Swanny said:
I'm sorry but you can't just dismiss wickets like that. Taking Harmisons wicket against Gayle away because you didn't like the shot is silly and petty. I'm not saying he bowled like a world beater but his spell with the new ball was a very good one, and it seems like that is a hard thing for some people to accept. But like you said he did slip off in one spell but then came back well later in the day. He's not the finished article but for me there is no doubt he's worthy of a place in the side.
As for Hoggard again I thought his first spell again was very good and when the ball swings I think hes our best bowler. It should also be noted that he had Smith stone dead lbw when he had scored virtually nothing. Umpiring mistakes happen however and thats just sport, yet if Harmisons didn't "deserve" Best's wicket does this mean that Smith didn't "deserve" his hundred either?
I'm not being petty, believe me if I wanted to be petty I could. It's just that Harmison has got away with being the best of a pretty bad bunch or performing only against weak opposition, or at least having someone bowling worse than he does. The only reason why his average is where it is is because the Zimbabweans and Bangladeshis cannot bat against even average bowling, Johnson came in and did just the same as Harmison did, in both series, so why isn't he picked consistantly? Harmison didn't deserve Best's wicket, just as Hoggard didn't deserve Sarwan's, a dodgy LBW doesn't hint at good bowling, just luck. Yes Harmison took Gayle's wicket but the ball wasn't amazing, and Gayle basically got himself out, the edge could have just as easily missed the stumps and it was nowhere near a clever bit of bowling that took the edge and was caught or a full on, all ends up, unplayable ball that bowled him. He had a few edges off him but the batsmen tended to go at them hard and when you go at them hard, they hardly ever go to hand, certainly would have been very hard to hold on to even if they had. Certainly I do not agree that Harmison deserves to be there, if he deserves to be there then why has Johnson played so little (accepting he's injured at the moment)? The only things he's missing from having a record like Harmison's are 2 very poor series against Australia and South Africa. Why is Kirtley messed around? He took 6-32 against South Africa no less, won the Test for his team, doesn't that deserve a place? Or do you have to take wickets against weak teams? No! Johnson did that...
It just appears he's picked on pace and potential, not on ability, which he's not really showed much of at all. Marc will bring up the "the rest of the attack didn't perform" arguement but it's easy to break that down when you realise it includes Hoggard in Australia when it doesn't swing, Vaughan, Butcher, Dawson, Giles...
Admittely Jones is in the same boat, but he does tend to get the good players out (Langer, Sehwag, Lara).
If I was being petty I'd say it's unfair they keep defending his fielding, because I'm only an inch shorter, and I've been picked for a lot of teams simply on fielding ability.
