James Hopeless

[zaremba]

Servicable, but still Hopeless.

Though he is better then the other bits and pieces all rounder Australia has played in the past like Harvey, Shane Lee, Moody (back end of his career) and BJ

I'm surprised that Ian Harvey is getting slated on this thread. In one sense he's a bits-and-pieces cricketer but in reality he was far, far better than that title suggests. I thought he was an amazing one-day player - a dangerous hitter, an incredibly resourceful bowler and a brilliant fielder.

As someone who's watched crap English "all-rounder" follow crap English "all-rounder" over the last 20 years I'd have him in my all-time England ODI team in an absolute shot. You Aussies don't know how lucky you are.

Ditto Tom Moody although I think of him as a good batsman who happened to trundle his way through a few overs of filthy medium pace every now and then.

 

[Richard]

Never thought Ian Harvey was ODI-class either. Excellent bowler at domestic level but in some respects what made him so good in both Australian and English domestic cricket made him lesser in ODIs - the determination to keep changing things up. If he'd bowled more length balls at the top of off he'd have been more successful in ODIs, but in domestic cricket he only needed to bowl them 1 in 3 - he could bowl those Yorkers and full-length slower-deliveries more often.

Low boredom threshold always struck me in Harvey. This didn't prevent him being one of Gloucestershire's best-ever OD players, nor a very good one for Victoria. However, it meant that his bowling wasn't ODI-standard and his batting certainly wasn't close.

In that one respect, he was a (very) poor man's Keith Miller.

Most of Moody's career was before my time but he was terrific in the 1999 WC and one of the biggest differences between the diabolical Australian side of early on and the very good one of later.

 

[four_or_six]

From his stats, Harvey's batting looks pretty poor to be called an all-rounder, especially given the number of matches.

 

[Richard]

Harvey wasn't much of a batsman, in one-day cricket, for the first 5 seasons of his career in Australia. From 1993/94 to 1997/98, he averaged 16.89 with just a single half-century. He also did precious little of note in ODIs. However, from 1998/99 onwards he averaged 27.35 in domestic matches, which is obviously far from outstanding but isn't too bad for an all-rounder in the ODI game.

Bowling was always Harvey's strongest suit though.

 

[four_or_six]

Harvey wasn't much of a batsman, in one-day cricket, for the first 5 seasons of his career in Australia. From 1993/94 to 1997/98, he averaged 16.89 with just a single half-century. He also did precious little of note in ODIs. However, from 1998/99 onwards he averaged 27.35 in domestic matches, which is obviously far from outstanding but isn't too bad for an all-rounder in the ODI game.

Bowling was always Harvey's strongest suit though.

Is there any website that you can separate Australian domestic from county cricket stats? I've wondered that off and on and few times.

 

[Richard]

Yup, it's easy at CricketArchive. It's not possible to do right now because the site's malfunctioning - a bit like CW's forum's search feature. But normally you could use this and, inputting "Gloucestershire" and "Victoria" into the "team" box you'd get his MM\ING\FR Cup record and his NationalLg\C&G\B&H one. It will display, but will only display on a link that expires, currently, so I can give you them but not show the link to it - he averaged 21.38 for Victoria from 1998/99 onwards, 31.29 for Gloucestershire and 20.44 for Cape Cobras.

Of course, he also played for Yorkshire, Derbyshire and other Australian rep teams (Australia on tour, Australia A), and there's no way to count these in. The only way to get them all together is to do manual deduction of ODIs from the record of them all together from a certain date.

 

[Goughy]

Why not just look at this?

 

[four_or_six]

Yup, it's easy at CricketArchive. It's not possible to do right now because the site's malfunctioning - a bit like CW's forum's search feature. But normally you could use this and, inputting "Gloucestershire" and "Victoria" into the "team" box you'd get his MM\ING\FR Cup record and his NationalLg\C&G\B&H one. It will display, but will only display on a link that expires, currently, so I can give you them but not show the link to it - he averaged 21.38 for Victoria from 1998/99 onwards, 31.29 for Gloucestershire and 20.44 for Cape Cobras.

Of course, he also played for Yorkshire, Derbyshire and other Australian rep teams (Australia on tour, Australia A), and there's no way to count these in. The only way to get them all together is to do manual deduction of ODIs from the record of them all together from a certain date.

Ah, that's cool. Thanks.

 

[Richard]

Why not just look at this?

Because it's not possible to filter by date with that. As I say, Harvey for Victoria up to 1997/98 was useless, but was OK-ish from 1998/99 onwards. And you'd get a false impression by looking purely at his overall record, as you so often will by looking purely at an overall record, because most players change over their careers.

 

[zaremba]

Well I'm surprised that Harvey's batting stats are so poor. Can't say that I've ever studied them, and my impressionistic view will certainly have been heavily influenced by his performance in England which is relatively good.

In fairness I suppose that batting at number 8 you're rarely able to build an innings and very frequently you will end up throwing your wicket away in the chase for quick runs. 15 off 10 balls can be worth a lot more than 20 not out off 20 balls.

Anyhow having watched him play I still reckon he was a very fine OD player who would strengthen almost any team and to use him as a byword for being a crap bits-and-pieces merchant is unfair.

 

[Richard]

As I say - by the standard of domestic cricket he was an all-rounder par excellence. However, in ODI terms, I'd not class him as much more than a decent bits-and-pieces player. Superior to the likes of Dougie Brown and Matthew Fleming? Fo' sho', by plenty. But not ODI-standard, and if he'd played for England I doubt he'd have done a hell of a lot better than he did for Australia. His bowling was inferior to Mark Ealham's and his batting inferior to Adam Hollioake's.

 

[zaremba]

As I say - by the standard of domestic cricket he was an all-rounder par excellence. However, in ODI terms, I'd not class him as much more than a decent bits-and-pieces player. Superior to the likes of Dougie Brown and Matthew Fleming? Fo' sho', by plenty. But not ODI-standard, and if he'd played for England I doubt he'd have done a hell of a lot better than he did for Australia. His bowling was inferior to Mark Ealham's and his batting inferior to Adam Hollioake's.

We're miles apart on this, I'm knackered, it's 10 to midnight and I really can't start getting involved too deeply in this. I will simply put it this way: in OD cricket I'd rather have Harvey bowl for my team than Ealham, I'd rather have Harvey bat for my team than Hollioake, and I'd rather have Harvey field for my team than either of them.

 

[pup11]

We're miles apart on this, I'm knackered, it's 10 to midnight and I really can't start getting involved too deeply in this. I will simply put it this way: in OD cricket I'd rather have Harvey bowl for my team than Ealham, I'd rather have Harvey bat for my team than Hollioake, and I'd rather have Harvey field for my team than either of them.

Tbh, Harvey was a really talented bloke and he just failed to make the most of the talent he had, i agree that he had a very low threshold for boredom, whether he was batting or bowling, he just wanted to keep on trying something different all the time, even when the basic stuff he did was working for him.

He had three or four different types of slower balls, a very good yorker, but he went for overkill by using them all the time, while neglecting the basic line and length stuff, Hopes is very different in that regard to Harvey.

Hopes is one of those blokes, who have limited talent, but he makes up it by hard-work and persiverence, he is one of those cricketers a captain can always trust to give his 100% and also be sure of what exactly he would get of him at all times, he just keeps it simple and does the basic stuff well, over and over again.

I think this makes Hopes a very handy cricketer to have, he is not very familiar with batting so low down the order, but if he can work on that, then there is no reason why he can't cement a place for himself in the ODI side.

 

[morgieb]

How the hell does morgieb know so much about different forums? It's always creeped me out a bit.

Everybody from CS knows that Ged highly rates James Hopes FFS.

 

[Precambrian]

Is there any website that you can separate Australian domestic from county cricket stats? I've wondered that off and on and few times.

cricket archive

 

[Richard]

We're miles apart on this, I'm knackered, it's 10 to midnight and I really can't start getting involved too deeply in this. I will simply put it this way: in OD cricket I'd rather have Harvey bowl for my team than Ealham, I'd rather have Harvey bat for my team than Hollioake, and I'd rather have Harvey field for my team than either of them.

If you knew he was going to knuckle down and give his all most times he had bat\ball in his hand... yes, probably. But you didn't. Harvey is your archetypal waste of talent; Ealham your archetypal making-the-most-of-it (witness him being still as good as any OD bowler bar Flintoff in the country at the age of 38); and Hollioake somewhere in between.

Harvey may have been a more multi-skilled bowler than Ealham, but in the end Ealham's record was far better and he offered a far, far more reliable role in the team - a role that, if given every game, he'd let you down exceptionally rarely.

 

[zaremba]

If you knew he was going to knuckle down and give his all most times he had bat\ball in his hand... yes, probably. But you didn't. Harvey is your archetypal waste of talent; Ealham your archetypal making-the-most-of-it (witness him being still as good as any OD bowler bar Flintoff in the country at the age of 38); and Hollioake somewhere in between.

Harvey may have been a more multi-skilled bowler than Ealham, but in the end Ealham's record was far better and he offered a far, far more reliable role in the team - a role that, if given every game, he'd let you down exceptionally rarely.

I don't think I underestimate Ealham. A very good all-round player who I feel might actually have had more of a shot at Test cricket.

But I felt that Harvey had something exceptional about him. I have to admit that it does seem as though I'm in the minority here and that may well be just one of those things: that when I've watched him he's always tended to make runs and take wickets. That's made more likely by the fact that I've only really watched him in English cricket where he had such a massive influence on the great Gloucs one day team (so much greater than the sum of its bits-and-pieces parts) a few years back.

 

[Goughy]

The thing about Harvey is/was his versatility.

He was capable of doing a decent job at most batting positions, playing different types of innings, and bowling at any point during an innings.

What price do you put on versatility over pure statistics? I think he is an incredibly useful player and carried far more value than a player that many that have better stats but who had to maybe bowl with the new ball or maybe after the fielding restrictions were relaxed or bat mainly in one or two positions.

Harvey was a great utility player that helped his teams as he filled gaps. Different XIs may have needed different things from him but his versatility always filled the holes and strengthend the team.

 

[zaremba]

The thing about Harvey is/was his versatility.

He was capable of doing a decent job at most batting positions, playing different types of innings, and bowling at any point during an innings.

What price do you put on versatility over pure statistics? I think he is an incredibly useful player and carried far more value than a player that many that have better stats but who had to maybe bowl with the new ball or maybe after the fielding restrictions were relaxed or bat maily in one or two positions.

Harvey was a great utility player that helped his teams as he filled gaps. Different XIs may have needed different things from him but his versatility always filled the holes and strengthend the team.

This

 

[Prince EWS]

Harvey did very, very little with the bat at international level, regardless of what role he was used in. There's little doubt he was better than his ODI output but the fact remains that he did basically - he displayed no utility with the bat at all.