Asif vs Bond vs Harris

[Flem274*]

@Flem274* If we should judge players like Harris on what he did, shouldn't we factor in the 10 years of garbage output in FC cricket where he was basically club standard?

...

If he'd been tearing up the sheffield shield for years and simply didnt get a look in because of competition, I'd 100% agree with you. But that wasn't what happened.

This is fair tbh. I'm not familliar enough with Harris' Australian FC career to draw too many conclusions. I believe he had a poor patch, moved state and tore it up, then some time later graduated to test cricket where he was at home from his first ball.

I guess if I'm being consistent then I should compare how I feel about Harris to how I feel about the other massive improvers - guys like Anderson, Southee and Ishant - and get back to you.

 

[Flem274*]

Also another thing - If someone chooses and continues to choose a high risk route like Bond did, they are basically admitting that they would rather burn bright for 5 years and then fade away as opposed to someone who would like a full international career. Saying the former person was unlucky because of injuries completely misses the point.

Asif was clearly the one who would have had the best bowling career if he wasn't a cheat.

I respect either choice tbh. Bond knew he was more valuable to his side choosing the way he went, and dropping pace in his case was not necessarily going to drop his injury rate since the damage was already done during his time improving from 20 year old medium pacer to 25 year old ATG talent.

It's pretty easy to forget it didn't matter how fast you bowled if you were an NZ quick between 1990 to 2010 - they were all always injured. Martin and Morrison made international careers out of merely being fit to bowl. Nash, Doull, Allot, Cairns, O'Connor, Tuffey, Franklin, Gillespie, Bennett...they were all injured because of the frankly amatuer environment they were forced to hone their craft in, hammering away on concrete blocks indoors all winter.

Bond never had a choice between 135kph and fit or 150kph and injured, he had a choice between 135kph and injured or 150kph and injured. He made the correct choice for his side and played for 10 years bar the ICL stint, and being what your team needs is all that matters.

As for Mohammad Asif, he was a fantastic bowler but we can just as easily speculate whether his limitations (and the extreme limitations of his fickle board) would have destroyed him. I wouldn't hold his stupid board against him but he and Abbas are both medium pacers with 23 tests to their name, and we all know what happens to Abbas when batsmen sit out of their crease now. Personally I think if Abbas was given more rope he would push through his current dry spell but we'll probably never know now that he's lost his contract. Point is it's brave to say Asif would have had the best career in the traditional sense given we have both a modern analogue and know how stupid the PCB are.

 

[Starfighter]

It is accurate, because I remember the constant whining Siddle was being selected ahead of James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc.

Australia's rotation between approx 2012 to present is pretty evident.

The 2019 Ashes was the only series we've employed any kind of rotation in recent years. And the whining was because Siddle shouldn't have been selected in the first place. He wasn't rotated in, he was in the XI for the first test.

This is fair tbh. I'm not familliar enough with Harris' Australian FC career to draw too many conclusions. I believe he had a poor patch, moved state and tore it up, then some time later graduated to test cricket where he was at home from his first ball.

It wasn't a bad patch, he was just plain bad not least because he wasn't fit enough. Last season with South Australia he finally began getting his fitness together and he never looked back.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is accurate, because I remember the constant whining Siddle was being selected ahead of James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc.

Australia's rotation between approx 2012 to present is pretty evident.

M8 this isn't what happened at all. Siddle being selected ahead of those guys would have had nothing to do with rotation, it was just selection.

Anyway aren't we talking about current sides

 

[TheJediBrah]

@Flem274* If we should judge players like Harris on what he did, shouldn't we factor in the 10 years of garbage output in FC cricket where he was basically club standard?

This isnt even about longevity really. I'm glad to rate guys like Bond, Asif, Bruce Reid, Shoaib, etc who didnt play anywhere near as many tests as they could have but because of various factors like injuries/fixing/drugs etc. didnt do it. I dislike when Harris is lumped in there with those other guys because his career was nothing like theirs. He was flat out not good enough to be selected for any good test team for the majority of his career. If Harris had been slightly better (i.e) good enough to be selected but still not great, he'd have played more tests and you'd have a very different opinion of him.

If he'd been tearing up the sheffield shield for years and simply didnt get a look in because of competition, I'd 100% agree with you. But that wasn't what happened.

Also another thing - If someone chooses and continues to choose a high risk route like Bond did, they are basically admitting that they would rather burn bright for 5 years and then fade away as opposed to someone who would like a full international career. Saying the former person was unlucky because of injuries completely misses the point.

Asif was clearly the one who would have had the best bowling career if he wasn't a cheat.

This is reasonable if you're rating players through the lens of purely the individual, and selfish "I did this in my career" type of thinking. But cricket is a team game and someone who is better even if only for a brief period can be more valuable and win you more games when they are available. Of course you could say the same that someone who plays more was there for their team more and helped win more games even if at a lower "strike rate", as it were.

Definitely no clear answer and down to the individual, I'm standing mostly with flem's initial viewpoint on this because longevity, while definitely important, is overrated af on this forum.

 

[ataraxia]

The question really is: when rating a bowler like Harris, what would their fictional performance in a team be?

Are the 10 years of mediocrity and 5 years of incredible combined in estimation of that performance?

Are only the 5 years considered?

Are only the 5 years considered but downgraded based on lack of longevity?

But cricket is a team game and someone who is better even if only for a brief period can be more valuable and win you more games when they are available.

Someone who is very good for 15 years contributes more for their team than someone who is incredible for 5 years and crap otherwise.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The question really is: when rating a bowler like Harris, what would their fictional performance in a team be?

Are the 10 years of mediocrity and 5 years of incredible combined in estimation of that performance?

Are only the 5 years considered?

Are only the 5 years considered but downgraded based on lack of longevity?

All completely subjective. I wouldn't care what happened before they played for their country. I wouldn't rate Steve Smith based on how good he was when he was a 3 year old toddler and not playing international cricket.

I think the "only the 5 years considered but downgraded based on lack of longevity?" makes the most sense, but again pretty subjective as to how much you decide to "downgrade"

Someone who is very good for 15 years contributes more for their team than someone who is incredible for 5 years and crap otherwise.

. . .

Of course you could say the same that someone who plays more was there for their team more and helped win more games even if at a lower "strike rate", as it were.

 

[Flem274*]

Someone who is very good for 15 years contributes more for their team than someone who is incredible for 5 years and crap otherwise.

do they though? because the very good tend to fail when faced with the incredible, and in the end incredible wins the best series and championships. it's better to dominate everyone for 5 years than come 2nd or 3rd for 15.

selectors and even fans tend to subconsciously agree on some level as well, because you would be very brave to select tim southee or mitchell starc over shane bond or ryan harris in their respective sides of the new millenium.

by all means give me mcgrath or end of career cummins over harris, but don't give me jason gillespie or brett lee.

 

[Flem274*]

M8 this isn't what happened at all. Siddle being selected ahead of those guys would have had nothing to do with rotation, it was just selection.

Anyway aren't we talking about current sides

Australia have been shuffling their bowlers around for around a decade. They might not state it as bluntly as England do, but when Sri Lanka or the West Indies show up on Australian shores and even during some more major series the bowlers have been getting rotated on the sly and some debuts handed out.

 

[Flem274*]

The question really is: when rating a bowler like Harris, what would their fictional performance in a team be?

Are the 10 years of mediocrity and 5 years of incredible combined in estimation of that performance?

Are only the 5 years considered?

Are only the 5 years considered but downgraded based on lack of longevity?

Someone who is very good for 15 years contributes more for their team than someone who is incredible for 5 years and crap otherwise.

To use a really extreme example, Kyle Jamieson could retire tomorrow and he has already done more for NZ than Chris Martin, and I respect the hell out of Chris Martin's fitness given the factors he was developed and played in for his entire career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Personally I would rate Harris as only just below McGrath, even though McGrath was slightly better for so much longer

Australia have been shuffling their bowlers around for around a decade. They might not state it as bluntly as England do, but when Sri Lanka or the West Indies show up on Australian shores and even during some more major series the bowlers have been getting rotated on the sly and some debuts handed out.

Still false. Other than maybe the 2019 Ashes no fit Aus fast bowler has been rested from a Test match in my time of following cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

Still false. Other than maybe the 2019 Ashes no fit Aus fast bowler has been rested from a Test match in my time of following cricket.

I cbf going through scorecards and I need to go to work. If you can be bothered and select some carefully curated cards then I'll just call it a day and say you're right (but I am right too).

 

[TheJediBrah]

I cbf going through scorecards and I need to go to work. If you can be bothered and select some carefully curated cards then I'll just call it a day and say you're right (but I am right too).

I follow this a lot more closely than you and I don't have any reason to lie about it. I don't know why you got this idea in your head that Aus have been rotating bowlers but just accept you're off the mark on this one.

 

[Athlai]

Australia don't rotate bowlers, some just get injured and only play to destroy New Zealand once every decade.

 

[Nintendo]

Nah I'de take Rabada, KJ and potentially t

I respect either choice tbh. Bond knew he was more valuable to his side choosing the way he went, and dropping pace in his case was not necessarily going to drop his injury rate since the damage was already done during his time improving from 20 year old medium pacer to 25 year old ATG talent.

It's pretty easy to forget it didn't matter how fast you bowled if you were an NZ quick between 1990 to 2010 - they were all always injured. Martin and Morrison made international careers out of merely being fit to bowl. Nash, Doull, Allot, Cairns, O'Connor, Tuffey, Franklin, Gillespie, Bennett...they were all injured because of the frankly amatuer environment they were forced to hone their craft in, hammering away on concrete blocks indoors all winter.

Bond never had a choice between 135kph and fit or 150kph and injured, he had a choice between 135kph and injured or 150kph and injured. He made the correct choice for his side and played for 10 years bar the ICL stint, and being what your team needs is all that matters.

As for Mohammad Asif, he was a fantastic bowler but we can just as easily speculate whether his limitations (and the extreme limitations of his fickle board) would have destroyed him. I wouldn't hold his stupid board against him but he and Abbas are both medium pacers with 23 tests to their name, and we all know what happens to Abbas when batsmen sit out of their crease now. Personally I think if Abbas was given more rope he would push through his current dry spell but we'll probably never know now that he's lost his contract. Point is it's brave to say Asif would have had the best career in the traditional sense given we have both a modern analogue and know how stupid the PCB are.

Abbas's bad streak wasn't down to batsmen sitting outside there crease. He got injured and went from high 120's-low 130's to 120, the 10kms he lost killed him.

 

[Chrish]

There is no logical reason to believe these guys would have stayed good long-term. Bhumrah is a classic example. He was devastating pre-injury and hasn’t been the same afterwards.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is no logical reason to believe these guys would have stayed good long-term

That's irrelevant and not what being discussed

They didn't stay good long-term anyway, for various reasons. No guesswork required.

 

[Athlai]

There is no logical reason to believe these guys would have stayed good long-term. Bhumrah is a classic example. He was devastating pre-injury and hasn’t been the same afterwards.

Bond was a God everytime he came back TBF

 

[ataraxia]

That's irrelevant and not what being discussed

They didn't stay good long-term anyway, for various reasons. No guesswork required.

Well it kind of is what is being discussed. Like other players have had periods similar to that of Harris (e.g. Southee last 3/4 years) and weren't as good before and afterwards. Who's saying that wouldn't have happened to Harris and co., only on a grander scale in all likelihood?

 

[Slifer]

Good, the heresy needs to spread.

Longevity does not contribute to your ranking in the pantheon of greatness at all unless you are already performing at the level required to knock on the pantheon step.

In a real selection situation, no one is going to select Tim Southee or Trent Boult over Shane Bond. The former pairing are very, very good bowlers who deserve so much praise for dragging NZ from the doldrums but they're not in Bond's league and never will be unless they go on a massive tear in the latter third of their careers. If forced into this hypothetical choice we already know a selector will choose Shane Bond over Tim Southee or Ryan Harris over Mitchell Starc and accept the risk they might break in the middle of a test because this is exactly what they did - they picked the best bowlers available regardless of durability and dealt with whatever came.

Longevity will mean less and less in the future too. In the world of 3 formats, rare tour games and back to back test matches, it's no coincidence the three best bowling attacks in the world (Aus, India, NZ) are in reality bowling squads. Bowlers are going to play less games, so more emphasis is going to go on how good they actually are rather than how many caps they smuggle.

I think overs per game is a more interesting stat than raw test spam, which is affected by more than just injury rates but even by meme things like how much political power or ****s given your cricket board has. A solid reason to rate your favourite bowler Neil Wagner higher than Trent Boult, despite less raw matches and wickets (which will only become more stark once Wagner retires) is you can just spam Wagner from one end for an entire session on a motorway and he will actually do it. Media and fans tend to judge bowler fitness by raw games played and it is a very poor indicator of actual bowler fitness in game.

What you're saying is all good and well but in terms of all time greatness, there's no way a Shane Bond (as much as I admire him) will be ranked above say Allan Donald. Oops, just re read your post, missed the part where you said "unless you are already performing at the level required to knock on the pantheon step." Nevermind carry on.....