***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I doubt it - because then it'll be "Well, he's not played against Norway yet. Let's see how he goes against the fish-slappers - and then there's the small matter of the bone-dry dust-bowl of the Antarctican sub-continent......" etc etc etc.

Well I think the criticism that still exists is justified. He has only performed in the West Indies really and from all accounts was below par against New Zealand, despite getting wickets. He was then largely unimpressive against the West Indies in England and even more so in South Africa.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You really think it's unreasonable to say Harmison is unproven though? He's only done well against the West Indies and New Zealand (and Bangladesh)... hardly a wide cross-section of international cricket, is it? If he had a good series in South Africa things might be different, but he was terrible there, so yes, Australia is a big test for him.

Dernit. My post was two minutes too late...

 

[social]

If it wasnt for the fact that Gillespie and Kaspa need the bowling, I'd drop them both and retain Watson. He was impressive on Sunday, can bat and field.

Bowling attack would then be McGrath, Lee, Hogg, Symonds, Watson, Hussey, Clarke

 

[social]

You really think it's unreasonable to say Harmison is unproven though? He's only done well against the West Indies and New Zealand (and Bangladesh)... hardly a wide cross-section of international cricket, is it? If he had a good series in South Africa things might be different, but he was terrible there, so yes, Australia is a big test for him.

And he's still inconsistent.

Even last Sunday he mixed up some good deliveries (Ponting and Hussey) with some crap and followed that up with rubbish yesterday.

 

[luckyeddie]

You really think it's unreasonable to say Harmison is unproven though? He's only done well against the West Indies and New Zealand (and Bangladesh)... hardly a wide cross-section of international cricket, is it? If he had a good series in South Africa things might be different, but he was terrible there, so yes, Australia is a big test for him.

Yes, I do think it's unreasonable for Harmison to remain unproven yet Anderson still seems to be rated very highly in many people's books. If he'd have had a good series in South Africa things would have been no different, and if he has a good one against Australia things will still be no different.

Margaret 'Adolf' Thatchler once said "The lady's not for turning" - and she meant that she would never change her mind once it had been made up - and that's precisely how it is with opinions about cricket. You will always think that he is rubbish, I will always think that he's got the ability to get any batsman out of his 'comfort zone', and that's all I ask - worth his place in the England side just for that, irrespective of how the next few weeks go.

Last year might well prove to have been a flash in the pan, but whatever anyone says, you cannot take it away from him, no matter how much you try.

 

[Craig]

Right now, leaving Hussey out would be grossly unfair. But, before this series, Hussey was very much a fringe player and I would even go as far as to say a surprise inclusion in the team of late. Obviously he adapts to the English pitches well, and it proved a good choice. Hopefully that might answer Nasser Hussain's repetetive questioning on why Hussey is not in the Test team.

Hussey and Katich are both players who would've got a better chance (i.e. a permanent spot, and in Hussey's case, a spot) at Test level had they been born in any other country. Katich in particular gets a raw deal from the selectors, he has hardly ever done anything wrong and they just refuse to pick him.

The reason why Hussey hasn't played for Australia in Tests because the spot hasn't been open, or if it has, he wasn't in the greatest form to be considered.

 

[Craig]

The one time a run feat is played, is the time I'm unable to watch it.

Stupid work and sleep.

 

[luckyeddie]

And he's still inconsistent.

Even last Sunday he mixed up some good deliveries (Ponting and Hussey) with some crap and followed that up with rubbish yesterday.

Well, that qualifies as the most churlish, grudging compliment anyone's ever received after ripping the heart out of your side. Obviously the five wickets against Australia were a fluke, and yesterday he returned to his true form - which was something like your bowlers did against the same player.

Well played.

*golf clap*

 

[honestbharani]

For a team, 398 by Sri Lanka against Kenya. The highest indiviual score is Saeed Anwar's 189.

Saeed made 194 and I had the pleasure of watching it LIVE.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You will always think that he is rubbish, I will always think that he's got the ability to get any batsman out of his 'comfort zone', and that's all I ask - worth his place in the England side just for that, irrespective of how the next few weeks go.

He does indeed have that ability, but if he's bowling some of the tripe that he has between such expressions of ability, how can he be proven a world-class bowler. Potential is the word and as long as it exists frequently in the assessment of a player, he is not truly proven.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Obviously the five wickets against Australia were a fluke, and yesterday he returned to his true form - which was something like your bowlers did against the same player.

Well played.

*golf clap*

This amused me immensely.

 

[Mister Wright]

Who's more spine-less ? a team still in it's infancy trying to overcome all the negativity all around managing to beat the best team in the world, or a kid who does not have the gut's to fess-up to admit he was wrong and run's and hides from his friends from an "online Forum" ?

Great post.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, I do think it's unreasonable for Harmison to remain unproven yet Anderson still seems to be rated very highly in many people's books. If he'd have had a good series in South Africa things would have been no different, and if he has a good one against Australia things will still be no different.

Err, why? I've got nothing against the guy and no interest in belittling him, he just hasn't done that well against good opposition yet. If he plays well against Australia or if he had played well against South Africa I'd say he was clearly a very good bowler. I think he's pretty good as it is, but he's not deserving of being rated among the best in the world (or ahead of Hoggard) until he does well against one of the better batting lineups in the world.

 

[Mister Wright]

i think there will be just two changes for australia in their next match. Symonds and Lee in for Watson and Kasper.

I'd go with

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Hogg
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

having symonds come in at 7 will be massive, but our bowling is a big problem. while he may not solve it, he will at least provide a better batting option than watson.

I doubt Symonds will come in at 7.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hayden's looking prone for a big innings atm, and Gilchrist is always prone for one after a few bad scores. Leave them opening, Clarke has been doing a fine job where he is, and he tends to go a bit too agressively opening anyway. Let him pick up the pieces like he is. Katich deserves a run, but I suppose he always does. Symonds should probably be somewhere around 6-7 to play the Pietersen-like role which he is capable of. Putting him up the order more hasn't been too successful in the past. It would be unfair to drop Hussey, and Ponting will obviously stay, which leads me to the conclusion that maybe Martyn should have a rest. He's good in the tests, but he never seems to end up making a huge difference to the run rate. He may be able to stabilise a top-order collapse, but we have plenty in our team that can do that too, and we have shown it in our last couple of games that we can come back from incredibly bad starts to post a decent total.

Are you serious? Symonds was on the verge of extinction when he batted at 7 & 8 and was used as a pinch hitter. He only blossomed when he batted at 5 and played like he is - a batsman who once in can get the score moving.

 

[Dasa]

Maybe it is time for Martyn to move over and let in someone younger.

Martyn has been very solid for Australia and deserves to stay but looking ahead the team needs to develop and get better.

I'd think it'd be better to drop Hayden and have Clarke opening than to drop Martyn. Hayden may be in good form now, but I don't think he's quite the ODI batsman Martyn is. They're both about the same age as well.

 

[Craig]

I doubt Symonds will come in at 7.

I don't like the idea of four main bowlers in the team as well. A geniune all-rounder say Watson for example gives the team more balance IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd think it'd be better to drop Hayden and have Clarke opening than to drop Martyn. Hayden may be in good form now, but I don't think he's quite the ODI batsman Martyn is. They're both about the same age as well.

Why drop either of them, though? Hayden and Martyn are both proven long-term performers, and Hayden might be the closest to being left out of the side but he is in top form. Katich will just have to wait.

 

[luckyeddie]

Err, why? I've got nothing against the guy and no interest in belittling him, he just hasn't done that well against good opposition yet. If he plays well against Australia or if he had played well against South Africa I'd say he was clearly a very good bowler. I think he's pretty good as it is, but he's not deserving of being rated among the best in the world (or ahead of Hoggard) until he does well against one of the better batting lineups in the world.

All I've ever maintained is that he's the best strike bowler in the genuine sense of the word to pull on an England shirt for quite some time. I've no interest in comparing him with other bowlers from other countries (I leave that to the ICC) - I'd much sooner see him taking it to batsmen, bowling as fast and with as much hostility as he can.

So much was made of that (chuckle) over against Sri Lanka the other year, and I must confess I'm (or rather the duck is) as guilty as anyone of bringing it up time and time again, but in all seriousness I'd far rather he be playing for England than against them.

As for me, I'm looking forward, not back, and the next point of focus is tomorrow's game and Jason Gillespie's attempt to get through his first over in less than 20 minutes. What do you reckon - even money?

Edit...

Why rate Hoggard higher than Harmison?

His record against Australia is far worse - but I suppose like I intimated earlier, subjectivity is everything.

 

[social]

Well, that qualifies as the most churlish, grudging compliment anyone's ever received after ripping the heart out of your side. Obviously the five wickets against Australia were a fluke, and yesterday he returned to his true form - which was something like your bowlers did against the same player.

Well played.

*golf clap*

LE,

should you ever require an antidote for insomnia then I suggest that you trawl through some of my posts on the subject because you'll find that I am a very vocal supporter of Harmison. I have constantly maintained that he is England's one real threat against Australia's batsmen and saw potential even when others were calling for his had in SA

The guy is tall, fast and obtains disconcerting movement.

However, he is still inconsistent and just as likely to be flogged as take 5 wickets on any given day but that only adds to his effectiveness.