***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

I'd say it's fairly clear that both Hoggard and Harmison are better bowlers today than they were during the last Ashes tour, so I'm not really taking that into account at all. I think Hoggard and Harmison are both good bowlers, but Hoggard has done well against good batting lineups in tests and Harmison hasn't, so right now Hoggard is obviously the more proven bowler.

Anyway, I'm thinking Gillespie will put in a better showing by a bit tomorrow, but Hogg will get carted around. Australia to win by a moderate margin.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I'd say it's fairly clear that both Hoggard and Harmison are better bowlers today than they were during the last Ashes tour, so I'm not really taking that into account at all. I think Hoggard and Harmison are both good bowlers, but Hoggard has done well against good batting lineups in tests and Harmison hasn't, so right now Hoggard is obviously the more proven bowler.

Anyway, I'm thinking Gillespie will put in a better showing by a bit tomorrow, but Hogg will get carted around. Australia to win by a moderate margin.

I'm in fantastical mood. How do you think the Aus batting line-up would've faired on the same wickets at Kingston and PoS, against Harmison?

As for tomorrow I think whoever wins the toss will win the match.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

If he'd have played well against NZ instead of SA, England would have probably beaten NZ 2-1 or something and beaten SA 3-0, then you'd have said 'if he had played well against NZ I'd say he was clearly a very good bowler'. There's not a particularly big difference between NZ and SA at the moment.

Also to say Harmison isn't ahead of Hoggard is just ridiculous, Harmison has a better record against every team bar SA than Hoggard does. This is without looking at the not insignificant number of wickets Harmison can earn for the other bowlers by ruffling a few feathers.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'm in fantastical mood. How do you think the Aus batting line-up would've faired on the same wickets at Kingston and PoS, against Harmison?

As for tomorrow I think whoever wins the toss will win the match.

Don't think the toss will make much difference to be honest, it's pretty warm, clear and bright here and it should be similar weather tomorrow. .

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm in fantastical mood. How do you think the Aus batting line-up would've faired on the same wickets at Kingston and PoS, against Harmison?

As for tomorrow I think whoever wins the toss will win the match.

Personally, if he bowled like he did in that series, I think they would have absolutely murdered him. If he bowled well, who knows?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If he'd have played well against NZ instead of SA, England would have probably beaten NZ 2-1 or something and beaten SA 3-0, then you'd have said 'if he had played well against NZ I'd say he was clearly a very good bowler'. There's not a particularly big difference between NZ and SA at the moment.

Err, what? South Africa are about 50 times as good as NZ in test matches currently, particularly in terms of batting. South Africa have one of the best batsmen in the world in Kallis, a rising star in AB De Villiers, and a fairly consistent and quality pair in Smith and Gibbs. Plus they bat a long way down the list because of Pollock. South Africa have the third best batting lineup in the world after Australia and India in test matches right now, New Zealand have a poorer batting lineup than any test side excluding Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe. There's no comparison at all.

Why every English fan here things I have something against Harmison I don't know, but the fact is he's never done very well in test matches against any team with a good batting lineup. New Zealand have a very poor batting lineup, with their best player in Fleming being middle of the pack in the world at best. The West Indies have a couple of high quality batsmen in Lara and Chanderpaul, and otherwise a fairly brittle lineup. Australia, India, South Africa and England all have high quality batting lineups.

If he had done well against South Africa on those wickets I would have rated his performance quite highly, as I do with Hoggard for performing quite well in the same situation. Harmison has to prove himself against a good team, and the Ashes is an opportunity to do that, just like South Africa was.

 

[age_master]

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

are you kidding! Martyn is the best he has ever been at the moment

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why every English fan here things I have something against Harmison I don't know

Utterly ridiculous comments like this, replying to "I'm in fantastical mood. How do you think the Aus batting line-up would've faired on the same wickets at Kingston and PoS, against Harmison?"

Personally, if he bowled like he did in that series, I think they would have absolutely murdered him. If he bowled well, who knows?

 

[Scallywag]

are you kidding! Martyn is the best he has ever been at the moment

I'm a huge fan of Martyn.

But nowdays you need to have something more than just batting in ODI's.

If Aus can get better by bringing in Katich or Hussey who can bowl a bit and bring the fielding up a notch then why not. Its not about Martyn but about improving Aus.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Utterly ridiculous comments like this, replying to "I'm in fantastical mood. How do you think the Aus batting line-up would've faired on the same wickets at Kingston and PoS, against Harmison?"

Apologies. I thought he was talking about the series in South Africa, not the one in the West Indies. Didn't read it very closely.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Err, what? South Africa are about 50 times as good as NZ in test matches currently, particularly in terms of batting. South Africa have one of the best batsmen in the world in Kallis, a rising star in AB De Villiers, and a fairly consistent and quality pair in Smith and Gibbs. Plus they bat a long way down the list because of Pollock. South Africa have the third best batting lineup in the world after Australia and India in test matches right now, New Zealand have a poorer batting lineup than any test side excluding Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe. There's no comparison at all.

Not really bothered about individual comparisons, as a team SA are a little bit stronger as I've said, but they're all really in that group of 5 decent, average teams (Pakistan, India, SL, SA, NZ) that'll regularly beat each other in Test series. There's no clear gulf there like with West Indies who are clearly much weaker than those 5 or England, Australia who are clearly much stronger than those 5.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not really bothered about individual comparisons, as a team SA are a little bit stronger as I've said, but they're all really in that group of 5 decent, average teams (Pakistan, India, SL, SA, NZ) that'll regularly beat each other in Test series. There's no clear gulf there like with West Indies who are clearly much weaker than those 5 or England, Australia who are clearly much stronger than those 5.

South Africa's bowling attack isn't good enough to keep them in the same bracket as Australia and England, just like India's, but both of them have better batting lineups than England (although with promising players like Strauss and Bell coming through, England are getting better in that department), and taking wickets against South Africa is a much bigger achievement than taking wickets against New Zealand, regardless of how good the teams are. South Africa are actually on the improve again imo anyway, and I think they are probably third in the world ahead of India again now.

Anyway, ignoring that, their batting lineup is clearly very good, whatever you might say about the rest of the team, just like India. New Zealand have a very, very poor batting lineup, and West Indies have a pretty average one. Harmison is clearly a good bowler, but he can hardly be considered among the best in the world until he takes wickets against a good batting lineup. Keep in mind that I'm not saying he is incapable of doing that, just that he hasn't done it yet, and his performances in South Africa don't reflect on him very well.

World class bowlers don't maul one team and turn into absolute rubbish against another.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Absolutely correct.

Anderson is potentially a very good bowler - high action, good pace, and outswing.

He has a few kinks in his action, but what young bowler doesnt?

It's my prediction that he'll end up being a substantially better bowler than Jones, who aside from pace (and not extreme pace) offers precious little.

Apart from reverse swing, conventional swing, etc...

 

[Crazy Sam]

i agree mr wright, symonds should come in at 5. i really hope he does, but clarke seems to be flavour of the month with ricky whereas symonds obviously isn't, so who would know .

 

[biased indian]

i agree mr wright, symonds should come in at 5. i really hope he does, but clarke seems to be flavour of the month with ricky whereas symonds obviously isn't, so who would know .

who would be they dropping for symonds to fit in watson??

 

[Barney Rubble]

I'm a huge fan of Martyn.

But nowdays you need to have something more than just batting in ODI's.

If Aus can get better by bringing in Katich or Hussey who can bowl a bit and bring the fielding up a notch then why not. Its not about Martyn but about improving Aus.

Didn't Martyn use to bowl some useful medium-pacers? I swear I remember him taking a wicket or two during the last Ashes series in Oz, but then maybe he doesn't do it so much any more.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Didn't Martyn use to bowl some useful medium-pacers? I swear I remember him taking a wicket or two during the last Ashes series in Oz, but then maybe he doesn't do it so much any more.

He got Key out i remember, but saying that anyone could pick up a ball and bowl Key out

 

[Gloucefan]

He got Key out i remember, but saying that anyone could pick up a ball and bowl Key out

Everyone gives Key stick, I like him, quality batsman.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

Liam, you know how much I value your opinion - I have spoken about 'world class performances', but I don't think I've EVER referred to him as world-class. I'm old, and I use terms like that very grudgingly indeed. In my book, there are currently 3 world-class bowlers plying their trade - 2 of those are Aussie and the other is a Sri Lankan. There are a couple who might get there, but it's a term which has been done to death by others - not by me.

What is indisputable (well, in my eyes at least) is the fact that he adds another dimension to the English attack and that he is/was worth a place in any England side of the last decade for that reason alone. I would also wager that ANY other side in the world would be glad of him in their squad at least - yes, even Australia.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Liam, you know how much I value your opinion - I have spoken about 'world class performances', but I don't think I've EVER referred to him as world-class. I'm old, and I use terms like that very grudgingly indeed. In my book, there are currently 3 world-class bowlers plying their trade - 2 of those are Aussie and the other is a Sri Lankan. There are a couple who might get there, but it's a term which has been done to death by others - not by me.

What is indisputable (well, in my eyes at least) is the fact that he adds another dimension to the English attack and that he is/was worth a place in any England side of the last decade for that reason alone. I would also wager that ANY other side in the world would be glad of him in their squad at least - yes, even Australia.

I agree that he does add something to the English attack. His height, pace and bounce are all factors which can liven up proceedings. Still, I still don't consider him truly proven. In my estimation, Harmison is one of two key bowlers who enter a Test match for England. Hoggard is the other. When Harmison is off point, he can be a definite liability in the attack, especially against quality batsmen. He certainly has improved a lot since his early days, but he still has a lot of work to do to truly fill the role that England need him to.