Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[Gloucefan]

Heck, I feel incredibly sorry for him - doubly so since that Hussain interview a month or so ago (which I STILL haven't managed to upload to computer and hence YouTube, the new driver I purchased being recommended against by my Windows system for the moment).

But really, I don't feel he'd have been THAT successful at domestic cricket had he played it regularly between 2003 and 2007. The few games he has played have indeed produced exceptional results. But that's just 18 games in 4 seasons, and we've seen the nonsense he's mostly bowled in Tests in that time. And I don't think for a second that this would produce much in domestic cricket either.

His record up to his Test selection in 2002 was decidedly mediocre, and he shouldn't have played Tests when he did. Had he not, and kept producing his up-to-2002 performances, no-one would've looked twice at him, he'd just have been another average domestic bowler.

I guess we won't know unless he plays a full county season.

Either way I agree he should be dropped from the side.

 

[Richard]

Well another interesting development in the saga is that Harmison has now talked of retiring fairly soon unless he gets back in the England team. He does emphasise that this is not an ultimatum, but perhaps yet another example of what those harsh of mind would term his lack of stomach for the fight.

 

[Arjun]

1. Harmison v/s Mahmood
2. Harmison v/s Anderson
3. Harmison v/s Tremlett
4. Harmison v/s Broad
5. Harmison v/s Plunkett
6. Harmison v/s any bits-and-pieces ODI pick for England

How does it (he) stack up?

 

[GIMH]

Harmison v/s Mahmood - Harmison
Harmison v/s Anderson - Interesting, Anderson probably the better now despite poor form, Harmison on form the better of the two
Harmison v/s Tremlett - In the last year or so Tremlett takes this, not enough to go on in Tests
Harmison v/s Broad - As above
Harmison v/s Plunkett - Harmison
Harmison v/s any bits-and-pieces ODI pick for England - Never rated Harmison in ODIs then again never rated many of the bits and pieces picks either

 

[Arjun]

Harmison v/s Mahmood - Harmison

I've often been thinking about this. Harmison is definitely a better bowler, but as some say, he's got some attitude problems, or he's just scared- and he's retired from ODI's. That's paved the way for Saj, who once said he didn't know what he was doing there. He wouldn't get too many matches, even ODI's, had it not been for that retirement.

 

[Richard]

Well... not sure TBH. Mahmood was a fixture in the team, or close-to, between March 2006 and February 2007. Harmison didn't retire until October 2006.

Sure, he was absent lots, but so were many others. Obviously, Mahmood would never have been anywhere near ODIs but for injuries to about 5 or 6 different bowlers.

Still, the fact he was picked ahead of the likes of Mark Ealham, Neil Killeen, Dimitri Mascarenhas etc. (though there's some mitigation on the lattermost) shows that by-and-large English selectors simply don't have a clue about what matters in one-day bowling.

 

[Richard]

Harmison v/s Anderson - Interesting, Anderson probably the better now despite poor form, Harmison on form the better of the two

That's a slightly strange call IMO. Despite the fact I don't think Harmison has ever bowled particularly extraordinarily well in a Test, even in March-June 2004, there's no disputing that purely in figures terms he's had far more "good" games than Anderson. Anderson has only ever bowled really well in a Test on a non-diabolical pitch once - that being the game at The Wankhede Stadium in 2005/06.

 

[GIMH]

If I had to pick one tomorrow I would pick Anderson but if i had to pick one at their best I would pick Harmison. Don't think it's that strange a call tbh

Oh and you might wanna do an edit on the post above the one I am replying too as you have the dates mixed up

 

[Richard]

If I had to pick one tomorrow I would pick Anderson but if i had to pick one at their best I would pick Harmison. Don't think it's that strange a call tbh

Oh... I see. You said Harmison was better on form, Anderson better overall. And TBH I'd think the other way around, though I hardly think Anderson's recent performances have been terribly impressive either.

Oh and you might wanna do an edit on the post above the one I am replying too as you have the dates mixed up

So I did... how odd.

 

[biased indian]

Harmison was never good enough to last long...he had his moments...but don't see him performing at that level any more....never thought of him as a great bowler

 

[jonny1408]

An over-rated underachiever.

Summed it up perfectly for me.

 

[The Masterplan]

Harmison v/s Mahmood

Mahmood would be a good bowler if he could control his radar a bit more...

 

[GIMH]

Oh... I see. You said Harmison was better on form, Anderson better overall. And TBH I'd think the other way around, though I hardly think Anderson's recent performances have been terribly impressive either.

So I did... how odd.

Ah having just looked at my original post, it was a tad ambigious. What I meant by "Harmison is better on form" is that an on-song Harmison is better than an on-song Anderson, but on current form I'd prefer Anderson.

 

[Flem274*]

That's a slightly strange call IMO. Despite the fact I don't think Harmison has ever bowled particularly extraordinarily well in a Test, even in March-June 2004, there's no disputing that purely in figures terms he's had far more "good" games than Anderson. Anderson has only ever bowled really well in a Test on a non-diabolical pitch once - that being the game at The Wankhede Stadium in 2005/06.

Twice. That Wellington pitch only looked bad because neither side could bat.

 

[Richard]

Wasn't saying it was a diabolical pitch - it was actually a pretty damn good one, exactly the sort of pitch I like to see cricket played on.

But Anderson didn't bowl well. His opening spell was super, the rest of the game he was poor.

 

[Richard]

Mahmood would be a good bowler if he could control his radar a bit more...

So would one hell of a lot of bowlers here, there and everywhere. Me included.

 

[Burgey]

So would one hell of a lot of bowlers here, there and everywhere. Me included.

Word.

Has it reached th point where we can just say Harmison's golden spell was no more than a fluke, or have we seen the dismantling of a potentially destructive international bowler?

 

[Top_Cat]

Word.

Has it reached th point where we can just say Harmison's golden spell was no more than a fluke, or have we seen the dismantling of a potentially destructive international bowler?

A little more of the latter, I think. He's seemingly been poorly managed by the ECB. Cricket boards essentially tell bowlers who are struggling "Well, all you need is more bowling!" but this doesn't work if they have technical issues because then you just re-enforce the poor technique. Watch Harmi in taking 7/12 against the WI and compare his action to present day. Pretty massive difference.

 

[Richard]

Disagree TBH. Troy Cooley, one of the best bowling-coaches you'll see (and someone Harmison spoke so highly of), couldn't sort the problems. That suggests they were insoluble, and a result of Harmison's lack of skills rather than mismanagement.

 

[Top_Cat]

Disagree TBH. Troy Cooley, one of the best bowling-coaches you'll see (and someone Harmison spoke so highly of), couldn't sort the problems. That suggests they were insoluble, and a result of Harmison's lack of skills rather than mismanagement.

Like I said, watch the footage from the 7/12 and watch Harmi bowl now. That technical problems like that have entered his game for a while now suggests someone has dropped the ball a bit. Not good enough to blame a difficult personality either; in the US, coaches routinely manage to coach some very precocious players so blaming Harmison for being difficult is a total cop-out in my book.