Richard Johnson

[Rik]

Jones hasn't performed at county level, either.

He had a good season before he was picked and everything appeared to be there. Harmison has only ever had one, and that was a few years ago, ever since he's underperformed quite badly and I think it was only Brett Lee and Shoaib's successes that caused the selectors to look for quick players and they ignored Jones' previous record and Harmison's continued lack of performance. In fact a lot of Durham fans I've met seem to think Harmison is lucky to even get as many chances as he did for Durham as they felt his record was nowhere near good enough for a 1st choice pick and he appeared to have little interist and would often labour through a game. They didn't like his attitude and claimed he did work hard enough.

 

[Richard]

Hoggard opened the bowling against Zimbabwe and took up the stock-bowler role and was superbly economical.

Yet when he went to India, New Zealand, back home and to Australia he got hammered out of the park.

In India he looked a fine leader of a make-shift attack. He's got all the right qualities to become England's new ball senior bowler, especially as he swings the ball so far and with the new ball he should get the swing he needs as he tends to not be very effective without swing (see tour of Australia). As 1st change to Gough and Caddick he did a good job but with the swing he gets with the new ball and the fact that he can now swing it both ways, new ball is his best role for both himself and for England in the long run. He's not that old and he's got the right attitude and really has only had one poor series (yup that damn tour of Australia again).

Hoggard wasn't, IMO, that great in the home summer of 2002 - just in the Second and Third Tests against Sri Lanka and the first 3 innings against India he got quite a bit of poor batting. In the First Sri Lanka Test and the last 3 India innings' he got 2, 1, 1 and 1 wickets respectively.
He did well in more friendly conditions in India and New Zealand but the 2002 summer wasn't exactly what you expect from England. Australia was typical Australia and, sadly, he got absolutely hammered, except in that one burst with the second-new-ball at The SCG.

 

[Rik]

But Cork's record for Derbys is, while not as good as Caddick's for Somerset and on generally much friendlier home wickets, still better than most county bowlers.
Cork also backed-up Gough and Caddick very well in their finest hours.

I wouldn't say Cork's is that amazing, a FC average of 26-27 isn't the greatest and Caddick did take 100 wickets in a season.

 

[Richard]

He bowled superbly in India even when it didn't swing, but he's at his best when the balll swings and in NZ even McGrath managed to swing the ball!

Bad tour of Australia which is a bit of a blot in the record, considering how well he bowled in India on dead pitches with no swing, but I'm sure he will come good when he's installed as England's leader of the attack.

Bit of stereotyping there - the ball certainly swung in Bangalore (where it was overcast all match) and it seamed in Bangalore and Mohali.
The conditions were not what you'd expect in India, but we'll probably have some more typical conditions in Sri Lanka.

 

[Richard]

Actually, you've hit upon the very issue which explains his poor tour; that he didn't bowl very well. To me, he looked down on pace and down on accuracy, NOT down on swing. Sure he didn't get much swing but hey, as you said, India ain't exactly known for it's swing/seam minefields either, yet he bowled superbly well.

Maybe he was carrying an injury or just down on confidence but I don't think the fact that the ball wasn't swinging much is an adequate explanation for his poor tour.

Far as I know he was fully fit, and he bowled well in the burst on the third morning at The SCG.
The explanation, for me, is that the batting was better in Australia than it had at times been in the summer of 2002.
His accuracy has been good of late, but it certainly wasn't before this summer.

 

[Richard]

Harmison? :saint:

Is Anderson being called up for the rest of the tour? or just the Tests or ODIs?

If so, I still don't think he's had enough of a break. Would like to see him rested until the W.I. tour where he won't be expected to bowl long spells without reward as he is likely to on the sub-continent.

West Indies ain't much different to the subcontinent. No real swing, no real seam, slow, low pitches...

 

[Richard]

I think Duncan Fletcher has finally lost his rocker, he goes on record on Teletext claiming Rikki Clarke has the ability to play in the same side as Flintoff despite both being very much batting all-rounders. Wow I never knew good performances against weak opposition really ment that much, well they don't to Richard Johnson...

But the craziest bit of all is he claims "Hoggard is still not a First Choice England Test Bowler" despite his 9 wicket haul in the series, his man of the series award, the fact that he's looked ever since India and New Zealand (ignoring Australia and the 2nd Test against Zimbabwe and the whole SA Test series he was injured) that he's the new leader of England's attack. To really question his sanity he puts forward that if fit, Steve Harmison, James Anderson and Andy Flintoff would be the main members of the attack. Presumably with his mate Giles in the squad and Batty banished for out-bowling him. I said earlier that Hoggard would really respond well to encouraging messages that he was to lead the attack, but no, despite all he's done he's still rated behind an all-rounder who averages over 50 as a bowler...and Fletcher is talking about his bowling!

Duncan, I hope you didn't say that just for your sake, as it's right up there with all the crap Illy said when he was in charge.

If Duncan really said that it's one of his worst comments ever.

 

[Richard]

He had a good season before he was picked and everything appeared to be there. Harmison has only ever had one, and that was a few years ago, ever since he's underperformed quite badly and I think it was only Brett Lee and Shoaib's successes that caused the selectors to look for quick players and they ignored Jones' previous record and Harmison's continued lack of performance. In fact a lot of Durham fans I've met seem to think Harmison is lucky to even get as many chances as he did for Durham as they felt his record was nowhere near good enough for a 1st choice pick and he appeared to have little interist and would often labour through a game. They didn't like his attitude and claimed he did work hard enough.

Brett Lee's success? Averaging nearly 40 since his injury? :O :O
To be fair, though, Harmison did OK in county-cricket last season. His only international performance of note was the 4 for 33 in the last innings.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say Cork's is that amazing, a FC average of 26-27 isn't the greatest and Caddick did take 100 wickets in a season.

Yes, Cork's isn't as good as it should be - anywhere near - but it's better than most. Silverwood is one of a few who comes parallell.
Caddick's is better than anyone around today.

 

[Rik]

If Duncan really said that it's one of his worst comments ever.

I have a feeling he did say it.

Hoggard comes out of the series with his reputation still on an upward climb and he puts him right down.

Honestly this is the guy who drops Batty for Giles with no explination and nothing to back it up.

He also claims Clarke has shown himself to be exactly what England need, yes right Duncan, someone who does well against the weak sides and rubbish against the best. It's not what we need, it's what we've got too much of already.

Oh yes and he thinks Flintoff (bowling average 50), Harmison (explained so many times), and Anderson (over 30 but only from 6 Tests) would be 1st choice over Hoggard. Oh yes right. And this is the guy in charge of our team? I'd expect it of Illingworth but I thought we had learnt from that mistake...

 

[Rik]

Brett Lee's success? Averaging nearly 40 since his injury? :O :O
To be fair, though, Harmison did OK in county-cricket last season. His only international performance of note was the 4 for 33 in the last innings.

Early success. Remember what he did in his 1st 10 Tests? You could see the England selectors were getting excited about Pace when Shoiab and Lee toured England a few years ago. The fact that they both did very little didn't matter one jot in their eyes.

 

[Richard]

I have a feeling he did say it.

Hoggard comes out of the series with his reputation still on an upward climb and he puts him right down.

Honestly this is the guy who drops Batty for Giles with no explination and nothing to back it up.

He also claims Clarke has shown himself to be exactly what England need, yes right Duncan, someone who does well against the weak sides and rubbish against the best. It's not what we need, it's what we've got too much of already.

Oh yes and he thinks Flintoff (bowling average 50), Harmison (explained so many times), and Anderson (over 30 but only from 6 Tests) would be 1st choice over Hoggard. Oh yes right. And this is the guy in charge of our team? I'd expect it of Illingworth but I thought we had learnt from that mistake...

It really baffles all logic that someone can believe the contents of that last paragraph. I'm not Hoggard's greatest fan but I would not begin to question his MOTS for Bangladesh. He bowled superbly almost without fail.
I've always been a huge admirer of Duncan in most of his early days (I just thought his crown was slipping in summer 2002) but he could be losing it. Still, reading this board, newspapers and letters, I don't by any means think he's the only one. I'd give him the "no-one can do better" benefit of the doubt, given his early well-doing.

 

[Rik]

It really baffles all logic that someone can believe the contents of that last paragraph. I'm not Hoggard's greatest fan but I would not begin to question his MOTS for Bangladesh. He bowled superbly almost without fail.
I've always been a huge admirer of Duncan in most of his early days (I just thought his crown was slipping in summer 2002) but he could be losing it. Still, reading this board, newspapers and letters, I don't by any means think he's the only one. I'd give him the "no-one can do better" benefit of the doubt, given his early well-doing.

One thing that grates with me about Fletcher is that he has definate ideals of players which often turn out very very wrong and he will continue to pick players despite not having anything to back him up and will claim it's because he doesn't want to "change a winning team" or often doesn't give one. I don't feel he is ruthless enough, he will refuse to drop a player who's not performing because, I feel, he either cannot bring himself to or he believes the player is good enough to come over it despite not performing for a couple of years (yes it's Giles again). I doubt he will ever pick Smith or Ward or McGrath again in Tests because probably they are not one of the chosen bunch who will be picked weather they perform or not (read Giles, Flintoff, Harmison to name a few), and will ignore people who do perform such as Johnson and Saggers but who will probably not get many other chances and I'm quite shocked even got a go.

At the moment Vaughan is not the best captain England have and Fletcher isn't the best coach, and don't let me get started on the selectors...

 

[marc71178]

I doubt he will ever pick Smith or Ward or McGrath again in Tests because probably they are not one of the chosen bunch who will be picked weather they perform or not (read Giles, Flintoff, Harmison to name a few),

Sorry, but at the moment, you cannot seriously suggest that Harmison and Flintoff aren't performing.

 

[Rik]

Sorry, but at the moment, you cannot seriously suggest that Harmison and Flintoff aren't performing.

I can point to their South Africa series averages:

9 wickets at 45.88 for Harmison
10 wickets at 59.20 for Flintoff (career average 49.95 now)

I think I can.

I'm not just going by statistics, however much you claim Flintoff (I was only talking about bowling, not batting) bowled well I watched every Test and, although accurate, his bowling was very bland and although in ODIs this approach has served him well, it doesn't work for him in Tests.Harmison was frankly awful until the last innings of the series, and anyone who watched that series will agree with me.

 

[Rik]

I'm just posting this cause it's interisting and when I looked up Harmison's stats it looked like a pretty good reason for a stat attack...

This is not supposed to cause any arguement or any disagreement at all.

In Steve Harmison's Test career he's played 12 Tests and taken part in 5 series. In the 2 5 Test series he's taken part in (Australia in Australia and South Africa in England) he has missed one Test both times. He's taken 9 wickets in every single series he's participated in except his debut series against India in which he only played one Test. Against Bangladesh he was poised to break this sequence after taking 9 in the 1st Test until an old back injury flaired up after sitting down for a long period of time. His record is as follows:

Vs. India in England 1 Test, 9 Wickets at 24.00

Vs. Australia in Australia, 4 Tests, 9 wickets at 50.55

Vs. Zimbabwe in England, 2 Tests, 9 wickets at 16.44

Vs. South Africa in England, 4 Tests, 9 wickets at 45.88

Vs. Bangladesh in Bangladesh, 1 Test, 9 wickets at 8.77

Who's betting against him taking 9 in Sri Lanka?

 

[Craig]

I could not disagree with Rik or Richard here.

The thing I have learned over the year or so, is that it serves you well to fall in favour with the coach or selectors, as you will continue to ge t picked whether you are performing or not.

Croft, Brown, Keedy (Ok I have checked his record in a while so I am not sure) are perhaps good enough to make the England team and are really no worse then Giles and Batty, but proably dont get picked because they are perhaps out of favour with the selectors.

 

[Tim]

The glaring factor in Harmison's stats are that against the two best sides Australia & South Africa he is averaging 50.55 & 45.88 respectively.

Just about any bowler can average less than 15 against Zimbabwe (especially on tracks helping the seamers) & Bangladesh these days.

His effort against India was pretty good though.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, Cork's isn't as good as it should be - anywhere near - but it's better than most. Silverwood is one of a few who comes parallell.
Caddick's is better than anyone around today.

Yet in tests they were (as near as dammit) identical.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'd be really worried if we had to rely on Harmison and Flintoff to get the wickets.

To tell the truth, throw Jones and Clarke into that equation too.

I'd be really worried if we had to rely on Anderson to keep things tight.

I'm still not convinced by Hoggard - although I'm getting there slowly.

Face it - England's seam attack can go either way at the moment. It could develop into one of the more potent in world cricket - or it could be total shash.

Watch this space.