*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Richard]

I've been lucky (or stupid enough) to stay up late and watch all of England's matches over the year

No, not stupid; very good, committed following of cricket.
He who sacrifices his sleep to watch cricket is a true great of the game's fanship.
(I am ashamed to admit that I fell asleep during the first session - nothing to do with Khaled and Mushfiqur - just the fact that I had put a couple of sessions at the club higher up the priority list:rolleyes: )

 

[Richard]

That sounds exactly like Flintoff to me

IMO the only way to not get wickets you deserve is to repeatedly have catches dropped, stumpings missed or lbws turned-down that should have been given, from good balls.
Flintoff and Price have done neither. They are both reasonably accurate (though Hayden and Gilchrist esp. proved what can be done to 50mph bowling when the ball isn't turning) but neither regularly produce wicket-taking balls and take wickets with them.
You have to do this to be a good bowler IMO. Playing-and-missing constantly is the measure of a BAD bowler, not a good one.

 

[Richard]

Well, we seem to have had some heated debate over the Harmison issue. Little else, indeed.
My take on the situation:
Harmison now is unquestionably a better bowler than he was 4 months ago. He even swung the ball on occasions in the first-innings.
However, the fact is almost every one of his Test wickets has come through batting faults. Forget which teams we're playing; although you can generally set some sort of stall by it, it's far safer to just watch the dismissals. Believe it or not, good batsmen do play poor shots and poor batsmen occasionally play above themselves.
Harmison improved little from the period from the Second India Test (5 wickets, 1 deserved - Patel in first-innings) to the end of the summer. He went from spearing 2 deliveries an over down the leg to 1, that's about it. If you get rid of the Zimbabwe series (not one of the wickets in that was with especially good deliveries) his Test average up to the second-innings at The Oval was about 60. Even that was including some distinctly dodgy batting by Australia in the last 3 innings (6 for 156 in them).
Generally, Harmison bowled terribly last summer and winter and that was reflected in his figures. Likewise with many of the other bowlers (Anderson, Hoggard, Giles, Dawson, Flintoff).
In the second-innings at The Oval, Harmison got Kirsten out with a good ball and got 3 more wickets due to poor batting and Umpiring (Kallis lbw when outside-the-line and high, Pollock cutting to cover, Ntini summing-up his lack of ability).
Harmison has unquestionably bowled well this innings, but all his wickets have been due to uneven bounce or poor batsmanship, perhaps not surprising.
While there is something in the argument that Harmison is a better bowler than he was not long ago, I don't agree that he is even suggesting at being a Test standard bowler. If I were MSA or STJ (or KS, DPMDJ or anyone else in the SL batting-line-up) and I was told Harmison was opening against us, I'd be doing one thing - licking my lips. I fully expect to see Harmison crucified in Sri Lanka - even if he only goes for about 3.2-an-over in the series, I'll be surprised if he gets more than 2 or 3 wickets that he's earned.

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: Why Harmison is an England regular

Does "rest" include run outs? It shouldn't..

It doesn't, and it also ignores byes and leg byes.

 

[marc71178]

Well seriously, at least he is showing improvement , but I still side with Rik in this "discussion" I dont like the idea of someone so erratic and sometimes awful leading an England attack...

So if he's erratic and sometimes awful, please explain what the rest of the attack (who are less penetrative and far less economical) are?

 

[marc71178]

However, the fact is almost every one of his Test wickets has come through batting faults.

I find it hard to believe that you persist in this line. Of 37 wickets, 6 caught behind, 8 bowled and 3 LBW can't all be bad batting.

If you get rid of the Zimbabwe series (not one of the wickets in that was with especially good deliveries) his Test average up to the second-innings at The Oval was about 60. Even that was including some distinctly dodgy batting by Australia in the last 3 innings (6 for 156 in them).

Give it up, he's taken wickets, which is what a bowler has to do.

The way you go on, I think about 95% of all wickets taken shouldn't be counted.

Harmison has unquestionably bowled well this innings, but all his wickets have been due to uneven bounce or poor batsmanship, perhaps not surprising.

So now he's not deserving the wickets because he's exploited the conditions, at least it makes a change from your usual.

While there is something in the argument that Harmison is a better bowler than he was not long ago, I don't agree that he is even suggesting at being a Test standard bowler.

So by that definition, none of the England attack of the last 2 years are either.

I'll be surprised if he gets more than 2 or 3 wickets that he's earned.

Seeing as you have a ridiculous notion of bowlers "earning" wickets, I'd be shocked if there's even 2 or 3 wickets in the entire series from both sides combined that get that accolade.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry, Richard.

Your argument, although well constructed and thorough, is clearly nonsense for one reason - most batsmen 'get themselves out' every time they bat.

I'm presuming that you never watched any of today's play. After Michael Vaughan scored his first single, he could easily have been dismissed no less than EIGHT occasions before he made another run - and that against Bangladesh. None of them were 'unplayable' balls, all were down to errors brought about by circumstances (on 1 for half an hour, out of nick, not getting forward positively etc etc etc).

One of the most salient points made in this fast-becoming-farcical discussion is the fact that if Harmison is bad, so are the rest of the England bowlers, if not worse.

Harmison is in the side, for better or for worse. He is clearly a popular player amongst the rest of the side, everyone speaks up for him and he tries his guts out every time he plays. Sure, he's a bit like Nantie on occasion, but he looks to me as though he would gladly die for the team unlike others I could mention.

That's good enough for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Harmison is in the side, for better or for worse. He is clearly a popular player amongst the rest of the side, everyone speaks up for him and he tries his guts out every time he plays. Sure, he's a bit like Nantie on occasion, but he looks to me as though he would gladly die for the team unlike others I could mention.

This is why, although he may not be considered world-class, he will continue to get better and better. He may bowl the odd shocking ball and sometimes will bowl absolute tripe but his attitude is what indicates he'll lean from the troubles and fix the mistakes he makes quicker than most.

I must admit, I liked Harmison a lot when he came here last season. I think he's got tons of guts (no fat jokes, please!), is aggressive, has a HEAP of raw (very raw) talent and bowls like the wind. If anyone should be groomed to partner Jimmy Anderson or Harmison with the new ball in future English teams, its him. England have the makings of a potentially great bowling attack because all three of these guys have the guts to keep pushing themselves when things aren't neccessarily going their way. As far as I'm concerned, England have finally found a pace attack with some real teeth and they should persist with them, especially guys like Harmison.

I just remember being shocked at how well Harmison came back from his run-up yips in Perth last summer. Not many bowlers would have been able to come back as well. I just remember thinking how funny it was that he was still getting clocked at 146km/h+ in stuffing up his run-up and was thinking "If he gets his run-up right for one ball, it's going to come out at 190km/h!".

 

[Tim]

England have stuttered to 185/4 but it seems Rikki Clarke is leading the recovery charge with a brilliant 1 run off 30 balls.

 

[luckyeddie]

England have stuttered to 185/4 but it seems Rikki Clarke is leading the recovery charge with a brilliant 1 run off 30 balls.

which is infinitely better than that led by Hussain and Butcher.
At least he's still there, playing the sheet-anchor role for Thorpe.

England have now moved on to 204-4 (Thorpe 30*, Clarke 7*).

 

[Tim]

I suppose he will accelerate later, but 10 runs off 80 balls with no boundaries? I think thats a little too defensive considering the opposition.

 

[luckyeddie]

I suppose he will accelerate later, but 10 runs off 80 balls with no boundaries? I think thats a little too defensive considering the opposition.

watching the game on teletext, are you? For about 10 overs, they have been bowling a foot outside his leg stump. Now, if you think that ought to be countered by playing the sweep against the spin on a turning pitch where occasional balls are keeping low, then fair play to you.

This argument is about as stupid as the Harmison one. You've clearly written him off before he's even been dismissed in test cricket (God, what am I doing? Defending Rikki. Goes to wash fingers).

 

[luckyeddie]

and just as I dry my fingers again, Clarke leaves one alone and gets bowled. Prat.

 

[luckyeddie]

Chris Read throws his wicket away, cutting a fullish ball close to off stump. England with one or two exceptions really are rubbish (or maybe Bangladesh have turned into a team of some real ability).

 

[Tim]

Lol shouldering arms to a straight ball, reminds me of a man named Mathew Sinclair.

14 off 93 balls with no boundaries is poor to say the least, Collingwood will surely start the next test.
No im not watching the match so I can't comment but surely Clarke needed to take some initiative rather than just letting them continue to do it.

 

[luckyeddie]

Lol shouldering arms to a straight ball, reminds me of a man named Mathew Sinclair.

14 off 93 balls with no boundaries is poor to say the least, Collingwood will surely start the next test.
No im not watching the match so I can't comment but surely Clarke needed to take some initiative rather than just letting them continue to do it.

Something which misery guts (Willis) said on the tv a moment ago - the idea of playing spinners 'from the crease' is very much the Duncan Fletcher way - it is more-or-less a policy decision. As far as being more aggressive, I agree to a certain extent - but look what that did for Read in the following over - trying to cut a ball too close to him.

I'd be more concerned that Clarke didn't go on after batting for 90 minutes - but then again, only Trescothick (hopefully Thorpe too) has gone on after making a start.

 

[Tim]

Batty appears as though he's decent with the bat...I think a win for England will definately happen but they'll probably be dissapointed they couldn't dominate like they would have hoped or even planned for.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

14 off 93 balls with no boundaries is poor to say the least, Collingwood will surely start the next test.

No, because Clarke is due to take 5/1 and smash 100 not out off 25 balls with 15 sixes in the secon innings. The pig outside my window told me...

 

[Tim]

England only ended up with an 80 run lead at the end of day 3, but they managed to get Saleh before stumps so thats a start.

Maybe today just wasn't Butchers or Hussains day with the bat, but when a guy faces 93 balls for only 14 runs then you have to start wondering what he was doing out there.

Nathan Astle scored 12 runs off 74 balls in the 2nd test & that was pain-staking although he was visibly troubled by his dodgy knee & then didn't field once for the final 2 & 1/2 days.

 

[Langeveldt]

Lol.. Clarkes dismissal really was comical, even if the ball had turned a bit it would probably have bowled him... Good leave mate, you are probably one of the softest allrounders England has produced since Darren Maddy lol....

After watching Englands spin attack and Bangladesh's.. IMO Bangladesh's is far more impressive than Englands...

Harmison just bowled a snorter to get rid of Saleh, who set off like he had a bus to catch...