Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that didn't happen this time. You're just pathologically incapable of giving any praise to Steve Harmison. We all have our biases and this is one of yours.Because some people see good figures and think "well the bowler must have deserved them!" The notion of figures flattering a bowler just doesn't seem to be acceptable to some people.
Anyway, he wasn't the only bowler who bowled well. Hoggard's initial spell was pretty wayward but once he got through Hayden, he was good. As were Jones and Flintoff.
No disagreement with it being a great knock.Fine? You must be kidding. Honestly, I recall very clearly every single Test in England since 1998 and you'd be hard-pressed to find a more seam-friendly deck than that one in that time. It was uneven, bouncy, seaming, the slope exaggerating that seam - everything you could wish for. And the skies were grey virtually all game too.
Pietersen looked comfortable because he batted after McGrath finished his superlative spell (Lee was average, Gillespie diabolical and Warne merely good though without Pietersen's number) and because he played absolutely superbly - I'm still inclined to rank those debut innings' up with his very best.
You and I saw different games. I didn't see much wrong with the pitch and that one bowler dominated in both first innings' and the other Aussie bowlers rarely looked like taking a wicket suggests there wasn't much wrong with it. Hell, the bloke who actually batted on it (KP) is on the record as saying there wasn't much in the deck for the bowlers other than the slope.Seriously, that was an incredibly seam-friendly deck and England completely wasted it