Harmison the World Top rated Bowler

[Neil Pickup]

u can go through the other post it about batsmen and not teams

Exactly - Sarwan, Gayle and Lara are top batsman! You can't argue one thing and then the other like that!

 

[Neil Pickup]

10 are Gayle, Sarwan and Lara....

6+6+4=16, not 10

 

[biased indian]

Exactly - Sarwan, Gayle and Lara are top batsman! You can't argue one thing and then the other like that!

no i havent changed what i said first and i repeat it again
he has to perform aganist other teams
not that he has to perform aganist quality batsmen

 

[marc71178]

Just see his record early in his career. Its as pretty good start.

Yes, but he only made it as high as 2 when a lot of bowlers were missing owing to Packer though.

 

[marc71178]

no i havent changed what i said first and i repeat it again
he has to perform aganist other teams
not that he has to perform aganist quality batsmen

But that point would be relevant if he'd played a side with no quality batsmen - but the thing that West Indian line-up does have is 3 or 4 very good batsmen.

ANd he's consistently got those men out.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, but he only made it as high as 2 when a lot of bowlers were missing owing to Packer though.

He did during that time but who is to say he wouldnt even if those bowlers were present considering his good performances.

 

[marc71178]

The fact that before and after Packer they were better than him, even when he had his spectaculor start?

 

[Swervy]

There are more attacking batsmen now thanks to the advent of one day cricket. Test cricket has become more exciting. But are batsmen really that proficient technically now?

The so called very good Indian batting line up ( I wouldnt call them great yet) crumbled in a one dayer in Perth in the VB Series. They failed to play average spin bowling in the match vs Pakistan the other day as also in the Asia cup final.

Australia has shown that they can bat well on most tracks around the world. But the pitches are becoming better each day. We no longer have the so called doctored pitches as we used to. Australia gave India good batting pitches when they last toured. Batsmen are easily shown up on pitches which deteriorate.

Where is the inning like Gavaskar played in Chennai against Pakistan?

Great batting is not scoring on batting friendly pitches but in all conditions. And that is why every one has praised the 'full of gut Steve Waugh', Lara, Tendulkar and Dravid in recent times. According to me, batting has never been easier.

Coupled with this is the injuries to the bowlers. For the Kiwis, from Allott to Bond, for India, well half the bowlers are always injured, Australia had Gillespie injured earlier and then McGrath and Warne. All teams are losing bowlers and they have also become more defensive due to one day cricket. Spinners do not flight the ball as much. Pace bowlers have lost the virtue of patience (to bowl like McGrath for example) and sway in line and length if the batsmen attack a few balls. A team starts prefering a middle order batsman (like Yuvraj Singh) to technically proficient openers. Boycott was needed earlier to open. Because the pitches are not as difficult and bowlers not as testing, a Richardson is an exception to the rule rather than the norm.

I like attacking batting like the one displayed by Azharuddin and Tendulkar in South Africa in that memorable test in 1997. But getting to score more runs due to the factors mentioned above is poor cricket.

A session where the bowling is testing is as exciting, if not more exciting, than a session where runs are scored.
Call me old school, but thats the way I feel.

I think I pretty much agree with you on a lot of points there...especially thatone I have highlighted

 

[Pratters]

The fact that before and after Packer they were better than him, even when he had his spectaculor start?

Among the players you mentioned, Kapil has had a better bowling career compared to Botham. Check the results on the PWC site (comparative bowling careers)

Garner, Holding, Imran Khan and Lillee were much better bowlers than Kapil was over their careers. During the beginning of his career though, I doubt Dev could have been overshadowed by them even though Dev never reached the magical 900. Its not easy to maintain the 900 mark and at the highest points Dev had, he would manage 2/3 any way.

 

[Swervy]

Among the players you mentioned, Kapil has had a better bowling career compared to Botham. Check the results on the PWC site (comparative bowling careers)

Garner, Holding, Imran Khan and Lillee were much better bowlers than Kapil was over their careers. During the beginning of his career though, I doubt Dev could have been overshadowed by them even though Dev never reached the magical 900. Its not easy to maintain the 900 mark and at the highest points Dev had, he would manage 2/3 any way.

Yeah but Botham was a better bowler than Dev whilst both were at their peak...by quite a margin in my opinion

 

[Pratters]

Yeah but Botham was a better bowler than Dev whilst both were at their peak...by quite a margin in my opinion

I didnt see any of them at their peak as I started watching cricket only in 1991

Kapil for me had more responsibilty as he shouldered the attack for most of his career (apart from the fag end when Srinath and Prabhakar had more to do)

The ratings do show Botham was much better at his peak but Kapil was above Botham as a bowler for a large part of his career (as per the ratings).

I read how Botham destroyed India in a test in India once. What I remember of Botham apart from the heroics I have read about is the dismal performance during 1992 (which I saw). Kapil wasnt great too to watch by that time I must say.

As far as my perception goes, Kapil had the tougher task as he was the mainstay of India's bowling and had tougher 'Indian' pitches to bowl in.

As far as batting goes, Kapil was very inconsistent and Botham was much better.

I might be totally mistaken on this though as I never saw them at their peak.

 

[Swervy]

I didnt see any of them at their peak as I started watching cricket only in 1991

Kapil for me had more responsibilty as he shouldered the attack for most of his career (apart from the fag end when Srinath and Prabhakar had more to do)

The ratings do show Botham was much better at his peak but Kapil was above Botham as a bowler for a large part of his career (as per the ratings).

I read how Botham destroyed India in a test in India once. What I remember of Botham apart from the heroics I have read about is the dismal performance during 1992 (which I saw). Kapil wasnt great too to watch by that time I must say.

As far as my perception goes, Kapil had the tougher task as he was the mainstay of India's bowling and had tougher 'Indian' pitches to bowl in.

As far as batting goes, Kapil was very inconsistent and Botham was much better.

I might be totally mistaken on this though as I never saw them at their peak.

Botham lost a lot of his bite after 1982, although he did sometimes bowl brilliantly after that (his 8 for 100odd vs WI in 1984 particularly stands out in my mind). Before then he had some pace about him when he wanted to have it(try and have a look at the footage of when he took his 5 for 11 at Egbaston in 81), but his outswing(from 77 to 82) in my opinion, hasnt been bettered since by anyone.

he put on weight then, which affected his action (he couldnt get so side on) and the swing slackened off a bit. He also suffered with his back pretty bad as well.

He slowed right down later in his career, but mark my words, he was one of the bowlers of the tournament in World Cup in 1991/92.

If is frightening to consider that we are talking about how well harmison has done in his first 23 tests ...but Botham in his first 23 tests took 122 wickets at 19 a piece with 12 five wicket hauls and 2 ten wicket matches

 

[marc71178]

Among the players you mentioned, Kapil has had a better bowling career compared to Botham. Check the results on the PWC site (comparative bowling careers)

Excuse me, but how is Kapil's bowling career better?

Dev 434 @ 29.64, S/R 63.9 - 23 5wi, 2 10wm, 2.78 eco.
Botham 383 @ 28.40, S/R 56.9 - 27 5wi, 4 10wm, 2.99 eco.

And Botham played 29 less games for those 5wi's and 10wm's.

Add in the fact that throughout Kapil's Golden period - Botham was ranked higher.

Garner, Holding, Imran Khan and Lillee were much better bowlers than Kapil was over their careers. During the beginning of his career though, I doubt Dev could have been overshadowed by them even though Dev never reached the magical 900.

Even though he never was number 1, and was only ever number 2 when the rest disappeared from Test Cricket?

 

[Pratters]

Excuse me, but how is Kapil's bowling career better?

Dev 434 @ 29.64, S/R 63.9 - 23 5wi, 2 10wm, 2.78 eco.
Botham 383 @ 28.40, S/R 56.9 - 27 5wi, 4 10wm, 2.99 eco.

And Botham played 29 less games for those 5wi's and 10wm's.

Add in the fact that throughout Kapil's Golden period - Botham was ranked higher.

From 1978-83, Botham was better than Kapil. After that Botham just faded away according to PWC. I did not know Botham was so dangerous with the ball early in his career. Good to know some thing new.

Even though he never was number 1, and was only ever number 2 when the rest disappeared from Test Cricket?

A good rating point is good. Kapil's highest points would have earned him a high rank.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but he had that rating for one game then tailed off again.

Incidentally most of the time he was at number 2, his rating was 800 or lower...

 

[badgerhair]

Botham lost a lot of his bite after 1982, although he did sometimes bowl brilliantly after that (his 8 for 100odd vs WI in 1984 particularly stands out in my mind). Before then he had some pace about him when he wanted to have it(try and have a look at the footage of when he took his 5 for 11 at Egbaston in 81), but his outswing(from 77 to 82) in my opinion, hasnt been bettered since by anyone.

...

If is frightening to consider that we are talking about how well harmison has done in his first 23 tests ...but Botham in his first 23 tests took 122 wickets at 19 a piece with 12 five wicket hauls and 2 ten wicket matches

In Botham's first 2-3 years, he was able to swing it miles both ways, which was why he was so devastating and has such magnificent early figures. After 1980, he lost the inswinger and was only half the bowler. After 1982, he lost the outswinger as well and wasn't a bowler at all.

Harmison, on the other hand, appears to be getting better as time goes on.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[maxpower]

Nah he isnt that bad... Judging by that rule, Key should eventually be top of the bowling then

hmm key who is this ?
search on cricinfo, profile, images...ahhhhhhh ahhhhh ahhh
look away, close window.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, but he had that rating for one game then tailed off again.

Incidentally most of the time he was at number 2, his rating was 800 or lower...

04/12/1979 763 Pakistan Delhi - 2
16/12/1979 758 Pakistan Mumbai - 2
25/12/1979 803 Pakistan Kanpur - 2
15/01/1980 877 Pakistan Chennai - 2
29/01/1980 854 Pakistan Kolkata - 2
15/02/1980 848 England Mumbai - 2
02/01/1981 856 Australia Sydney - 3
23/01/1981 829 Australia Adelaide - 3
07/02/1981 850 Australia Melbourne - 3
21/02/1981 842 New Zealand Wellington - 4

For the first 20 days of his number two rating yes. Not in 800 in next 50 days.

Also he did sustain around 850.

 

[marc71178]

3 of the 6 games though...

Also, I wouldn't say 4 games at or above 850 is sustaining it (Harmison already has 4 games more than 850...)

 

[Pratters]

3 of the 6 games though...

Also, I wouldn't say 4 games at or above 850 is sustaining it (Harmison already has 4 games more than 850...)

I said around 850 and not abouve 850 :P

Apart from 829, he did have around 850 for a year.