• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

James Anderson vs Ryan Harris

Who is the better test bowler? (Ignore Longevity)

  • Total voters
    36
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
TheJediBrah said:
It's not like Shane Bond had a much longer period of being a class international bowler
Click to expand...
Yeah but the reasons for that were different.

If Bond had a longer Test career we'd probably think of him as an ATG.

If Harris had a longer Test career we'd think of him like Ishant Sharma or Suranga Lakmal.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
TheJediBrah said:
Obviously, but what difference does it make? Regardless of the reason he had a similar output at international level over a similar time period
Click to expand...
I don't rate Bond higher than Harris as a Test bowler. I agree with you. Being too **** to be selected or too injured to be selected has the same effect on your team.

But saying it's a shame he didn't have a longer career is silly IMO, unless we're just talking about a handful of games late career when he was injured. Unlike Bond, if he had a normal length Test career his record would be pretty ****.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prince EWS said:
I don't rate Bond higher than Harris as a Test cricket. I agree with you. Being too **** to be selected or too injured to be selected has the same effect on your team.

But saying it's a shame he didn't have a longer career is silly IMO, unless we're just talking about a handful of games late career when he was injured. Unlike Bond, if he had a normal length Test career his record would be pretty ****.
Click to expand...
I don't think Bond is any different though. What was he doing for the corresponding period of his career that Harris was being pedestrian in South Australia? Too injured to even get on the field? How is that better lol

"If Bond has a longer career by not being injured" is just as much a fantasy as "pretend Ryan Harris was at his peak for his whole cricketing career"
 
A

Ali TT

International Vice-Captain
TheJediBrah said:
Guys why are we ignoring the directives as put forward in the OP? "Ignore longevity"

Stay on target

GIMH is the only one respecting parameters so far what does that say??
Click to expand...
Cause Jimmy has shown he can be s-tier time and time again while Harris did it twice. Who's to say had Harris played another 50 tests he'd have been as consistently good as he was in the 20 or so he actually managed. It's possible to argue that at his very peak Harris was better than Jimmy has ever been but that peak was so small as to be meaningless to me.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
TheJediBrah said:
Obviously, but what difference does it make? Regardless of the reason he had a similar output at international level over a similar time period
Click to expand...
Yeah Bond is a myth too, I agree. Perhaps even more so because Harris did at least string together decent series performances which Bond couldn't by virtue of almost never playing consecutive tests. It's a different case though.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ali TT said:
Cause Jimmy has shown he can be s-tier time and time again while Harris did it twice. Who's to say had Harris played another 50 tests he'd have been as consistently good as he was in the 20 or so he actually managed. It's possible to argue that at his very peak Harris was better than Jimmy has ever been but that peak was so small as to be meaningless to me.
Click to expand...
Re-read the first 2 words of the original post bud
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
trundler said:
Yeah Bond is a myth too, I agree. Perhaps even more so because Harris did at least string together decent series performances which Bond couldn't by virtue of almost never playing consecutive tests. It's a different case though.
Click to expand...
To continue on this tangent Harris also did well against the better teams of his time. Bond's Test career looks like a study in minnow-bashing tbh. If I'm comparing the 2 Harris easily comes out on top.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
you knew what i meant about harris - he wasn't exactly known for his incredible injury free record once he became a world class bowler.

the opportunity for you longevity is everything lot to be smug, one note and boring even in a thread that isn't about you was just too hard to resist though wasn't it?

how is this thread not in the comparisons dumpster btw? i wouldn't have come across it if it wasn't in a subforum i read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top