Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You see, I've seen too many examples of batsmen having no difficulty playing the sort of bowling Harmison dished-out in early-2004 to believe it's something that can be a reliable wicket-taking option. For such bowling to take wickets is completely dependent on batsman error. However, the sort of stuff Anderson (or any form of good swing-bowler) can bowl at his best (rare though that best is) is simply un-combat-able. You have to accept as a batsman that the bowler has been too good if you're done by that. And you have to accept as a viewer that the batsman had no realistic chance.
Against Harmison-circa-early-2004 stuff, there's always a way out if you're good enough. West Indies and New Zealand weren't. West Indies (later), South Africa, Australia, etc. were.
Against Harmison-circa-early-2004 stuff, there's always a way out if you're good enough. West Indies and New Zealand weren't. West Indies (later), South Africa, Australia, etc. were.