Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[Richard]

The technical problems have almost always been there, all his career. First heard them commented on in a domestic match in 1999. On the odd occasion (like Sabina Park 2004 and the next few Tests) they've gone away for a very short time. But they've always kept coming back.

And most of the times when they've disappeared for a short time again, he hasn't been anywhere near as effective as he was in West Indies in 2004. Because most of his wickets there came through bad batting rather than good bowling, and that bad batting was never likely to continue.

 

[FBU]

Today it seemed Davies, Flintoff, Collingwood and Anderson bowled better than him on a wicket that had bounce.

 

[Top_Cat]

The technical problems have almost always been there, all his career. First heard them commented on in a domestic match in 1999. On the odd occasion (like Sabina Park 2004 and the next few Tests) they've gone away for a very short time. But they've always kept coming back.

And most of the times when they've disappeared for a short time again, he hasn't been anywhere near as effective as he was in West Indies in 2004. Because most of his wickets there came through bad batting rather than good bowling, and that bad batting was never likely to continue.

Your second paragrah is crazy to me so I won't argue the point. I maintain he's been poorly managed.

 

[Richard]

Look at the wickets from that West Indies series (well, the first three Tests). Few came from deliveries that really threatened.

 

[Top_Cat]

Look at the wickets from that West Indies series (well, the first three Tests). Few came from deliveries that really threatened.

Looking at the wickets alone ignores all of the deliveries before and afterwards, hardly a scientific way of determining how well he was bowling that day. A wicket generally is the end of a process of working batsmen out.

 

[Richard]

No, a wicket (at least, a deserved one) is more often than not the result of bowling a good ball.

In any case, you cannot and will not tell me that working a batsman out is getting him to edge a ball to slip that he should and would normally hit for four.

I watched near enough every delivery of that spell, and there's no way many wickets would have fallen had the batting been particularly good. It was truly woeful, there's no other way of putting it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

And most of the times when they've disappeared for a short time again, he hasn't been anywhere near as effective as he was in West Indies in 2004. Because most of his wickets there came through bad batting rather than good bowling, and that bad batting was never likely to continue.

Worked for McGrath....

 

[Richard]

Nah, it didn't. Not for that long, though obviously longer than Harmison.

 

[Manee]

The technical problems have almost always been there, all his career. First heard them commented on in a domestic match in 1999. On the odd occasion (like Sabina Park 2004 and the next few Tests) they've gone away for a very short time. But they've always kept coming back.

And most of the times when they've disappeared for a short time again, he hasn't been anywhere near as effective as he was in West Indies in 2004. Because most of his wickets there came through bad batting rather than good bowling, and that bad batting was never likely to continue.

Said it before but it must be noted that someone of his size (especially with the size of his limbs) would likely (and his case has) have slight coordination issues - so the issue is not as clear cut as a problem of technique.

 

[Debris]

Possibly the most talented fast bowler of the last 10 years. Shame that he is a complete headcase.

 

[Richard]

Possibly the most talented fast bowler of the last 10 years.

Not even remotely close, IMO.

 

[Debris]

Not even remotely close, IMO.

I was talking potential here. Always thought there were sign of a great bowler in the Ambrose-type mould.

Seems he just was not able to apply himself to harness that talent.

 

[Richard]

I always thought there were roughly zero signs of such a thing. Harmison at no point ever attained most of the skills Ambrose had. The only thing they have in common is tall height and long arms. That's it.

Harmison is far, far less talented than most think. The leverage which he can get a ball down is about all he has going for him.

 

[Debris]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Manee]

I believe that the sharp bounce which he extracts, even when not at full pace is another distinct advantage.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Although comparisons to Curtley Ambrose are over the top, the portrayal of Harmison as a talentless wastral who never bowled a good ball in his life other than by accident is equally nonsensical.

 

[social]

Although comparisons to Curtley Ambrose are over the top, the portrayal of Harmison as a talentless wastral who never bowled a good ball in his life other than by accident is equally nonsensical.

Yup

Might've wasted a lot of his talent in the last few years but POTENTIALLY he could have been great - tall, fast, and with ability to move it both ways dont come along very often

 

[SJS]

It is a few years since I suggested on CC that both Flintoff and Harmison were highly over rated as bowlers and that Harmison, particularly was no great bowler. I was shown my place

I am amused to see these two threads.

 

[Debris]

I just want to clarify my position here.

I do not think that Harmison is all that good.

But I think he could have been. I am a little surprised that people think he had no talent.

What I think he lacked is application and effort.

 

[Richard]

He certainly didn't lack effort, and as far as I'm concerned the implication that he lacked application is merely an advocate of those who mistakenly thought Harmison so brilliant, in an effort to avoid the conclusion they were totally mistaken.