Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I know you? Name?marc71178 said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Michael Clarke
- Thread starter Hoggy
- Start date
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Aww. Come on Rik. The game was won regardless of how many Johnson would conceive to take. Be realistic.Rik said:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
How come this ended up as a 'knock Harmison' thread?
Oh, I remember. Same way as they all end up as a 'knock Harmison' thread.
Oh, I remember. Same way as they all end up as a 'knock Harmison' thread.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Actually, I'm not knocking Harmison, I'm just stating a fact. When some new guy comes in and grabs 2/3 of the number of wickets England's most successful bowler has taken in a horribly one-sided series against Batsmen with no obvious technique, in one innings, then it just says to everyone "Calm down, you won't get to face batting lineups this weak very often, it's best not to read into the results too much" and that counts not only for Harmison, McGrath, Anderson, Johnson, but also all the other England players, weather they did well or otherwise.luckyeddie said:
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
I would have been impressed yes. But to state I made a fuss about Johnson is going a bit far. I was more impressed with the way Johnson bowled and the plan he bowled to rather than the number of wickets he took. Harmison could take 10 wickets in an innings and there would still be doubts there, because he relies on the batsmen to get themselves out by bowling short all the time. He needs to realise that with his extra bounce he could trouble most batsmen if he just pitched it up a bit further. It's a flaw that will probably be picked up on by South Africa. The last thing that needs to be done is when he takes wickets against a team which is matching Bangladesh in the batting stakes, and people saying "there's nothing wrong" well, sorry, there is. In English cricket there's this huge feeling of "he's proven he can do it" when someone performs against weak opposition. This is a mentality I wish would just go away. Look at what happened, we played Sri Lanka who just seemed like they didn't want to be here, and thrashed them, then drew with India and suddenly we thought, yeah we can beat the Aussies, oh yes, all the problems that were there have suddenly gone. Likely. Most of our attack is hugely inexperianced, mostly relies on "bang it in and hope" bowlers (I give thanks for Anderson arriving), which the Aussies thrive on. Most are back foot players and will hit a short ball whatever speed it arrives at, into the stands. You think Harmison's average of 50 in Australia was fluke? We have deep problems and just picking people against weak opposition and suddenly saying "wow they've performed, I was right" does not help anyone. Especially the future of the England cricket team.marc71178 said:
Last edited:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ok, back to Michael Clarke...
PY
International Coach
Oh, is that who this thread is all about?
There was me thinking it was about to turn into thread no. 12 about McGrath, Harmison and Johnson? :P
Bearing in mind I haven't read all the posts in this thread, do people think that Andrew Symonds has any chance as a possible all-rounder candidate? I am proudly basing this on the fact that on ICC 2000, he is top of all the bowling in both forms of cricket
There was me thinking it was about to turn into thread no. 12 about McGrath, Harmison and Johnson? :P
Bearing in mind I haven't read all the posts in this thread, do people think that Andrew Symonds has any chance as a possible all-rounder candidate? I am proudly basing this on the fact that on ICC 2000, he is top of all the bowling in both forms of cricket
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Symonds is a good bat, but not a very effective bowler it seems in ODI cricket.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Im going to agree and disagree with Rik here. He has a point about not getting too excited about players who do well against weaker teams. It can breed false confidence when you play against the better teams. Australia had it too; they just come off thrashing England in 1989, beat Sri Lanka and Pakistan with barely a wimper and then crushed England again in 1990/91.
Then they went to the West Indies and destroyed them in the one-day series. Come the Test series and a touch of arrogance mixed with an inferiority complex meant the Aussies blew several early-series chances and ended up losing 2-1. The Aussies then came home and thrashed India in 1991-1992 then the WI came to Australia again. What happened? Same old, same old. Australia blows an early series advantage to lose again 2-1. They should have beaten the WI well before they finally did in 1995 and nearly bloody blew that one too.
Same thing here. England has to be realistic about who the quality performers are and pick them accordingly. PIcking county bullies who do well against Zim, Bang and India wont help you beat everyone else.
That said, I think Rik has Harmison pegged all wrong. He bowled better in Australia than his figures told, particularly later in the series and in fact was a much better bowler when he used his height to muscle some batsmen out, a la Joel Garner. When he tried to pitch it up onto the English length (a la Caddick, Harmison etc.) it just wasnt his thing and it showed. I think, with speed and bounce like his, he should be using his height in that way. Lord knows the English team dont need another seam-up plodder.
Then they went to the West Indies and destroyed them in the one-day series. Come the Test series and a touch of arrogance mixed with an inferiority complex meant the Aussies blew several early-series chances and ended up losing 2-1. The Aussies then came home and thrashed India in 1991-1992 then the WI came to Australia again. What happened? Same old, same old. Australia blows an early series advantage to lose again 2-1. They should have beaten the WI well before they finally did in 1995 and nearly bloody blew that one too.
Same thing here. England has to be realistic about who the quality performers are and pick them accordingly. PIcking county bullies who do well against Zim, Bang and India wont help you beat everyone else.
That said, I think Rik has Harmison pegged all wrong. He bowled better in Australia than his figures told, particularly later in the series and in fact was a much better bowler when he used his height to muscle some batsmen out, a la Joel Garner. When he tried to pitch it up onto the English length (a la Caddick, Harmison etc.) it just wasnt his thing and it showed. I think, with speed and bounce like his, he should be using his height in that way. Lord knows the English team dont need another seam-up plodder.
