do this to any bowler's stats because all bowlers' stats are improved by tailend wickets. Harmison has shaken and dismissed his fair share of top-order batsmen.
My bet - and yes, I may be mistaken - is that Harmison has profited from gimme wickets (be they tail-end or immediate pre-declaration) to a greater extent than most bowlers - even Monty Panesar, and that really is saying something. I could even give you a blow-by-blow account, if you really so desired.
As for deleting his best figures from the equation, you're getting dangerously into the slightly Stalinist territory of historical purification.

If you delete Murali's 500 best overs, and you remove his tailend wickets and his wickets against minnows, he'd probably have an average like Ian Salisbury's.
If it's merely a case of cherry-picking the best and deleting it, that's one thing. Removing less than 15% (which is what Harmison's 7 Tests in early-2004 represent), all of which came in direct chronological order and fitted a drastically different pattern to the entire rest, is in my view fair enough.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The trouble is, well as I see it anyway, is that looking at the whole series objectively, on a man to man comparison we're not quite as good as the crims so if we play it with a straight bat (pun intended) then we'll get beaten - Harmison at the top of his game might change that
No, i don't agree. Australia might be better than England, but you should still be playing the percentages. Is Harmison more likely to take wickets than Onions or Sidebottom? I don't believe so.

I think you've also been drawn into the myth that Harmison will win matches if he's at his best. One five wicket haul in thirteen matches against Australia doesn't suggest that. It's a brave call, but I'm going to say that Onions/Sidebottom at their best>Harmison at his best.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australian underperformance (the like of which we had with Gillespie and - post-injury - McGrath in 2005) is in my view rather more likely than Harmison over-performance.
'twould be nice I agree but I increasingly believe it's unlikely - the lack of their "galacticos" is made up for by a bunch of decent players - I can't see them falling apart
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Sidebottom at his best would be beyond awesome, he's almost as bad as Harmy from going from hero to zero though
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
'twould be nice I agree but I increasingly believe it's unlikely - the lack of their "galacticos" is made up for by a bunch of decent players - I can't see them falling apart
It's unlikely for sure - but it was damn unlikely in 2005, but it still happened.

Of course, the likes of Flintoff and Jones (even, in the last two, Hoggard) also bowled better than anyone could have dreamt of and sorted-out Hayden, Martyn, Clarke and Gilchrist (and reduced Ponting to merely good) in a way I doubt anyone could possibly have fantasised about (except maybe simmy or GIMH if he'd been here then).

That too seems extremely unlikely to be repeated.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
My bet - and yes, I may be mistaken - is that Harmison has profited from gimme wickets (be they tail-end or immediate pre-declaration) to a greater extent than most bowlers - even Monty Panesar, and that really is saying something. I could even give you a blow-by-blow account, if you really so desired.

If it's merely a case of cherry-picking the best and deleting it, that's one thing. Removing less than 15% (which is what Harmison's 7 Tests in early-2004 represent), all of which came in direct chronological order and fitted a drastically different pattern to the entire rest, is in my view fair enough.
But even on that basis, you need to be aware that an average that prunes out the peak of a player's career is not an average that means what it appears to mean. If you see what I mean.

About a year ago we had precisely the same argument and I showed you that by excising a 7-test chronological period from Dominic Cork's career you could do similar damage to his career stats. (Or something along those lines). And I know that you don't regard him as a flash in the pan.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But even on that basis, you need to be aware that an average that prunes out the peak of a player's career is not an average that means what it appears to mean. If you see what I mean.
If you take out a very small amount of outstanding and are left with a very large amount of dreadful, in my view you get the perfect picture.

Or, rather, instead of "taking out", you just separate the two. The first 7 Tests of 2004; and the other 48.
About a year ago we had precisely the same argument and I showed you that by excising a 7-test chronological period from Dominic Cork's career you could do similar damage to his career stats. (Or something along those lines). And I know that you don't regard him as a flash in the pan.
I regard Cork as someone who had his chances of being successful long-term damaged by some of his own shortcomings and a lot of those of others. That he was mostly pretty poor after the 1995, 1995/96 and (to an extent) 1996 seasons is not something I've ever disputed.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
If you take out a very small amount of outstanding and are left with a very large amount of dreadful, in my view you get the perfect picture.
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.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
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. It's intangible in that it isn't necessarily obvious from his bowling figures, but anecdotal evidence from people who have actually been involved in both teams is pretty powerful.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Sidebottom at his best would be beyond awesome, he's almost as bad as Harmy from going from hero to zero though
Thats not true. Sidebottom's dip in form since NZ last year was down to injury & he lost pace. He has never had SA 04/05 type series like Harmo.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
No, but you see my point surely, i.e that he went from being beyond awesome, to a passenger
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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. It's intangible in that it isn't necessarily obvious from his bowling figures, but anecdotal evidence from people who have actually been involved in both teams is pretty powerful.
Most of which was done successfully by Flintoff and Jones in 05.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Fact is Harmison will ALWAYS be dangerous in England, once he gets the right conditions. Its no coincidence that last year vs SA at the in the Oval test & ODI's he was bowling 90+, then suddenly on flat winter decks he ambling @ 80-85. But now is right back up to "potentially" his intimidating best.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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. It's intangible in that it isn't necessarily obvious from his bowling figures, but anecdotal evidence from people who have actually been involved in both teams is pretty powerful.
Word, put all stats aside for the moment. When Harmo is hitting 90+, batsmen find him very uncomfortable to face. They clearly don't go out thinking "oh he has been mediocre since 2004"...
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Fact is Harmison will ALWAYS be dangerous in England, once he gets the right conditions. Its no coincidence that last year vs SA at the in the Oval test & ODI's he was bowling 90+, then suddenly on flat winter decks he ambling @ 80-85. But now is right back up to "potentially" his intimidating best.
One fine yorker to dismiss Amla (iirc) aside, Harmison did nothing in that Test.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
No, but you see my point surely, i.e that he went from being beyond awesome, to a passenger
In theory that how it seems, but factual thats not what happened. Sidebottom becoming a passenger is basically down to his injury woes. Unlike Harmison who has never been able to replicate his 7 test performance of 2004, consistently.
 

Top