*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Richard]

Him, Harmy and Jones will be a fearsome attack in the WI later in the year when all are fit *Fingers Crossed*

I can't help being sceptical over this, 'fraid.
West Indies is traditionally a graveyard for swing-bowlers (easily the driest of the cricketing countries - except when it rains ) and given the quality of their batting-line-up and the desperately slow nature of most Caribbean pitches (Sabina an honourable exception, after that abandoned match against us 6 years back they've really got their act together) I'd predict a hard series for any bowler to tour there in the next few years.
Harmison and Jones are no likely exception. And Anderson, being a swing bowler who has a tendancy for extreme waywardness, could have a torturous tour if things go wrong.

 

[Richard]

I agree that Freddie is the man to do it IMO. He's a working-class bloke who's a big lad, puts a shed-load of effort in to everything he does and he most importantly ENTERTAINS.

You only need to look at the crowds last season - Headingley included - whenever he so much as swung a boundary, immidiately the chants rung-out "Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die!" In spite of the fact that he looked inpenetrative time after time (repeating the career pattern) rarely an over of his went by (again Headingley included) without a "cumorn, Freddeiy!"
His popularity is something I've never seen the like of before in cricket.

 

[luckyeddie]

Seems a very good idea when you look at Harmison's break-down of his record.

Took you a long time to come up with that remarkable insight. You're slipping.

Originally posted by Rik
How come it's only you, Neil and Eddie who feel they have to tell me I'm wrong?

I'm not telling you you are wrong. I'm telling you that you are like an old, warped gramophone record - tedious

 

[Richard]

Swanny, eddie, PY (getting monotonous - isn't it?) I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Cricket is never going to have the popularity it has in the subcontinent, nor the equal popularity it does in Australia or South Africa (where the calenders are designed well and all top team ****** are equal) in this country and there's little point, IMO, in pretending otherwise. Cricket simply has to worry, like so many people in this World, about keeping itself going and keeping it's assets up.
The hugely annoying thing is issues like Zimbabwe, where on the rare occasion cricket-related matters are front-page, headline stuff, it's exclusively negative, and in the end no-one wins (an effectless withdrawl from one match, which cost English cricket more than it's probably ever lost in one go).
When have England ever been the best cricketing nation in The World? Since WWI, there has been one short period where it was possible to consider them so (1953-7) and even then West Indies were pretty awesome, even if they did lose 3-0 to England they were, in my mind, beyond a question the better side.
From 1918-30 England managed a couple of Ashes, but always it was against the run of play; 1930-48 (the Bradman years) Australia were inevitably top and only Bodyline cut them down; 1950-1995, basically West Indies were top, with England and Australia making very brief interludes. Australia have been the kings since they won at Sabina when Murray dropped Stephen Waugh in possibly the most significant fumble ever.
It's simply a case for England (not dissimilar at all to New Zealand) of trying to collect good sides whenever they can (both had one recently, in the sort of 1999-2000 period for NZ and the 2000-2001 for England, but these were rare in the '90s). India and Sri Lanka have always been tough at home and easy prey away, and Pakistan have always had many of The World's best, but most inconsistent and unreliable, players. South Africa had one brief period (1969-70) where they were IMO the best side ever, but aside from that they've been bridesmaids since their reintroduction. IMO they could have been so much more throughout. They were never that much before 1960.
England aren't going to become World-beaters in the near future, either IMO. They must just try to take as much of the limelight as they get. And keep themselves in business.

 

[Richard]

The problem of lack of new fans is the biggest one - very few "non-cricketing" families become "cricketing" ones and it is never going to be the case that all "cricketing" families stay as such.

 

[Rik]

Took you a long time to come up with that remarkable insight. You're slipping.

No I think you'll find I was sleeping. It's a bit different.

I'm not telling you you are wrong. I'm telling you that you are like an old, warped gramophone record - tedious

No Marc seems to have decided I'm wrong.

Warped? Warping creates variable results each time, and so far I've come up with the same one, variating slightly but allways with the same result.

 

[Richard]

Just as Graeme Hick was called a "Flat Track Bully", Steven Harmison is nothing but a "Weak Teams Bully".

If Hick was a flat-track bully (and he was) Hayden most certainly is - just rather more of a bully and getting rather more flat tracks on which to practice his art.
As I've said many times, it just seems so obvious to me that Harmison is a "weak teams bully". It amazes me that so few others look upon it like this. That 4 for 33 in the last ininngs really has given a big sense of misleading.
However, as I've said there is something in the argument that Harmison is getting better, just not IMO better to Test standard.
Most Bangladesh batsmen have such a clear weakness against fast, short-pitched bowling. This has been the cause of several of their wickets, and it is not a common weakness. Harmison has had more freebees here than normal.

Nope, none of those guys can bat.

True, they can all play. However, as you pointed-out, good batsmen do play strokes that get them out sometimes. Usually they just score quite a few runs first. If you bowl enough, you'll always get wickets, it's the rate you get them that counts, and Harmison's average has been very poor against teams who have sported what I regard as decent batting (Australia, India and South Africa). There has been an occasional spell of good figures (4 for 33 against SA, 7 for 156 in the last 3 innings' in Aus, 3 for 50-odd in the second-innings v Ind) but these have been outweiged by the poor figures.
Really, all we can do is wait for Sri Lanka. I am hugely greatful Harmison has missed this Test, as now he has at least only had one game of the "easy" series and it's saved yet more pointing-out of "it was only Bangladesh".
If Harmison goes for 199 without taking a wicket, then takes 1 for 147, what will people think then? Because this will "equal out" the 9 for 79 and 4 for 33.
I know we don't have any gurantee of his failure in Sri Lanka (ATM we don't even know for certs he'll be playing) but what will be the reactions?
Will it be more of the "they were flat pitches"?
Not from eddie, I suspect, but somehow this seems like the reason that would be provided by a certain member.

 

[Richard]

Finally this evening:
Well bowled Mashrafe bin Mortaza - yet again. This guy's accuracy is uncanny - OK, one desperately slow pitch, but this game wayward bowling has gone the distance. How he can have had such a turnaround in such a short space of time - a testament to excellent coaching. Whoever may have provided it.
Disappointing from the Clarke POV (66 was the minimum I was hoping for) but the bowling this series really has been a surprise. The difference between his FC and present Test record is startling, in average but more especially in economy-rate.

 

[Rik]

As I've said many times, it just seems so obvious to me that Harmison is a "weak teams bully". It amazes me that so few others look upon it like this. That 4 for 33 in the last ininngs really has given a big sense of misleading.

He said it not me...

Anyway I thought I was supposed to be the only person who thought this...over to you Sir Marc of Spin (in the political sense)

 

[Rik]

Finally this evening:
Well bowled Mashrafe bin Mortaza - yet again. This guy's accuracy is uncanny - OK, one desperately slow pitch, but this game wayward bowling has gone the distance. How he can have had such a turnaround in such a short space of time - a testament to excellent coaching. Whoever may have provided it.
Disappointing from the Clarke POV (66 was the minimum I was hoping for) but the bowling this series really has been a surprise. The difference between his FC and present Test record is startling, in average but more especially in economy-rate.

He seems to be matching Hoggard wicket for wicket at a very similer average, against a far stronger batting team. Better than any young bowler Zimbabwe have coming through, although Streak and Grant Flower keep them with their necks ahead of Bangladesh in the "Weakest Team in the World" league. As long as Bangladesh keep carrying Mahmood as their captain, they will never push on.

 

[luckyeddie]

As long as Bangladesh keep carrying Mahmood as their captain, they will never push on.

Astute captain (better than most, I reckon), not a very good cricketer. Shame. Could be just lucky, but his bowling changes and field placements have been quite excellent - proactive as opposed to reactive

 

[Rik]

Astute captain (better than most, I reckon), not a very good cricketer. Shame. Could be just lucky, but his bowling changes and field placements have been quite excellent - proactive as opposed to reactive

The Bangladeshi Brearly?

The problem is he bowls himself rather a lot and quite early on so the opposition batsmen get easy runs and when bowlers like Rafique come in they are set and find it less of a challange.

 

[marc71178]

More accurately the things that matter about bowling, which, if you forget, are about taking wickets at a reasonable average, which Harmison doesn't do.

It's less than 30 - how many other bowlers in this series have that.

He's ranked 19 in the World on a deflated rating - how can that be if he's as bad as you make out?

Tell me what else a bowler is supposed to do that makes Harmison a world-class seamer and the glory is yours, but then you won't

Who has ever claimed him to be World Class? I certainly haven't, and I don't remember anyone else saying that either.

you can't admit your wrong, this once. Just why is it you find the need to disagree so much Marc, is it in your nature or are you having a bad time and feeling the need to take it out on someone?

I could ask you exactly the same thing.

Non-arguement? So why are you replying? How come it's only you, Neil and Eddie who feel they have to tell me I'm wrong? 3 People, yes wow, I suppose that gives you the right to not call it an arguement as well as the bottom line? No Marc, it doesn't.

Oh sorry, I forgot the masses of people backing you up here - maybe because they don't exist.

 

[marc71178]

Harmison's average has been very poor against teams who have sported what I regard as decent batting (Australia, India and South Africa). There has been an occasional spell of good figures (4 for 33 against SA, 7 for 156 in the last 3 innings' in Aus, 3 for 50-odd in the second-innings v Ind) but these have been outweiged by the poor figures.

You cannot say he had poor figures against India - his figures were good against them. Yes, his figures againt SA and Australia weren't great, but were anybodies?

Will it be more of the "they were flat pitches"?

The only time I've said that is about the 2002 summer when the runs scored for wickets fell (for crying out loud, even Agarkar got a century) back me up.

Not from eddie, I suspect, but somehow this seems like the reason that would be provided by a certain member.

Nice to know there's someone else who likes to have "subtle" digs at me, but since you're basing these digs on things which are clearly false (as mentioned above) I don't care.

 

[Top_Cat]

1950-1995, basically West Indies were top, with England and Australia making very brief interludes.

Mate, what are you smoking? The WI were never really on top of the cricketing world until 1976. Before that, even Australia beat them in 1961 in Australia and 75/76 in Australia and beat them at home too. England and Australia were the dominant sides of those eras. Check the series' results if you don't believe me.

Australia have been the kings since they won at Sabina when Murray dropped Stephen Waugh in possibly the most significant fumble ever.

Ah, Junior Murray was dropped for that game. It was Courtney Browne who dropped Steve Waugh, in his first Test no less!

You only need to look at the crowds last season - Headingley included - whenever he so much as swung a boundary, immidiately the chants rung-out "Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die! Fred-die!" In spite of the fact that he looked inpenetrative time after time (repeating the career pattern) rarely an over of his went by (again Headingley included) without a "cumorn, Freddeiy!"
His popularity is something I've never seen the like of before in cricket.

I think it's mainly down to the fact that he tries so damn hard and people figure that all they have to do is show their support and he'll do well eventually. It's a way for people to feel like they've had a hand in his success, I guess. And let's face it, England have been a mite short of players who would die for three lions in recent years. People see the potential, see the attitude and want to support that sort of player, figuring success is inevitable in a game where attitude is pretty damn important.

If Hick was a flat-track bully (and he was) Hayden most certainly is - just rather more of a bully and getting rather more flat tracks on which to practice his art.

Yet, on difficult tracks he also scores well. Is it his fault he's played on a lot of relatively flat tracks? That's disingenuous. Hick was a flat-track bully because when difficult ones came along, he inevitably failed. Hayden has succeeded on most tracks, flat or not. 503 runs in India on raging turners for an opening batsman of all things is testament to this. He was never in trouble against a bowler who ended up taking 33 wickets in a 3-Test series. That speaks volumes for how much better he played than anyone else in that series.

Believe me, Richard, I used to be in the camp which said Hayden was too soft for Test cricket and that he didn't have the technique, the shots etc. to play top-level so I was very surprised when Australia selected him again. However, since he's come back, he now has more shots than he ever did, a much tigher defence and the ability to adapt his game to the changing circumstances (India 2001, for example). Ignoring his record, I'd say hes a much more complete batsman just by looking at him. He has the technique to succeed in all conditions and next time the Aussies play on a dodgy track, I'm sure he'll do well.

 

[Rik]

It's less than 30 - how many other bowlers in this series have that.

Johnson, Saggers and most hillariously, Clarke. And for Bangladesh, Rafique...

He's ranked 19 in the World on a deflated rating - how can that be if he's as bad as you make out?

Because he's taken wickets very cheaply against Bangladesh, as the ratings are week by week, I don't think it means that much. He'll loose some points for missing this match and after Sri Lanka I doubt he will be too near the top 20 with an inflating average, like usual.

Who has ever claimed him to be World Class? I certainly haven't, and I don't remember anyone else saying that either.

Oh dear, selective memory? You have claimed he's pulled out world-class performances many a time, none of which I can remember, or for the record, can anyone else.

I could ask you exactly the same thing.

And vice versa

Oh sorry, I forgot the masses of people backing you up here - maybe because they don't exist.

Vice versa and a "look around Marc, I can't see yours either" sticker :P

Come on Marc, your like a stuck record, you never say anything different so unless this is part of an insane need to get more posts, either change your answers to make it slightly interisting or just agree to disagree.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

hmmm, so in summary you two are both getting annoying and boring, weve [well i have] heard enough from the bpoth of you, your both wrong.
Harmison is a decent bowler, not completely crap but not good, he takes advantages of playing, less than great teams....who blames him. He is doing his job better than the rest of the England bowlers, so that alone makes him worthy of a palce in the squad.

Now, you two, go get a room and make up. :P :saint:



[well, marc isnt THAT wrong, just a slight exaggeration] :saint:

 

[Rik]

hmmm, so in summary you two are both getting annoying and boring, weve [well i have] heard enough from the bpoth of you, your both wrong.
Harmison is a decent bowler, not completely crap but not good, he takes advantages of playing, less than great teams....who blames him. He is doing his job better than the rest of the England bowlers, so that alone makes him worthy of a palce in the squad.

Now, you two, go get a room and make up. :P :saint:



[well, marc isnt THAT wrong, just a slight exaggeration] :saint:

What you've just said doesn't actually make any sense!

I'll take the room if your paying :P

 

[PY]

How come it's only you, Neil and Eddie who feel they have to tell me I'm wrong? 3 People, yes wow, I suppose that gives you the right to not call it an arguement as well as the bottom line?

I would bother to post if you would listen but you won't so I don't bother.

PS I think Harmison is doing what is required now, if he's ****e in W.I. then criticise but why not wait a while purely because I can't see anyone better ATM.

 

[Rik]

I would bother to post if you would listen but you won't so I don't bother.

PS I think Harmison is doing what is required now, if he's ****e in W.I. then criticise but why not wait a while purely because I can't see anyone better ATM.

I do listen, I just tend not to listen to Marc, because it's same old same old...

I can. And they both took wickets in this match.

One of them showed how easy it is to take a cheap 5 wicket haul against Bangladesh too...