Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[SJS]

I just want to clarify my position here.

I do not think that Harmison is all that good.

But I think he could have been. I am a little surprised that people think he had no talent.

What I think he lacked is application and effort.

What he lacked most of all was in the basics.

He has one of the worst bowling actions one has seen at this level. Whatever, our newfound love for the unorthodox might 'tell' us, the fact remains that fast bowling, particularly fast bowling, needs a good action as a pre-requisite to be 'good'. Those who have deviated from the 'ideal' and bowled well have done it inspite and not because of the difference. And the more the deviation the lesser the chances of getting it right. Harmison did/does most things wrong.

The surprise for me is not that he hasn't turned out to be such a hot shot bowler but that he has achieved what he did.

And for that I might actually credit the "effort" he put into his bowling

 

[Son Of Coco]

He certainly didn't lack effort, and as far as I'm concerned the implication that he lacked application is merely an advocate of those who mistakenly thought Harmison so brilliant, in an effort to avoid the conclusion they were totally mistaken.

My implication he lacked application is purely pointing at the fact that with an action like his no application = disaster. Whether or not he'd actually be any better if he applied himself on a regular basis is arguable, but he'd have to be more consistent.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, a wicket (at least, a deserved one) is more often than not the result of bowling a good ball.

In any case, you cannot and will not tell me that working a batsman out is getting him to edge a ball to slip that he should and would normally hit for four.

I watched near enough every delivery of that spell, and there's no way many wickets would have fallen had the batting been particularly good. It was truly woeful, there's no other way of putting it.

It takes an understanding of the subtleties of bowling to get this Richard. Every great ball doesn't get a wicket, unless you can work a batsman out over a period of time and have the patience to do so you won't often get results. Everything isn't always a constant in cricket as one thing has an effect on another.

 

[social]

What he lacked most of all was in the basics.

He has one of the worst bowling actions one has seen at this level. Whatever, our newfound love for the unorthodox might 'tell' us, the fact remains that fast bowling, particularly fast bowling, needs a good action as a pre-requisite to be 'good'. Those who have deviated from the 'ideal' and bowled well have done it inspite and not because of the difference. And the more the deviation the lesser the chances of getting it right. Harmison did/does most things wrong.

The surprise for me is not that he hasn't turned out to be such a hot shot bowler but that he has achieved what he did.

And for that I might actually credit the "effort" he put into his bowling

SJS,

I think you're being unduly Harsh on Harmy's command of the basics

Waqar, Imran, Bob Willis, etc all had less command of the basics than Harmison at early stages of their careers and took over 300 test wickets whilst the same could also be said of lesser bowlers like Srinath

The big difference is that these guys evolved, Harmison hasnt

IMO, Harmison's stagnation has far more to do with the mental aspect than some unfixable technical defect.

 

[SJS]

SJS,

I think you're being unduly Harsh on Harmy's command of the basics

Waqar, Imran, Bob Willis, etc all had less command of the basics than Harmison at early stages of their careers and took over 300 test wickets whilst the same could also be said of lesser bowlers like Srinath

WHATTT ??

You cant be serious. But I suppose you are because you also include Willis who did have an unorthodox action because he was so open chested. But Waqar and imran ? You have surely not seen them.

First of all you are perhaps correct that I am being unduly harsh on Harmison afterall so many bowlers, many coming from England, have the unorthodox open chested actions similar to Harmison. No co-incidence that not many genuine outswing bowlers comiing from England any more.

But to suggest that Waqar and Imran had bad actions is not being harsh, its being grossly incorrect.

Here

WAQAR ........................................................... IMRAN

HARMISON

By the way, here is a terrific video of some of the world's finest fast bowlers in 1979. Imran was very early into his career and hadn't 'evolved' as you suggest he did over time. His action is as orthodox as an inswing bowler is likely to have.

Fast bowlers competition 1979

and here is Harmison for comparison.

 

[SJS]

Another sign of bad actions ruling English cricket

 

[SJS]

and here is a video of Waqar when he was just 19 !! This action doesn't even need to evolve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9enVEMvXFI&feature=related

 

[Richard]

It's a shame the footage is so jerky there, that might be fabulous to behold otherwise.

BTW, it now seems likely that Waqar was actually 21 at the time in question, as his birthdate has been amended.

 

[Richard]

It takes an understanding of the subtleties of bowling to get this Richard. Every great ball doesn't get a wicket, unless you can work a batsman out over a period of time and have the patience to do so you won't often get results. Everything isn't always a constant in cricket as one thing has an effect on another.

I know that - I worked a batsman over in 4 deliveries yesterday. By bowling what would not normally be conventional "good" bowling, nor what I'd normally aim to do, I dismissed a batsman who played in an unorthodox manner. I understand as much about the subtleties of seam-bowling as anyone, I flatter myself. I have a very good bowling mindset. It's just a shame I have little skill to go with it.

However, there always has to be something good about the ball that takes the wicket, AFAIC, to be a "deserved" one. A nothing ball outside off (following lots more nothing balls outside off) is not a ball that in any way deserves a wicket.

There also needs to be something good about the "work over". Bowling nothing balls and getting gifted a wicket is not working-over, it's just something people will pass-off as being a working-over in order to credit nothing bowling for undeserved wickets.

 

[Richard]

My implication he lacked application is purely pointing at the fact that with an action like his no application = disaster. Whether or not he'd actually be any better if he applied himself on a regular basis is arguable, but he'd have to be more consistent.

His action has always been his biggest flaw. But I do indeed feel he applied himself as well as he was capable. Despite this, his action was still poor enough, and his skills with landing a ball in the right spot too, to make him an ineffective bowler.

 

[SJS]

It's a shame the footage is so jerky there, that might be fabulous to behold otherwise.

BTW, it now seems likely that Waqar was actually 21 at the time in question, as his birthdate has been amended.

Most Pakistani's are confused about their date of birth. So many lies are told when they start their careere to become the youngest to this and the youngest to that, that ultimately no one knows what the truth is..

In India we have a running joke that for a Pakistani cricketer a year has 36 months.

Afridi remained in his teens for decades

 

[Richard]

Oh, yes, I know this. Hence I treat no "youngest international" Pakistani cricketers with any authenticity. I'd not be surprised if Afridi, for instance, was 4 or 5 years older than his officially listed DOB.

As I understand it, birth registration was only fairly recently introduced in Pakistan. So even now, a cricketer of sufficient age can pretend they are any age they wish within the bounds of complexion credibility.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I know that - I worked a batsman over in 4 deliveries yesterday. By bowling what would not normally be conventional "good" bowling, nor what I'd normally aim to do, I dismissed a batsman who played in an unorthodox manner. I understand as much about the subtleties of seam-bowling as anyone, I flatter myself. I have a very good bowling mindset. It's just a shame I have little skill to go with it.

However, there always has to be something good about the ball that takes the wicket, AFAIC, to be a "deserved" one. A nothing ball outside off (following lots more nothing balls outside off) is not a ball that in any way deserves a wicket.

There also needs to be something good about the "work over". Bowling nothing balls and getting gifted a wicket is not working-over, it's just something people will pass-off as being a working-over in order to credit nothing bowling for undeserved wickets.

Yet you talk about McGrath bowling largely nothing balls for an extended period of time? Why did he go from working a batsman over, to getting them out off nothing balls, and then coming through that to work them over again? Did he turn his brain off for the middle period and decide not to move it either way and simply put it outside off and hope for the best? I can't remember ever watching a whole spell from McGrath where every ball he bowled was outside off stump doing nothing.

I remember watching Gillespie during a test series here where he was talking about how he'd bowl on or around middle using the angle to the left-hander to tie him up for a while before pushing it up and a bit wider to try and get him driving at one without the required footwork. It worked in that test for him too (and it worked for me that same afternoon ). If the ball he bowls outside off doesn't move is that then a non-wicket taking delivery despite the fact that he bowled a good line to tie the batsman up for many of the deliveries leading up to that?

In a perfect world, where batsmen didn't have different weaknesses, then what you're saying may hold true. The very reason a plan for each batsman exists in international cricket is because they have a tendency to do certain things. Whether it's necessary or not for them to do that is irrelevant. It was obviously unnecessary for Damien Martyn to go for the cut, and Andrew Hilditch to play the hook shot compulsively. That doesn't mean an over consisting of a number of wide/short balls resulting in a wicket is a bad one.

Obviously an unreasonably wild slog at a ball by a batsman who has been playing comfortably is a situation where I'd agree with you.

 

[social]

WHATTT ??

You cant be serious. But I suppose you are because you also include Willis who did have an unorthodox action because he was so open chested. But Waqar and imran ? You have surely not seen them.

First of all you are perhaps correct that I am being unduly harsh on Harmison afterall so many bowlers, many coming from England, have the unorthodox open chested actions similar to Harmison. No co-incidence that not many genuine outswing bowlers comiing from England any more.

But to suggest that Waqar and Imran had bad actions is not being harsh, its being grossly incorrect.

Waqar was a round-arm slinger (not over the top like Thomson) whilst Imran's action in 76/77, when he first came to prominence, made Harmison look like a conventional side-on bowler.

Waqar found a way to repeat an action that you would never teach a kid whilst Imran, whose early action bore more resembance to Colin Croft and Eldine Baptiste than Dennis Lillee, had the brains and talent to completely overhaul his

Btw, chest-on actions have been scientifically proven to place less strain on the body (ever wonder why bowlers coming back from back injuries with remodelled actions are invariably open chested) and thus Harmy's action is a product of modern thinking.

 

[SJS]

Waqar was a round-arm slinger (not over the top like Thomson) whilst Imran's action in 76/77, when he first came to prominence, made Harmison look like a conventional side-on bowler.

Waqar found a way to repeat an action that you would never teach a kid whilst Imran, whose early action bore more resembance to Colin Croft and Eldine Baptiste than Dennis Lillee, had the brains and talent to completely overhaul his

Btw, chest-on actions have been scientifically proven to place less strain on the body (ever wonder why bowlers coming back from back injuries with remodelled actions are invariably open chested) and thus Harmy's action is a product of modern thinking.

I can talk a lot on that subject in great technical detail but forget it it. Lets just be happy in our disagreement.

 

[SJS]

Here are some famous side on actions.

I havent put here how long their careers lasted but long enough to be the world record holders for most wickets in one form of the game or the other.

BTW, they had another thing in common, they all swung the ball prodigiously in the air.

Alec Bedser

Fred Trueman

Dennis Lillee

Richard Hadlee

Kapil Dev

Wasim Akram

Ian Botham

 

[Top_Cat]

Not the greatest photo of Fiery there!

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not the greatest photo of Fiery there!

No, was just about to say that myself. Judging by the already-evident middle-age spread I'd guess it's from his dotage at Derbyshire.

 

[SJS]

Add to that .......

Alan Donald

Andy Roberts

Mike Holding

Brett Lee

Imran Khan

Waqar Younis

Chaminda Vaas

Glen McGrath

Darren Gough

Shaun Pollock

....and you would have covered most of the leading wicket takers of the world amongst the purveyors of pace (Bob Willis and the West Indians of the 80's/90's excepted. Again, its a who's who of thos who swung the ball so naturally in the air.

 

[SJS]

No, was just about to say that myself. Judging by the already-evident middle-age spread I'd guess it's from his dotage at Derbyshire.

Yeah I know

I was struggling to get one of him on the net with a side arm view but couldn't find a more appropriate one. I could have uploaded from my own collection of pictures but attachments are not as good for convenience.