Harmison and the 2005 Ashes

[open365]

Why did the 1st test match not matter?????

Let's say, for instance, that Harmison still took the same amount of wickets in the first test, but England won, would that mean harmison had performed better??

 

[Swervy]

Why did the 1st test match not matter?????

Let's say, for instance, that Harmison still took the same amount of wickets in the first test, but England won, would that mean harmison had performed better??

thats right, it is hardly Harmisons fault that Englands batting could not cope

 

[Sanz]

No, he wasn't. Everyone will get wickets if they bowl enough. I was very obviously exaggerating, just as you (unintentionally) were by saying Harmison was the biggest reason England won the Edgbaston Test.

Yeah 17 wickets in a series and he wasn't important ? And no, not everyone will get wickets if the bowl enough. In 1986 Kapil dev and Mcdermott couldn't buy a single wicket in an entire series.

Kasprowicz and Tait were never batting better than any top-order batsman. Neither of their wickets are ever worth much.

Shane Warne, Lee, Giles, Jones etc were. But I didn't expect you to mention their names, yet you will continue to count Warne, Lee, Giles as tailender wickets even though they made great contributions with the bat.

No, they wouldn't. In fact, had Brent Bowden given the lbw he should have given to Kasprowicz 1st ball, or had Jones taken the catch he should have taken at third-man, Flintoff's delivery would have been the final one of the Test. So, in fact, Flintoff won it twice. That Umpiring and catching was not good enough, and that it was with Harmison's final delivery, is no reflection at all on Flintoff.

You can come up with 200 excuses but cant change the fact that it was Harmison that took the very important wicket of Kaspa who had added 50+ runs for the 10th wicket and none of the English bowlers could do that. Harmison saved England in that match by taking the most important wicket.

Saying that the bowler who took the last wicket did most to win the Test is one of the more ludicrous things I've ever read.

That's because you dont read what you write.

What you fail to realise that no other English bowler could do that. It wasn't just the last wicket, it was the wicket that had added some 50 odd runs in close to 15 overs and any extra over would have meant a victory of Australia and the Ashes 2005 would have been like everyother Ashes of last 15 years.

 

[Sanz]

thats right, it is hardly Harmisons fault that Englands batting could not cope

Well Richard has to leave that test out to argue his point, because otherwise he has no ground to stand.

 

[Sanz]

I was posting towards Sanz, I needed to be fairly simplistic.

What a nice guy, he even posts things he doesn't mean, just to make it simple for others.

 

[Richard]

Why did the 1st test match not matter?????

Let's say, for instance, that Harmison still took the same amount of wickets in the first test, but England won, would that mean harmison had performed better??

thats right, it is hardly Harmisons fault that Englands batting could not cope

It doesn't matter as to how he performed, but it does matter as to how much of an effect he had on the series victory.

As I say, however, I don't feel he bowled remotely well in the Lord's Test anyway.

 

[Richard]

Yeah 17 wickets in a series and he wasn't important ? And no, not everyone will get wickets if the bowl enough. In 1986 Kapil dev and Mcdermott couldn't buy a single wicket in an entire series.

But they could once they got onto other series...

Shane Warne, Lee, Giles, Jones etc were. But I didn't expect you to mention their names, yet you will continue to count Warne, Lee, Giles as tailender wickets even though they made great contributions with the bat.

That's because they are tail-enders. In any case, Harmison dismissed none of them in the last 4 Tests (he'd have a job dismissing Giles when playing for England, anyway).

You can come up with 200 excuses but cant change the fact that it was Harmison that took the very important wicket of Kaspa who had added 50+ runs for the 10th wicket and none of the English bowlers could do that. Harmison saved England in that match by taking the most important wicket.

Yes, they could and did, I've just quite clearly stated that. Harmison did nothing Flintoff had not done, twice. The only difference in the happenings concerned the fielders, not the bowler.

That's because you dont read what you write.

What you fail to realise that no other English bowler could do that. It wasn't just the last wicket, it was the wicket that had added some 50 odd runs in close to 15 overs and any extra over would have meant a victory of Australia and the Ashes 2005 would have been like everyother Ashes of last 15 years.

Not if Flintoff had been given the wicket that he earned, twice. Harmison did nothing that had not been done before, he simply did not have the bad luck that Flintoff did, twice.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, they could and did, I've just quite clearly stated that. Harmison did nothing Flintoff had not done, twice. The only difference in the happenings concerned the fielders, not the bowler.

Nope, the chance created by Harmison was an easy one as opposed to the one created by Flintoff. Flintoff was lucky that the batsman chose to scoop a harmless delivery. That was not a wicket taking delivery whereas Harmison's was.

Not if Flintoff had been given the wicket that he earned, twice. Harmison did nothing that had not been done before, he simply did not have the bad luck that Flintoff did, twice.

Neither did Flintoff, just because there was an appeal doesn't mean the batsman was out and the Jones's chance was a tougher than the chance Harmison created. So yes, Harmison did more than Flintoff to get the last wicket and that's a fact no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[NUFAN]

I know this thread is about Harmy, but for you to say that Peitersens innings was overrated in the final test is a joke. Yes he got dropped, but without Peitersen's 158 Australia would have won the test and regained the Ashes

 

[Burgey]

Would England have won if McGrath hadnt tripped on the stray cricket ball??

No.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Richard's ideas on bowling are 'unique' to say the least, and giving them a whole thread to blossom again is dangerous

 

[Fiery]

Richard's ideas on bowling are 'unique' to say the least, and giving them a whole thread to blossom again is dangerous

Ideas on bowling unique?!...Knight > Gilchrist and Hussain > Hayden apparently

 

[Burgey]

Harmison was not England's best bowler in 05 but was part of an effective package which was very tough on the Aussies. Who, at that time would have done a better job for England? Every other bloke they've trotted out since has frankly been complete and utter dross:

Plunkett? Ker plunk.
Sidebottom? Mouth-watering prospect for Australia next time. God I hope he plays.
Anderson? Too busy worrying about his hair style.
Mahmood? Embarassing. At least Harmison has had some good times in the past, including to an extent 05.
Broad? Too soon to tell, and wasn't around in 05 anyways.
Lewis? A crock.

See, you can analyse and qualify any player's achievements to the extent that it simply becomes ridiculous. Now we all love cricket and are all keen students of the game, but it just becomes paralysis by analysis.

Look at Michael Clarke in the last Ashes series here. Now you can qualify his efforts by saying "Well, Ponting & Hussey were better than him, he came in after good starts, he bats down the order, England were crap, the bowlers were tired, the conditions were good for him, he hardly faced Flintoff & Hoggard & got to play the other bowlers' dross, he got dropped a couple of times, his helmet wasn't on straight, he made 23 of his runs against Pietersen's part timers, he dyes his hair, there was a good lbw shout against him on 13 in the 2nd test and I think he may have feathered th one ball Anderson moved in the entire series but was given not out, so really his contribution was not as good as his numbers make out". But the fact is, he made runs and he contributed to a great team performance.

It's like this Hussain v Hayden & Knight v Gilchrist thing. Everyone can have their opinion on players, as is their right. But simply saying "This bloke, despite averaging 15-20 runs less per innings in tests than the other bloke despite batting further down the order, is a better player than the other bloke because the bowling was always better when Hussein played and Hayden's nothing more than a flat track bully who always faces weak bowling and Hussain was in a crap side and Hayden's in a great side" is complete and utter bollocks. Whoever says that has pIainly never seen the India 2001 series or seen Hayden advance down the wicket in a test match on the first morning and drop kick a new ball bowler 100 metres over long-on. It takes a special talent to do that, frankly. And if Hussein was so good, why did he only make 2 tons in 23 tests against Australia? The argument might have some merit if the runs per average wicket had gone up by 16 each since the earlier era, but it hasn't.

Never occurs to people to even think that one of the reasons Hayden's side is so great may well be Hayden himself, does it? Ask that question and we get the inevitable "Great bowlers make great sides, not batsmen" stuff trotted out. Try seeing how great your bowlers are if they're defending 150-200 every test instead of 450-500. Try telling anyone who knows which end of a stump goes into the ground that Don Bradman wasn't the greatest match and series winner in cricketing history because of the runs he scored and how quickly he scored them. Mind you, the pitches were flat, he had Woodfull and Ponsford in front of him, the bowlers weren't fast, and on and on and on and on we go..........

Then we have the Gilly v Nick Knight argument. I've posted on this in the other forum, but quickly - to compare a bloke whose career highlights package could be written on a postage stamp with a 4 inch wide paint brush to a bloke who has scored at least 50 in three (3!!!!) consecutive WC finals, including one of the great ODI innings against a good attack in the biggest game of all is an insult to the latter bloke. Doesn't mean Knight couldn't play, doesn't mean he wasn't decent, but the other fella has a proven track record in massive games which count most. By contrast, Knight played for England.

 

[Perm]

By contrast, Knight played for England.

Nice one, good post though.

 

[Burgey]

Sorry about the ranting - very bad week at work.

 

[Fiery]

Sorry about the ranting - very bad week at work.

Rant away Burgey...it's quite therapeutic

 

[NUFAN]

Great post Burgey, so true, well done.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ideas on bowling unique?!...Knight > Gilchrist and Hussain > Hayden apparently

ok...you're right...I was just trying to narrow it down.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Harmison was not England's best bowler in 05 but was part of an effective package which was very tough on the Aussies. Who, at that time would have done a better job for England? Every other bloke they've trotted out since has frankly been complete and utter dross:

Plunkett? Ker plunk.
Sidebottom? Mouth-watering prospect for Australia next time. God I hope he plays.
Anderson? Too busy worrying about his hair style.
Mahmood? Embarassing. At least Harmison has had some good times in the past, including to an extent 05.
Broad? Too soon to tell, and wasn't around in 05 anyways.
Lewis? A crock.

See, you can analyse and qualify any player's achievements to the extent that it simply becomes ridiculous. Now we all love cricket and are all keen students of the game, but it just becomes paralysis by analysis.

Look at Michael Clarke in the last Ashes series here. Now you can qualify his efforts by saying "Well, Ponting & Hussey were better than him, he came in after good starts, he bats down the order, England were crap, the bowlers were tired, the conditions were good for him, he hardly faced Flintoff & Hoggard & got to play the other bowlers' dross, he got dropped a couple of times, his helmet wasn't on straight, he made 23 of his runs against Pietersen's part timers, he dyes his hair, there was a good lbw shout against him on 13 in the 2nd test and I think he may have feathered th one ball Anderson moved in the entire series but was given not out, so really his contribution was not as good as his numbers make out". But the fact is, he made runs and he contributed to a great team performance.

It's like this Hussain v Hayden & Knight v Gilchrist thing. Everyone can have their opinion on players, as is their right. But simply saying "This bloke, despite averaging 15-20 runs less per innings in tests than the other bloke despite batting further down the order, is a better player than the other bloke because the bowling was always better when Hussein played and Hayden's nothing more than a flat track bully who always faces weak bowling and Hussain was in a crap side and Hayden's in a great side" is complete and utter bollocks. Whoever says that has pIainly never seen the India 2001 series or seen Hayden advance down the wicket in a test match on the first morning and drop kick a new ball bowler 100 metres over long-on. It takes a special talent to do that, frankly. And if Hussein was so good, why did he only make 2 tons in 23 tests against Australia? The argument might have some merit if the runs per average wicket had gone up by 16 each since the earlier era, but it hasn't.

Never occurs to people to even think that one of the reasons Hayden's side is so great may well be Hayden himself, does it? Ask that question and we get the inevitable "Great bowlers make great sides, not batsmen" stuff trotted out. Try seeing how great your bowlers are if they're defending 150-200 every test instead of 450-500. Try telling anyone who knows which end of a stump goes into the ground that Don Bradman wasn't the greatest match and series winner in cricketing history because of the runs he scored and how quickly he scored them. Mind you, the pitches were flat, he had Woodfull and Ponsford in front of him, the bowlers weren't fast, and on and on and on and on we go..........

Then we have the Gilly v Nick Knight argument. I've posted on this in the other forum, but quickly - to compare a bloke whose career highlights package could be written on a postage stamp with a 4 inch wide paint brush to a bloke who has scored at least 50 in three (3!!!!) consecutive WC finals, including one of the great ODI innings against a good attack in the biggest game of all is an insult to the latter bloke. Doesn't mean Knight couldn't play, doesn't mean he wasn't decent, but the other fella has a proven track record in massive games which count most. By contrast, Knight played for England.

On the other hand, I loved him in 'Knight Rider'.

 

[Burgey]