*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[Gaijin-san]

Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?

 

[Rik]

Harvey has played 3 times as many ODIs. Watson has barely had enough time to adjust to the international scene. If you look at his first class and list a figures they're not too shabby. Give him the chance to play 65 ODIs and he'll eclipse Harvey. Watson has come back with a better and stronger action. The only way that average is going is down.

Besides, Ricky Ponting has said that Shane Watson is part of his and the selectors long-term plans, so you can take it up with him.

Oh yes of course his bowling average is going down, just like his bowling average in FC cricket has gone up 2 runs in the last year...

When I 1st saw Watson's record he averaged over 50 in Domestic OD cricket, but then of course since you said he's rarely played any ODIs and taken less wickets than ODIs he's played when Harvey takes more from less games...of course you must be right :rolleyes:

Harvey is an attacking and often very accurate bowler, people have told me Watson's basically a trundler. I'd go for Harvey any day, especially from his performances in OD cricket over here, where I've basically seen him bowl several times every year and he's been fantastic.

 

[Rik]

Did it ever occur to you, Rik, that the World Cup was last year and means nothing in the way of selections for current matches?

Yes of course it did, but it still doesn't seem to have occured to you that Harvey's performances in the World Cup were under more pressure than he's facing now, and therefor show his ability as a bowler.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.

 

[age_master]

And he very nearly lost it for us yesterday by giving India a truckload of runs (his last over goes for 22 and he's one of the best death bowlers?)

that was good batting, not bad bowling, could have happened to anyone

 

[Gaijin-san]

Wouldn't have been as bad for a really good death bowler.

 

[Rik]

Very true. Allan Border wasn't so bad 15 years ago. Doesn't mean he's good now. Doesn't mean I'd pick him, either.

Now you are just being pedantic. The World Cup was only about a year ago. Of course you wouldn't pick Border, seriously what a stupid comment! The guy's retired for starters! But also there is a big difference between performing in a WC a year ago and not performing since, and performing in a WC a year ago and performing for the next year after that as well, which, unless you really have been living in a cave, you'd realise Harvey has been doing.

 

[Tim]

Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

 

[mavric41]

I'll solve this. Harvey is for now. Watson is for the future.

(p.s. Rik - Watson is not a trundler - he is more like Bichel speed)

 

[age_master]

Harvey's death bowling yesterday was actually pretty good, but it was just sensational batting...on any other day Harvey could have taken 2 wickets in that over or only conceded 5 or 6 runs.

exactly

 

[Tim]

I don't really think you can call Ian Harvey an all-rounder at international level..but then again I don't think you could play both Harvey & Watson together, unless they dropped Clarke and the selectors were surpremely confident Watson could do the job with the bat.

Harvey may not be one of the most glamourous players around so no doubt the finger 9/10 is going to be pointed at him for not producing the goods but I think you could also look at some of the bowlers & ask why they didn't do the job?

 

[Rik]

As I said, Harvey has his own legs and his own mouth. He ran himself out.

All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.

 

[age_master]

All reports point towards Clarke running Harvey out. I'm pretty sure all the press there, who said that Clarke ran Harvey out, can't just be wrong. But then, of course they must, because according to you it was all Harvey's fault! Supporting a player is all good and fun, but not defending them every time when they are definately at fault, it just makes you look like a twit.

andre disagrees with me on this one but i really dont think harvey ran hard enough early and as such was caught short

 

[CDAK]

Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper. I'm sure it's not Harvy's fault, but Yuvraj's batting flexibility scored those 22 runs. More over I personally feel that Indians find Harvy more difficult to handle( because of his less pace) than any other bowler. No need to replace Harvy. THis AUS team is very good except for the form-out Martyn and the third seamer.( McGrath has to come back)
Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Harvy is a very good oneday bowler and writing him off just on a single expensive over is improper.

I wouldn't say Harvey is a very good ODI bowler. His economy is passable at 4.71 and his average decent at 30.13. His a decent, even good ODI bowler at best.

Also, 0/68 is better than 1/83. and 4/204

And? That still doesn't make it good! That's like comparing a century to the standard of a triple century.

 

[CDAK]

And? That still doesn't make it good! That's like comparing a century to the standard of a triple century.

What I mean is,even after those diasasterous figures,if Lee can continue then sure Harvy cannot be dropped even for a single match.

 

[Linda]

No one's saying he should be dropped, at least I'm not.
He was a replacement for Watson, and it doesnt mean he's going to be automatically dropped, of course not.
BUT after Watson plays half a dozen or so one day games at domestic level, and if he bowls and bats like he can, Harvey doesnt really stand a chance next to him.

 

[deeps]

lol, this is amusing... lay off harvey...one bad over,and ppl r ready to bite his head off! if i recall correctly,it was about a month back,in the TVS cup, that he bowld so superbly...or reminisce further back to the world cup...where he bowled brilliantly again...with respectable figures...bare in mind that he bowled plenty of overs at the death in the TVS cup and in the WC...and still maintained good economy and took wickets regularly

but if ur saying that's a thing of the past...let's think back...lets say... a few weeks... where he bowled superbly to win us the first VB match..he took 3/52 of 10 overs...a lil expensive,but considering he bowled at the death it's respectable

he also made a crucial 28...he made 22 in the 2nd match against zim


so he had one bad over... linda,u seem 2 defend martyn and saying he's going through a form slump..which has lasted a lot longer than harvey's one over slump

where's all ur form = temporary crap gone?

 

[CDAK]

For me, Harvy is like Gavin Larsen( probably a few kms faster.), takes vital wickets, controls runrate in the middle overs..so he is more valuable player than any express pace bowler and any team would like to have somebody like him.
I've n't seen Watson playing. But from other's comment I think he can be a replacement for a batting all rounder.

 

[marc71178]

That's true Jagaways. What I feel is, since Rahul upset all other people(than Indians) with his chanceless majestic performance, they need him to be down atleast somewhere.

What are you on about?

Why would the neutral match referee care if Dravid's scoring a lot of runs or no runs?