Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[aussie]

On the topic i'd say he has under-achived more than he is over-rated. After his superb 7 test vs WI & NZ in mid 04 he hasn't had some woefull performances most of the time mixed with top-class performances in between i.e Oval 04, Lord's 05, OT 06.

Those performances shows he definately has the tools to have developed into a consistent test match bowler. But unfortunately he hasn't & i can't say that he will in the near future because he is already 30 & well with other bowlers doing well he needs to do something big or else England won't be able to pick him on what they feel he can do anymore.

 

[Richard]

I suppose the thing about Shreck is that he's currently playing in NZ and, I gather, doing well. So I'm told, anyway. That being said, it would be criminal if he leapfrogged the other guys already in the squad.

He is? Hadn't heard about that. Makes some form of difference, I suppose, but there's no way he should play ahead of Anderson or Broad, still. Much as I don't rate the chances of success for either.

 

[Prince EWS]

On the topic i'd say he has under-achived more than he is over-rated. After his superb 7 test vs WI & NZ in mid 04 he hasn't had some woefull performances most of the time mixed with top-class performances in between i.e Oval 04, Lord's 05, OT 06.

Those performances shows he definately has the tools to have developed into a consistent test match bowler. But unfortunately he hasn't & i can't say that he will in the near future because he is already 30 & well with other bowlers doing well he needs to do something big or else England won't be able to pick him on what they feel he can do anymore.

Is it not much more likely that he simply overachieved in that series?

His main problems are his inaccuracy and his inability to repeat his action (problems which are indeed linked, but can cause separate issues all the same). Bowlers with these problems can occassionally "click" for small periods of time and bowl exceptionally well, before drifiting back into mediocrity. This is exactly what happened to Harmison. The fact that these bowlers can't do it again and again doesn't mean they've under-achieved though - it just means that they're dreadfully inconsistent and below standard on a more than regular basis.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But when it's a case of a 29-year-old to make his debut and a 37-year-old to make a comeback, the gap narrows just a little, no?

For mine, both would fall into the "step backward" category. As I said, though - for me that's little other than a fantasy. You pick the team to try and win the matches at your disposal right now, and pick the team for 4 years' time in 4 years' time. Building for 4 years' time should be done in other areas, and there's no way I want to see the chances jeopardised in current Tests because people are trying to use the current Test to prepare for some time in the future.

Caddick's 39 in all fairness.

 

[Beleg]

poor soul couldn't pick up a wicket to save his life even though he bowled his heart out in 2005.

 

[Richard]

Caddick's 39 in all fairness.

Bloody hell, that old? So he is - 30 in 1999, +9, = 39.

Fairly remarkable of him to still be playing at all, never mind having his best season for years last year, then, really.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBH, too, Broad would be a backward step - he's 22, all but, now, same age as me FFS. Gotta be planning for the future, need to be getting these 15-year-olds in. Heck, they probably won't be around long enough - there must be some decent 10-year-olds out there?

You have to think to the future, Rich. What's the point of picking a ten year old when six year olds could just as good as job, but for longer?

 

[wpdavid]

He is certainly an underachiever.

He certainly has disappointed on a number of occasions. However, much disappointment is heaped upon him more than others due to his profile.

He has been inconsistent, but when he gets it right (and admitedly its getting less and less so) he is in the top couple of seamers in the World.

Also I feel his contributions are downplayed. He has been a big disappoinment (as we know what a weapon he can be) but he has been the spearhead for England more than his fair share of times.

In the last 5 years England have bowled the opposition (not including Zim and Bang) out for 250 or less on 28 occasions and won 20 and only lost 4 of those Tests.

Its a fair indication that if you have bowlers that can help bowl the opposition out for 250 or under you will win games.

Name		Runs	Wkts	Av	Occas	Wkt per sub 250 In
Jones		344	23	14.96	8	2.88
Harmison	1184	71	16.68	25	2.84
Sidebottom	297	16	18.56	6	2.67
Panesar		507	32	15.84	14	2.29
Hoggard		1104	53	20.83	27	1.96
Flintoff	884	43	20.56	23	1.87
Plunkett	251	13	19.31	7	1.86
Giles		393	20	19.65	11	1.82
Anderson	305	13	23.46	9	1.44
Mahmood		199	9	22.11	7	1.29

Harmison has been the key bowler in winning games by bowling the opposition out cheaply (in the last 5 years against non-Zim or Bang opp).

Also across the last 5 years, Harmison has been the leading wickettaker for England per game.

Name		Wkts per Test
Harmison	3.62
Hoggard		3.55
Flintoff	3.52
Jones		3.50
Panesar		3.42
Sidebottom	3.00
Anderson	2.83
Giles		2.74
Plunkett	2.56
Mahmood		2.50

He has disappointed, he has underachieved, but he is ragged on far too often.

Not convinced. tbh Harmison's good period was so long ago that you might as well calculate the figures for the last 10 years and argue that Gough & Caddick should be opening the bowling. We are now talking about a bad patch that's lasted, with a tiny handful of exceptions, for 3 and a half years. Clearly you're a more patient man than I am.

As for all the talk about him being a match winner, the other day I posted a summary of his contributions to games that we've actually won. Reality was that, since the 2004 NZ series, he's nearly always been an irrelevance when we've beaten sides. Exceptions, IIRC, are Old Trafford in 2006 and the Oval in 2004 (when we already 3-0 up). Other than that, loads of guys have made more important contributions - Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard, Giles, Sidebottom & Panesar sping immediately to mind. Fact is that we've actually won games despite him, not because of his contributions.

 

[Burgey]

I'm no bowlologist, but it seems to me he has an action that a lot can go wrong with. If you slow it down, that may not be the case, but I wonder if his action may have something to do with it.

 

[Goughy]

I'm no bowlologist, but it seems to me he has an action that a lot can go wrong with. If you slow it down, that may not be the case, but I wonder if his action may have something to do with it.

The action is absolutely the issue followed by his fair weather mentality.

His action can be fixed (whether it is is a different story) and if his action is right then he is an incredible and dangerous player.

You dont throw away a bicycle if the chain breaks or cast aside your favourite shoes of the lace snaps. You fix and move on. Getting rid of Harmison is like throwing the bike away with a broken chain.

He is too much of a special talent to be lost. He needs to be helped in order to help England.

I see him drifitng from the International game due to all the criticism he has recieved and replaced by someone (or committee of players) that have half the talent and will be a failure.

Ive no issues with him being moved to one side if there are deep resources but when the next in line could be Jimmy Anderson then you look to keep him.

England dont have the depth to give up on Harmison. That action needs work and fast. What to do about the attitude and the 'softness'? well that is harder to improve.

The other issue being that the issues with the action are not exactly new news, and should have been rectified by now. It is worrying that they still exist.

 

[wpdavid]

Is it really possible to change something as funamental as that at this stage of GBH's career? Granted you'll know much more about that aspect that me, but I'd have thought that a new action is the last thing a bowler needs to be worrying about when he runs in - especially at international level.

Kind of makes you wonder what's been going on for the last 12 years or so. Especially when you think that he's hardly the only English bowler in recent times with a horribly susepct action.

 

[Goughy]

Is it really possible to change something as funamental as that at this stage of GBH's career? .

Left arm is pretty easy to change. Its the feet and the bowling arm that is more difficult. Its a minor adjustment if done properly rather than any change in the fundamentals of the action

TBH, its not even a change. Its going back to closer to how it was a few years ago. He is in bad habits.

 

[Precambrian]

Seeing the way some of the modern great's career's took an upturn post 30, all is not lost for Harmison. For inspiration, he just needs to look down under, G McGrath, S Warne, Matt Hayden. Gilly (Ok, they're batters, I m talking abt the "mental" aspect here).

 

[Richard]

McGrath and Warne's careers hardly took upturns post-30, did they? They simply didn't take downturns. Neither were ever anywhere near as bad as Harmison.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's a bit invidious to compare Harmison to McWarne (to nick wpdavid's phrase) as not only were both better bowlers, they were incredibly strong mentally too. As was palpable during Hussain's interview, Harmy isn't. He comes across as a lovely lad, one you really want to put your arm round his shoulder, but I don't think his heart's in it.

I'm not saying shut the door on him forever, there's every chance he'll take a bagful for Durham (did last season too), but the case for his retention rests more on the paucity of other options rather than anything Harmsion himself has done of late. Anderson (2 wickets for lots in his warm-up with Auckland) appears to be out of the running, so Broad is the only option unless we follow NZ's lead & play Swann as the second twirler. As his services weren't reuqired for the ODIs this seems unlikely in the extreme tho.

At worst Broad will shorten our tail somewhat.

 

[aussie]

Is it not much more likely that he simply overachieved in that series?

His main problems are his inaccuracy and his inability to repeat his action (problems which are indeed linked, but can cause separate issues all the same). Bowlers with these problems can occassionally "click" for small periods of time and bowl exceptionally well, before drifiting back into mediocrity. This is exactly what happened to Harmison. The fact that these bowlers can't do it again and again doesn't mean they've under-achieved though - it just means that they're dreadfully inconsistent and below standard on a more than regular basis.

I don't think so really, if you look at Harmison first period of test cricket between mid 2002 vs IND to late 03 vs BANG he was worst than the Harmison (taking out Lord's 05, OT 06) between SA 04/05 to now. Back then he was a wild but had a lot of potential & many expecting the god's from him along with Jones regardless of those performances. When he hit that peak during that 7 test run where he combined pace, accuracy to such a degree that i remember Fleming after the nottingham test calling him a faster version to McGrath & during the 2004 season vs WI (home & away) & NZ he didn't have much with his accuracy & ability to repeat his action.

I'm not sure but things took a weird course in SA when he complained of homesickeness etc & from then on he has been so patchy, thus leading to questions about his mental thoughness, he probably also begun to take his place in the side for granted i guess as well. Harmo case is odd now that he has been dropped if he really wants to play for England again he will be looking to kill batsmen in England this county season if not his supposed mental fragilities could see him drift off for good.

 

[aussie]

The action is absolutely the issue followed by his fair weather mentality.

His action can be fixed (whether it is is a different story) and if his action is right then he is an incredible and dangerous player.

You dont throw away a bicycle if the chain breaks or cast aside your favourite shoes of the lace snaps. You fix and move on. Getting rid of Harmison is like throwing the bike away with a broken chain.

He is too much of a special talent to be lost. He needs to be helped in order to help England.

I see him drifitng from the International game due to all the criticism he has recieved and replaced by someone (or committee of players) that have half the talent and will be a failure.

Ive no issues with him being moved to one side if there are deep resources but when the next in line could be Jimmy Anderson then you look to keep him.
England dont have the depth to give up on Harmison. That action needs work and fast. What to do about the attitude and the 'softness'? well that is harder to improve.

The other issue being that the issues with the action are not exactly new news, and should have been rectified by now. It is worrying that they still exist.

Ha, Anderson is going to shock all of yall pretty soon. Otherwise solid post a firing Harmison if thats ever possible again will only make England better.

 

[Flem274*]

Shreck is a good bowler. Had a tailender feast on Auckland last game though. Still, he's shown he can bowl. WRT Cadick I think you're onto something there. The whole NZ team would fall over laughing and as a result have a spectacular batting collapse.

 

[Richard]

I don't think so really, if you look at Harmison first period of test cricket between mid 2002 vs IND to late 03 vs BANG he was worst than the Harmison (taking out Lord's 05, OT 06) between SA 04/05 to now. Back then he was a wild but had a lot of potential & many expecting the god's from him along with Jones regardless of those performances.

But that doesn't mean these expectations were correct. People have unfounded expectations about players every day of the week, pretty much.

Whether people expected the 7 Tests in early 2004 or not, it doesn't change the fact that before and after them he's been woeful.

 

[Richard]

Well, the Harmison saga takes another turn after Geoff Boycott's recent comments, to which Harmison hit back shortly after.

Where does this leave Harmison and Hoggard? The latter is the sort of bowler who needs lots of hard work and plenty of bowling in matches. If he gets that early season with Yorkshire he will be back in contention for a place.

But Harmison is different. Since the Ashes series of 2005 he has been poor, indifferent to bad. He's not got enough wickets and been given so many chances. We all know about his potential. He has great height and, at his best, he has bounce and pace like Curtly Ambrose.

But people have got tired of waiting for results. There comes a point when the public and selectors get fed up and disillusioned with a guy not delivering. That time has come. Harmison has had too many opportunities and England need to move on to new guys.

If he gets a central contract this summer over some of the new kids, or any sort of central contract, then a lot of us will be screaming: favouritism and a total waste of money. England should forget him.

He needs to go back to Durham on reduced wages and be made to think about what he wants to do with his career. Does he really want to play cricket at all?

Maybe he has become one of those players, like Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash, who can do it county level but can't do it for his country.

Now England have alternatives, the selectors don't need to give Harmison any more chances.

There are some former England greats whose opinions are respected by the current players; not just because they have been here and done what we do, but because we know that when they criticise they do not do so just for the sake of their own ego. Then there is Geoffrey Boycott.

No one can dispute the man could bat and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but over the years he has developed an equally well deserved reputation as someone who thrives on kicking a man when he is down.

Boycott has had several digs at me over the years, questioning, among other things, my desire and commitment.

On occasions, there may have been a measure of sense in what he has said and I wouldn't normally respond because, frankly, I have not wanted to get into a war of words with the man.

But enough is enough. His remarks about me this week have gone beyond what is acceptable and it is time someone stood up to him and told him so.

I didn't agree with what our former coach Duncan Fletcher did when revealing certain information about Andrew Flintoff in his book. But I cannot find fault with what he wrote about Boycott.

For the fact is that within the England dressing room his views are regarded as a joke. People who only have a passing interest in the game hear the famous Geoff Boycott Yorkshire accent and may think it gives some status to his opinions.

But inside the dressing room he has no status, he is just an accent, some sort of caricature of a professional Yorkshireman.

Indeed, quite a few of us cringe whenever he comes near. Why? Here's why.

Earlier this week two of the current England batsmen related their feelings towards Boycott and how he works.

Their shared experience was that when things weren't going well for them all they heard from Boycott was him nailing them in the newspapers or on radio or TV, then, if they made a century or played well, he would come up to them full of compliments and try to ingratiate himself with them.

This is what one of the players said and he was speaking for both of them: "We can't believe Boycott. When you're struggling he abuses you in the media and completely ignores you in social situations. Then, if you come up with a performance, his attitude changes totally. Suddenly he wants to be your best mate, sometimes even to somehow take some credit for the improvement. Thanks, but no thanks."

I'm not the only England player who has been forced to take it in the neck from Boycott and I won't be the last.

And I wonder what Australia's Shaun Tait thought recently, when, after announcing he was taking an indefinite break from the game due to physical and emotional exhaustion, Boycott reacted by claiming he should have shown more desire to work through his problems.

You get the feeling that Boycott is an insecure man who needs to be heard.

Well, Geoffrey, you've had your say about me more than enough times.

Now I'm having mine. You say that if England give me another central contract come October that would be waste of money. To me, you are a waste of space.