Stephen Harmison or Dominic Cork?

[Richard]

Cork was a fairly average county plodder that manged to play a few tests

Harmy can be a world beater but more often than not bowls like an average county plodder

That's so unutterably and infuriatingly typical-Australian that it's probably not worth a reply.

 

[Richard]

The big downside is his ODI-sickness, which left the team with a bunch of no-hopers leading the attack in the World Cup.

Harmison was mostly a no-hoper in ODIs too. It wasn't that he had some sort of sickness relating to ODIs, he just wasn't very good at them because he didn't possess sufficient accuracy.

 

[social]

That's so unutterably and infuriatingly typical-Australian that it's probably not worth a reply.

Cork was an average bowler during an extremely average period of English cricket.

Not really open to debate

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure how cork is 'more talented' than Harmison. Talent is being 6'5, being able to generate a pace of 90 odd mph and being able to get the ball to the keeper at over chest high on most wickets. Talent is not bowling an outswinger at 75 mph no matter how well you bowl it, because as far as i am concerned, those are things that you learn as you play over the years. You dont learn how to bowl fast or get bounce out of surfaces, you either have it or you dont.

Quite aside from the fact that even now Cork is quicker than 75mph (in 2000, the first time he was timed, 4 years after his heyday, he was still bowling in the 78-82mph sort of range).

And as I've said 100000000000 times or so, getting bounce is really not much use in itself. Someone like Andy Caddick, for instance, could get bounce and, when the ball was in the right state, bowl the outswinger. Sadly, inconsistency got the better of him.

As far as Cork is concerned, he was certainly not short and got decent bounce, bowled at reasonable pace, and most importantly was vastly superior to Harmison in accuracy. No, he did not possess the tools to take wickets on all pitches (as Harmison doesn't - only on very inconsistent pitches can he ever take wickets through his own skill rather than batting error) but he was better when the ball was in a good state than just about anyone, because of his ability to swing it on a full length without bowling too many Half-Volleys.

Meanwhile, if Harmison cannot learn to get the ball to move sideways (which he still does only rarely) it says a fair bit about him. Cork could do that from the very start of his career.

 

[Richard]

Cork was an average bowler during an extremely average period of English cricket.

Not really open to debate

It is. Cork was an excellent bowler who played his part several times in successes for his team.

By the time he made his debut, the worst time for English cricket had passed.

 

[Goughy]

Ok as promised, though Im probably not going to say anything unique or groundbreaking.

I also want to preempt my thoughts by stating that Corks career coincided with the time I followed cricket at its closest and I certainly feel I can talk with more authority on someone like him than a new current bowler like Broad, Tremlett etc.

Cork went on a number of England A tours and despite being highlighed as a potential England player for a long time he was never really viewed as offering anything special or unique.

I personally didnt think he had the pace to succeed at Test level and to that end he proved me wrong. However, he was a bustling medium pacer that bowled outswing and there were opportunities for him that he took.

Cork has had a Test career over and above what I expected him to have, but it is still only a decent record rather than anything special. 37 Tests in 7 years isnt overly impressive and he was always a complimentary bowler rather than someone you would want leading your attack.

He was the most successful of a group of brisk medium pace swing bowlers that England had available. Guys like Bicknell, Illott and Cowans.

He was a decent player, that offered little original or special, that maximised his promise. That said, he would still rank behind Gough and Caddick and even possibly Headley in England seamers of the 90s.

That 90s attack was inferior to the current seam attack (just look at the forgotten statements after the 2005 Ashes where Australia supposedely ran in to the best seam attack in the World).

Now the difference between Cork and Harmison is that Harmison is a different fish to virtually anything else England has produced for a long time. He has a rarity factor that cannot be ignored and he gave England an option they had never had. A tall, fast bowler that hit the deck and got bounce and intimidated people.

Lest we forget that Harmison was capable of getting the most outrageous bounce at 150kph.

What Cork offered could have been replicated (if to an inferior level) by a number of other England players. What Harmison offered was unique and that specialness automatically makes him more valuable.

Harmison may be a luxury good, but luxuries are luxuries because they are so rare. Rather than be a complimentary bowler, Harmison had the ability to impose himself on the game. Ask Ponting about his skin graft and the impact of the Aussie batsmen getting hit early in the 2005 Ashes on the aggressive nature of English team. Harmison is the type of bowler that fuels the fire of a team and makes his teammates that are batsmen smile as they know the opposition are going to get some.

Now, there is no doubt that Harmison has been disappointing on a number of occasions and never more so on his terrible tour of SA and the fateful first ball of the recent Ashes series.

However, he has a similar record to Cork whilst often being a disappointment. Harmison has a lot to offer in terms of his bowling that is hard to replicate and he adds an element of mental warfare that Cork couldnt. Harmison is the type of bowler that helps the guy at the other end take wickets. I have little doubt that Hoggard would not have been as successful as he has been without Harmison at the other end.

We should also not forget how Harmison was seen as a once-in-a-generation bowler for England. A classic reminder of this was when Derek Pringle was asked about Fletcher and Englands revival and success was "pfft, anyone could coach a team to wins with Harmison in the team"

Harmison needs to get back to where he was and sort his head out, but that shouldnt hide the fact that he has been destructive for England in the past (also shocking at times but Im not focussing on that right now) and that he is capable of taking wickets, hitting batsmen, intimidating, helping the guy at the other end be successful, getting steep bounce and bowling pretty damn quick.

Cork is a guy that made the most of what he was given and had a decent career on the back of it. Harmison is a special but fragile player that has had a decent career but there is still more to come (hopefully).

Harmison offers so much more than Cork could have and in a way that few others in England could reproduce.

With similar records, always give me the special talent with up-side than the journeyman that maxed out.

 

[Richard]

Very interesting reading, BUT...

I think people have overestimated Harmison's ability to the guise that he overperformed for those 7 Tests in early 2004. Take out those (plus, obviously, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who Cork never played) and his record is not remotely close to being as good as Cork's.

If you look at Harmison's career at large - ie, outside those 7 Tests - it's followed a very predictable pattern. Regardless of how much of a feelgood factor he's given to the bowlers at the other end, and the batsmen in the team... he just hasn't bowled remotely well, and has never got many wickets other than when the batting has been truly awful (which, unsuprisingly, has happened only on odd occasions). We're talking about 37 Tests, in which he's got decent figures 7 times. That is seriously, seriously poor.

Purely in terms of bowling ability and achievement at the Test level, for me, Cork has bettered. Ask Hussain and Atherton, too, about how much you-want-him-in-your-team factor Cork had, even if he couldn't hit batsmen the odd relatively harmless blow on the helmet like Harmison did with Ponting and Hayden at Lord's 2005.

I don't feel, either, that Cork could have done no better. Had he been left-out in 1996 when the problems first occurred, not been picked for New Zealand in 1997 when things were clearly still not right, and got into the side in 1997 and 1999 when all was well again (he was left-out because of his poor overseas tours of the previous winter) then he'd not have got the disappointing results he did. Injury and the ball-change in 2001 affected him, of course.

And that's before we even get to the summer of 2002, when his handling was about a picture of how not to deal with someone. Every Test he played he probably should not have - and had he not done, he might have had a more successful summer.

Since 2003, though, when he chipped a bone in his ankle before the season and played half-fit throughout, then left seam-friendly Derbyshire for often flatter Old Trafford, he's never been the force he once was.

 

[Goughy]

Just to emphasise my point about Cork being a complimentary bowler and that of Harmison being an inconsistent but potentially devastating matchwinner.

Cork has 1 fifer in his 11 Test wins
Harmison has 7 fifers in 25 wins.

Harmisons job isnt to provide backup to the other bowlers, he is the special guy that has a go and if it doesnt come off then the other guys are there to support him.

Despite his inconcistency and failings, Harmison is a cricketing alpha male where as Cork was a valuable and useful cog in an attack.

 

[Richard]

I don't dispute for a second that Cork is a part-of-the-machine bowler. He was never, ever a wicket-taker when the ball failed to swing (though to say he only played the major part in a victory once would be understating the case).

But I do think the Harmison case is overstated by those figures. He has just 5 against Test-class teams (2 of them were against Bangladesh), 2 of which came in the same game (Pakistan at Old Trafford) and 2 in consecutive games in West Indies (Sabina Park and QP Oval). The other one was at The Oval in 2004. And I don't feel he bowled remotely well at either the Old Trafford or The Oval cases.

 

[Goughy]

I don't dispute for a second that Cork is a part-of-the-machine bowler. He was never, ever a wicket-taker when the ball failed to swing (though to say he only played the major part in a victory once would be understating the case).

But I do think the Harmison case is overstated by those figures. He has just 5 against Test-class teams (2 of them were against Bangladesh), 2 of which came in the same game (Pakistan at Old Trafford) and 2 in consecutive games in West Indies (Sabina Park and QP Oval). The other one was at The Oval in 2004. And I don't feel he bowled remotely well at either the Old Trafford or The Oval cases.

How does listing them devalue them? They still exist and are relevant, whether you list them or not.

I dont want to sound patronising, but as you idolised Cork as a kid it probably clouds your judgement. Cork was never anything more than a useful bowler that did a decent job. He wasnt that special at the height of his career and comparing him to many players is a little out of his depth.

 

[Swervy]

Ok as promised, though Im probably not going to say anything unique or groundbreaking.

I also want to preempt my thoughts by stating that Corks career coincided with the time I followed cricket at its closest and I certainly feel I can talk with more authority on someone like him than a new current bowler like Broad, Tremlett etc.

Cork went on a number of England A tours and despite being highlighed as a potential England player for a long time he was never really viewed as offering anything special or unique.

I personally didnt think he had the pace to succeed at Test level and to that end he proved me wrong. However, he was a bustling medium pacer that bowled outswing and there were opportunities for him that he took.

Cork has had a Test career over and above what I expected him to have, but it is still only a decent record rather than anything special. 37 Tests in 7 years isnt overly impressive and he was always a complimentary bowler rather than someone you would want leading your attack.

He was the most successful of a group of brisk medium pace swing bowlers that England had available. Guys like Bicknell, Illott and Cowans.

He was a decent player, that offered little original or special, that maximised his promise. That said, he would still rank behind Gough and Caddick and even possibly Headley in England seamers of the 90s.

That 90s attack was inferior to the current seam attack (just look at the forgotten statements after the 2005 Ashes where Australia supposedely ran in to the best seam attack in the World).

Now the difference between Cork and Harmison is that Harmison is a different fish to virtually anything else England has produced for a long time. He has a rarity factor that cannot be ignored and he gave England an option they had never had. A tall, fast bowler that hit the deck and got bounce and intimidated people.

Lest we forget that Harmison was capable of getting the most outrageous bounce at 150kph.

What Cork offered could have been replicated (if to an inferior level) by a number of other England players. What Harmison offered was unique and that specialness automatically makes him more valuable.

Harmison may be a luxury good, but luxuries are luxuries because they are so rare. Rather than be a complimentary bowler, Harmison had the ability to impose himself on the game. Ask Ponting about his skin graft and the impact of the Aussie batsmen getting hit early in the 2005 Ashes on the aggressive nature of English team. Harmison is the type of bowler that fuels the fire of a team and makes his teammates that are batsmen smile as they know the opposition are going to get some.

Now, there is no doubt that Harmison has been disappointing on a number of occasions and never more so on his terrible tour of SA and the fateful first ball of the recent Ashes series.

However, he has a similar record to Cork whilst often being a disappointment. Harmison has a lot to offer in terms of his bowling that is hard to replicate and he adds an element of mental warfare that Cork couldnt. Harmison is the type of bowler that helps the guy at the other end take wickets. I have little doubt that Hoggard would not have been as successful as he has been without Harmison at the other end.

We should also not forget how Harmison was seen as a once-in-a-generation bowler for England. A classic reminder of this was when Derek Pringle was asked about Fletcher and Englands revival and success was "pfft, anyone could coach a team to wins with Harmison in the team"

Harmison needs to get back to where he was and sort his head out, but that shouldnt hide the fact that he has been destructive for England in the past (also shocking at times but Im not focussing on that right now) and that he is capable of taking wickets, hitting batsmen, intimidating, helping the guy at the other end be successful, getting steep bounce and bowling pretty damn quick.

Cork is a guy that made the most of what he was given and had a decent career on the back of it. Harmison is a special but fragile player that has had a decent career but there is still more to come (hopefully).

Harmison offers so much more than Cork could have and in a way that few others in England could reproduce.

With similar records, always give me the special talent with up-side than the journeyman that maxed out.

Thats a really good summation Goughy

 

[Swervy]

How does listing them devalue them? They still exist and are relevant, whether you list them or not.

I dont want to sound patronising, but as you idolised Cork as a kid it probably clouds your judgement. Cork was never anything more than a useful bowler that did a decent job. He wasnt that special at the height of his career and comparing him to many players is a little out of his depth.

Richard does seem to have a rather odd view of the England team late 90s and 2000 (vs WI).

Really, Cork had an outstanding debut, and then in the same series in 95, took a hat trick. As far as I am concerned, thats about all Cork did with the ball in the special category.

Harmison, even forgetting the once in a decade performance of 7 for 12 has actually put in several outstanding performances, which have been integral to Englands success. For me it is no coincidence that England failed badly in Australia, whilst Harmison struggled.

And yes, Harmison is a frustrating bowler..but on form, and confident, there arent many bowlers in the world that can match him at the moment. I look forward to seeing him hit his stride this summer

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Cork's still got the same old personality that he's always had...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/6610613.stm

 

[Richard]

How does listing them devalue them? They still exist and are relevant, whether you list them or not.

I'm trying to contextualise them. As I say - 2 are worthless, being against Bangladesh. Anyone can take five-fors against Bangladesh if they get enough gos.

The point I was making was that I don't think his five-fors-in-wins record is actually especially awesome, particularly when you watch some of the batting in those games. He's bowled exactly as he did at The Oval 2004 and Old Trafford 2006 in many other games, and got nothing of note.

I dont want to sound patronising, but as you idolised Cork as a kid it probably clouds your judgement. Cork was never anything more than a useful bowler that did a decent job. He wasnt that special at the height of his career and comparing him to many players is a little out of his depth.

As I say - I don't feel I overestimate Cork. As per usual with favourite players, though, I feel more warmly to him than I would to someone else. I'm willing to see good reasons for certain failures of his - I feel there are a good few occasions that he played where he shouldn't have, and almost as many where he didn't when he should.

 

[Richard]

Richard does seem to have a rather odd view of the England team late 90s and 2000 (vs WI).

Really, Cork had an outstanding debut, and then in the same series in 95, took a hat trick. As far as I am concerned, thats about all Cork did with the ball in the special category.

It's not. He bowled very well in several games in 1998 and 2000.

Harmison, even forgetting the once in a decade performance of 7 for 12 has actually put in several outstanding performances, which have been integral to Englands success. For me it is no coincidence that England failed badly in Australia, whilst Harmison struggled.

England have succeeded without his contribution (West Indies summer 2004, South Africa 2004\05, Ashes 2005) too, y'know. Neither England nor Harmison ever had a chance of doing well in Australia.

And yes, Harmison is a frustrating bowler..but on form, and confident, there arent many bowlers in the world that can match him at the moment. I look forward to seeing him hit his stride this summer

And I'm near enough certain that he's not been off-stride for the last 2-and-a-half years - he's just not really that good.

 

[marc71178]

And I don't feel he bowled remotely well at either the Old Trafford or The Oval cases.

OT 2006 he was absolutely unplayable - best spell of bowling I've seen in the flesh by a long long way.

 

[marc71178]

England have succeeded without his contribution (West Indies summer 2004, South Africa 2004\05, Ashes 2005) too, y'know. Neither England nor Harmison ever had a chance of doing well in Australia.

So he did nothing in the 2005 Ashes then?

His overall figures weren't good, but I still think the key moment in that series was the last ball of the 3rd day of the Edgbaston Test, without that magnificent piece of bowling, Australia had a proper batsman going into day 4.

 

[Richard]

OT 2006 he was absolutely unplayable - best spell of bowling I've seen in the flesh by a long long way.

He wasn't, there were only 2 deliveries out of the 11 that took wickets that were genuine wicket-taking deliveries.

I, obviously, haven't got an extensive list of all cricket you've attended so I don't know what it's being compared to.

 

[Richard]

So he did nothing in the 2005 Ashes then?

His overall figures weren't good, but I still think the key moment in that series was the last ball of the 3rd day of the Edgbaston Test, without that magnificent piece of bowling, Australia had a proper batsman going into day 4.

A whole 1 wicket (whose significance is overrated anyway - England virtually had the game won even before Clarke's dismissal, even though they almost contrived to throw it away on the fourth morning).

Everyone did something of significance in that series, even Gary Pratt and Paul Collingwood, but Harmison did less than near enough everyone else.

That 1 wicket - even if it was as crucial and as magnificent a piece of bowling as it's made-out - would not entail him having a good series or anything close to it.

 

[Flem274*]

Harmison reminds me of Ian Butler. Either really good or really bad. Absolutely no middle ground. Those bowlers are very fustrating.