Howz dinesh karthik?

[luckyeddie]

So how did he get this reputation then?

<quack> Publicity

Really?

<quack> Oh, yes. As one of his few supporters, Steve Wayward-Harmison owes me a HUGE debt of gratitude, owing to the way I have enhanced his reputation.

You actually believe that, don't you?

<quack> Natuarally. I have caused batsmen to be sorely afraid.

So when's Rikki's figures going to improve, then?

 

[Richard]

A certain 7-12, possibly?

 

[Swervy]

A certain 7-12, possibly?

but if that was down to luck or just bad batting by WI, surely the batsmen would have watch film of it,and realised it was just luck???

 

[tooextracool]

Wrong, the modification in his action actually came in the spring of 2003 - his action was very noticably different at the start of that summer (and his economy-rate in the Championship bore-out the improvement in his accuracy - 2.13-an-over in his first 2 games) to how it had been the previous summer and in the winter in Australia.
And it took all but a year for that change in action to result in a change in figures? No, the two had nothing to do with each other and rather the change in figures had to do with batsmen's playing him going downhill.
As borne-out by the fact that nothing in his bowling changed between the South Africa and West Indies series and rather that far, far, far, far more poor strokes were played than previously.

rubbish harmison was nowhere as accurate in the series against SA as he was against the WI! and its quite conceivable that it actually took him some time to get some bowling rhythm and get used to his action.

 

[Richard]

Really?
So that, then, is why he went for just 2.31-an-over in the last 2 Tests, then? Against batting massively superior to that in The Caribbean.
If le was right that his action changed in the autumn of 2004, after the Bangladesh series, then the action change had immediate effect.

 

[Richard]

but if that was down to luck or just bad batting by WI, surely the batsmen would have watch film of it,and realised it was just luck???

You'd think so, but if they did that McGrath and Pollock's records on flat wickets wouldn't be anywhere near as good as they are.
And are you really saying you don't think the 7-12 involved a lot of very poor batting?

 

[luckyeddie]

You'd think so, but if they did that McGrath and Pollock's records on flat wickets wouldn't be anywhere near as good as they are.
And are you really saying you don't think the 7-12 involved a lot of very poor batting?

He was unlucky to concede 12 - two fours went through the slips at catchable height.

Seriously, of course there was poor batting - as there always is when any bowler runs through any side.

 

[Richard]

It's amazing - the number of times I think "he was unlucky to concede xx runs - y number of balls went for runs they should have done". I always forget the balls that didn't go for runs that, frankly, should have done.
And I'm not just being ironic, there, I think it all the time - Klusener today, for instance - but for that lucky last-ball four and the penultimate-over no-ball (which cost 3) he'd have gone for 25 off 10, not 32. But of course he had plenty of balls hit to fielders that could have gone through, that I don't immidiately think of. I think it about my bowling all the time, too.
Anyway, the serious point is one single morning of some of the worst batting you'll see has probably saved Harmison from being hit for countless boundaries in the last 11 Tests.

 

[marc71178]

11 Tests, and it's all just poor batting...

And to say but for a no ball kind of ignores the fact that the no ball is the fault of one man only.

 

[Richard]

I know it does, and that's why to say "a no-ball is unlucky" (whether it took a wicket or whatever) is very stupid indeed.
It simply frustrates me so much when good bowlers bowl unneccesary no-balls that I have to remind myself he could have gone for more.
There are plenty of bowlers who have taken wickets mainly through poor strokes for a far longer period than a mere 11 Tests. And I'm afraid you really have no case that they didn't come mostly through poor strokes - they did, that's about as close to fact as anything. All your case can be is the usual "he deserved the poor strokes because he forced them to feel under pressure" rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

 

[luckyeddie]

Anyway, the serious point is one single morning of some of the worst batting you'll see has probably saved Harmison from being hit for countless boundaries in the last 11 Tests.

My point about the two fours wasn't serious (as the subsequent line which started with the word 'seriously' should have indicated).

It seems a little silly and naive to attribute someone's career to a single instance of doing his job right, and suggesting that if he hadn't, that career would have been on the slide.

Equally silly and naive to attribute ALL good bowling figures to bad batting. as you do with Harmison. Why not attribute all good batting performances to poor bowling and be done with it?

 

[luckyeddie]

There are plenty of bowlers who have taken wickets mainly through poor strokes for a far longer period than a mere 11 Tests.

Any bowler you care to mention. More wickets are taken through injudicious strokes than the devastating delivery

 

[Richard]

Equally silly and naive to attribute ALL good bowling figures to bad batting. as you do with Harmison. Why not attribute all good batting performances to poor bowling and be done with it?

Well, mainly due to the fact that perfect bowling, with no poor deliveries, ever, is impossible.
But I do point-out innings which have come against bowling that is clearly inferior to that which past failures have come against, of course I do.
All I can do is keep saying the same thing: if you look at Harmison's Test-wickets in the last 7 months, most of them have come from poor strokes.
Yet - and this is the key thing - there have been innings during this time where those poor strokes haven't been anywhere near so forthcoming. And, surprisingly enough, these have seen very, very poor figures.

 

[Richard]

Any bowler you care to mention. More wickets are taken through injudicious strokes than the devastating delivery

Oh, far more, yes.
But a few years ago, when there were plenty of quality bowlers around, far more wickets were taken with wicket-taking (while not devestating, ie realistically unplayable) deliveries than now.
You see far more spells where 4 wickets are taken with nothing (or out-and-out bad) balls now, whereas not so long ago it was far more common to see 5 wickets, consisting of maybe 1 RUD, 2 other wicket-taking and 2 nothing balls.

 

[marc71178]

And I wonder if you were watching so intently and critically back then?

 

[tooextracool]

Really?
So that, then, is why he went for just 2.31-an-over in the last 2 Tests, then? Against batting massively superior to that in The Caribbean.
If le was right that his action changed in the autumn of 2004, after the Bangladesh series, then the action change had immediate effect.

and the fact that looking at E/R in tests doesnt give any indication of how accurate a bowler is means what ? quite frankly if you bowled wide outside the off stump at trent bridge most batsmen wouldnt bother to go after it and you'll still end up with a good enough E/R.

 

[tooextracool]

You see far more spells where 4 wickets are taken with nothing (or out-and-out bad) balls now, whereas not so long ago it was far more common to see 5 wickets, consisting of maybe 1 RUD, 2 other wicket-taking and 2 nothing balls.

and perhaps that might have to do with the flatness of the wickets? how the hell do you bowl an RUD on a flat wicket with no help from the conditions?

 

[luckyeddie]

bowl an RUD

Relatively Unused Donkey?

 

[marc71178]

Is that Alex Wharf?