-
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.
*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread
- Thread starter gibbsnsmith
- Start date
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Sorry, does that mean the entire attack, or are you singling out the one you don't like and laying the blame solely on him?Rik said:
As I keep pointing out, in his time in the England team, Harmison is taking wickets cheaper than the team as a whole is, yet you only criticise him when others are performing worse?
PY
International Coach
There was me thinking these two could get on now 
There's always one thing to get them going and that's Steve Harmison
I'm with Marc though I'm afraid because Harmison might not have done well in all the Tests this summer but no England bowler did well. And when he had to produce he did. Plus he looked much more in control + we need someone who gets aggressive bounce.
Good on him and I hope he carries on all winter.
There's always one thing to get them going and that's Steve Harmison
I'm with Marc though I'm afraid because Harmison might not have done well in all the Tests this summer but no England bowler did well. And when he had to produce he did. Plus he looked much more in control + we need someone who gets aggressive bounce.
Good on him and I hope he carries on all winter.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's the tediousness (I like big words, and it's much bigger than tedium but means the same) of the argument which riles.Rik said:
Harmison does badly, it's because he cannot bowl. Harmison does well, it's because the opposition cannot bat.
Would you say the same about Hoggard? He bowled well today (ok, got carted a bit in one spell) but Harmison was faster, more accurate (hard to believe I know, but true) and a damned sight more hostile - a perfect foil.
I suppose Matthew Hayden doesn't deserve the world record, because it was made on a featherbed against Zimbabwe. Similarly, Lara didn't deserve his because the England attack was below strength - apart from Fraser and jug-ears, the rest were ineffective or Lewis. As for Sobers against Pakistan, well, really.
Credit where credit's due for once in your life.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
No, I do not rate Harmison because he has only performed against poor opposition unless you count one innings against South Africa, which is hardly a basis for how much someone has improved. Just because the rest of the attack didn't take wickets doesn't mean you can immediately ignore someone's performance, or lack of one. Especially when the attack comprises of a burnt out Jimmy Anderson, Andrew Flintoff who can't buy a wicket at the moment, but at the same time doesn't really look like taking one, and Ashley Giles who was even out-bowled by Batty yesterday...luckyeddie said:
I still feel Lara's 375 was a better innings than Hayden and that Lara is a better batsman than Hayden, but that is because the England side Lara scored the 375 against could actually bowl compared to Zimbabwe's attack which only has Heath Streak and the seriously unlucky Ray Price (often bowls well but never gets the wickets he deserves). Lara has played for longer than Hayden and his record is simply superb, Hayden has yet to have a real slump in this part of his career so when it comes we will see how he copes with it, it will happen, especially in England where he had a very rum time of it last time he visited. The 380 was a fantastic innings no doubt, but the 375 was against a better attack. Just look at the ratings they have been given, Hayden's is nowhere near Lara's because of the opposition.
As I said before it's my opinion and if you don't share it that's your choice, it's a free world. You have no obligation to reply, the arguement is often because someone decides to try and lecture me on it. However much you go on about it, it's not likely to change. Take out his average against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and you will see...
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
To be fair iam with Eddie on this one, the guy is not a finished article but he has improved alot over the last year. I've been lucky (or stupid enough) to stay up late and watch all of England's matches over the year and I've seen that he has become alot more consistant in his line and lenght and his bowling is alot less wayward.
Intresting point, everyones real first impression of Harmy was that tour game where he bowled 7 odd wides in a row. Now if that had never happened do any of you think he would never have got the tag as a wayward/poor bowler, and everyone would have just treated him normally.. like a Hoggard that gets on with the job and gets hardly any talk about him?
HOWEVER saying that it's quite obvious Harmison wasn't the finished deal and is the TEST arena really the best place for him to learn the trade? Going to the acadmey / County Cricket, could have benifited him alot more than to be pasted around by world class batsman?
Also you have to remember that a player doing well isn't completly based on the wickets he takes alone, it's how he plays the game overall. Harmison might not lots of wickets, but he has been keeping things tight vs Bangladesh (espically) and creating pressure etc and his agressive / hostile apporach gets to a batsman which in effect makes them alter their games. I watched the match this morning and the Bangladesh batsman were pasting the spinners (Giles particular) to all parts, with about 5 6's hit in quick time, and you could see they were worried that the new ball was due in a few overs, as a result they were getting the runs on the board quickly before a fresh Harmison and co came back with a nice hard shiny ball and aimed it at their heads or mopped the tail up
And as the saying goes you can only play what's in front of you at the end of the day, as a batsman ANY body could bowl you a jaffa, get a edge, get extra assisstant off the pitch etc, so for anyone to score 350+ has done bloody well IMO, not just to face the bolwers but also the concentration factors etc and for a bolwer read the above again.
Intresting point, everyones real first impression of Harmy was that tour game where he bowled 7 odd wides in a row. Now if that had never happened do any of you think he would never have got the tag as a wayward/poor bowler, and everyone would have just treated him normally.. like a Hoggard that gets on with the job and gets hardly any talk about him?
HOWEVER saying that it's quite obvious Harmison wasn't the finished deal and is the TEST arena really the best place for him to learn the trade? Going to the acadmey / County Cricket, could have benifited him alot more than to be pasted around by world class batsman?
Also you have to remember that a player doing well isn't completly based on the wickets he takes alone, it's how he plays the game overall. Harmison might not lots of wickets, but he has been keeping things tight vs Bangladesh (espically) and creating pressure etc and his agressive / hostile apporach gets to a batsman which in effect makes them alter their games. I watched the match this morning and the Bangladesh batsman were pasting the spinners (Giles particular) to all parts, with about 5 6's hit in quick time, and you could see they were worried that the new ball was due in a few overs, as a result they were getting the runs on the board quickly before a fresh Harmison and co came back with a nice hard shiny ball and aimed it at their heads or mopped the tail up
And as the saying goes you can only play what's in front of you at the end of the day, as a batsman ANY body could bowl you a jaffa, get a edge, get extra assisstant off the pitch etc, so for anyone to score 350+ has done bloody well IMO, not just to face the bolwers but also the concentration factors etc and for a bolwer read the above again.
Last edited:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Why Harmison is an England regular
I compared his figures against the figures of the rest of the bowling attack in matches he's played:
SH - 391.3 overs 37 for 1171
Rest - 1421.5 overs 129 for 5148
Average - SH 31.65, Rest 39.91
Economy - SH 2.99, Rest 3.62
S/R - SH 63.49, Rest 66.13
He has bowled 21.59% of the England overs in matches he's played, yet taken 22.29% of the wickets to fall to bowlers whilst conceding only 18.53% of the runs!
Anyone got any complaints about these figures?
I compared his figures against the figures of the rest of the bowling attack in matches he's played:
SH - 391.3 overs 37 for 1171
Rest - 1421.5 overs 129 for 5148
Average - SH 31.65, Rest 39.91
Economy - SH 2.99, Rest 3.62
S/R - SH 63.49, Rest 66.13
He has bowled 21.59% of the England overs in matches he's played, yet taken 22.29% of the wickets to fall to bowlers whilst conceding only 18.53% of the runs!
Anyone got any complaints about these figures?
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
The economy rate is in direct contradiction to the popular perception of SH.
Someone to come on and say "That's because batsmen can't reach the ball" in 3.....2.....1.....
<quack> That's because batsmen can't reach the ball
w00t. My quadruple ultrashep post (4444)
Someone to come on and say "That's because batsmen can't reach the ball" in 3.....2.....1.....
<quack> That's because batsmen can't reach the ball
w00t. My quadruple ultrashep post (4444)
Last edited:
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Re: Why Harmison is an England regular
Does "rest" include run outs? It shouldn't..marc71178 said:
Langeveldt
Soutie
Damn! I was late for the post Harmison festivities! Oh well, congrats to SH, I guess it had to be against the Banglas, even Rikki got a wicket! A clarkequake?!
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...
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...
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Come on!:!(Mr Mxyzptlk said:
No, it doesn't! Because your referral to "stats" in fact means "domestic-First-Class-batting averages".
If you look at some stats that tell a truer story, ie Test batting averages, you get a more accurate picture.
If you don't like the idea of selecting ANYONE on domestic averages, just say so. But stop this crusade against ALL statistics!
Either that or get your phraseology right!
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Even I couldn't get more than 3.9 on the Rikkiter Scale for the boy's performance today so didn't bother with the ratings (actually, I couldn't locate the 'season to date' running total so couldn't be bothered). Bowled a couple of real joke overs but his second spell was quite acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. Could easily have had 3 wickets.Langeveldt said: