So......was Richard Dickinson right about Harmo and Graeme Smith ?

[Salamuddin]

Now if I can remember correctly, Richard always used to deride Harmison as overhyped and a 'lucky' bowler ....ie a bowler who got most of his wickets not thru his own skill but the batsmen gifting them away...

Richard also used to say that Graeme Smith was a great batsman in the making.....


Just wondering what people make of his views a year or so after he expressed them ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He was certainly right about Harmison. I don't know about the "luck" element, but about him not being accurate enough to be a consistent success at test level. Obviously way off the mark about Smith though, who he called the best since Bradman.

It's worth remembering that Richard called heaps of bowlers lucky. Basically anyone who ever got wickets in any way other than with deliveries that swung two feet was lucky. McGrath was lucky because deliveries that seam 2-3 inches aren't any good because a batsman can "adjust" to that amount of movement. Mark Ealham on the other hand was brilliant because he swung the ball. Basically, his theories about bowling were totally warped and the fact that he was more or less correct about Harmison doesn't matter much.

Wonder where he is, anyway?

 

[JASON]

So, Where is the great man (Richard) now ?

 

[luffy]

I have never been impressed with Greame Smith apart from the English tour in 2002 when he made those two double centuries. He doesn't seem to be making many runs lately and is on the verge imo of being dropped. I know its a pretty big call because he's captain but honestly he needs some runs.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I never really thought Richard understood enough about bowling...which is why he put a lot of player's successes down to luck. He was right about Harmison though, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that with that action, and not enough application, things will go horribly wrong.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I never really thought Richard understood enough about bowling...which is why he put a lot of player's successes down to luck. He was right about Harmison though, but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that with that action, and not enough application, things will go horribly wrong.

Yep. Let's not forget he (unironically) claimed to know more about Flintoff's bowling than Fred himself.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Richard also used to say that Graeme Smith was a great batsman in the making.....

Smith is only 25 years old, despite having played 50 Tests. His average is still over 47, and though he has struggled in recent times, he has also shown on occasion that he is capable of playing great innings. You surely can't write him off just yet.

 

[Jono]

You definitely cannot write-off a 25 year old, who by the time is 28-32, will have immense experience under his belt.

What you can say for definite though is, he is not the best since Bradman. I remember when Richard finally admitted that wasn't the case, and that it was almost certain he wouldn't turn out that way, his response was "well, you can hardly blame me for thinking it at the time" or something along those lines. Yikes.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was a stupid thought at the time and a stupider one now, so I feel fully within my rights to blame him for thinking it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

To be fair... he was right about both of them IMO.

 

[Jono]

To be fair... he was right about both of them IMO.

That Smith was likely to be the best batsman since Bradman?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How can you say a 25-year-old batsman is not going to be great? And more to the point, may I get the lottery numbers?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Smith is a lot better player than most people give him credit for. He has a pretty good test record, and had to cope with being captain too.

 

[The Baconator]

He seemed to think a lot of bowlers were crap, one of them was bound to prove him right.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well seeing as one of his proclamations on Harmy was "Steve Harmison is unable to bowl well", I'd give him 0/2.

 

[aussie]

Smith is only 25 years old, despite having played 50 Tests. His average is still over 47, and though he has struggled in recent times, he has also shown on occasion that he is capable of playing great innings. You surely can't write him off just yet.

I am willing to write him off already because that innings there plus the majority of his big test innings have come againts very mediocre bowling. He has failed of late because he has faced top quality bowlers and has been worked out.

Maybe as the years go by he may be able to eradicate some of his technical flaws, but for now it don't rate him..

 

[Perm]

Let's be honest, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth and VRV Singh aren't really "top class bowling" and he hasn't had to face Anil Kumble that much in the test series. He does have a very big technical flaw and drifts around his stumps and will work the ball to the leg side more than is necessary. Comparatively he is quite weak through the off side and I haven't seen him time many good shots through cover or mid off that have reached the boundary.

The point has been raised about his age and having already played 50 matches, off which he has captained an amazing 42. That is ridiculous, he started captaining South Africa when he was 21 with guys like Gary Kirsten, Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock, Jacques Kallis and Herschelle Gibbs all still in the team. Imagine being in that scenario, coming in to a test team, having a very good average of 55 after only 8 games and then being asked to captain a side which includes all this veterans and legendary South African players. No wonder the poor guy was going to have a slump in his batting, it's been 12 matches since he has scored a century in test cricket.

Talk all you like about his technical flaws, but when you think about it he has done amazingly well in his career so far. After 50 matches he has 3 double centuries and 11 centuries, almost 4000 runs at an average of 47. If that's not sucess, then I don't know what is.

 

[Turbinator]

Let's be honest, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth and VRV Singh aren't really "top class bowling" and he hasn't had to face Anil Kumble that much in the test series.

There career numbers and an overall outlook don't, by any means, suggest that they are a top class bowling attack. However, let's face it, Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth have bowled like top class bowlers in the first two test matches.

 

[Perm]

Also it should be noted that Graeme Smith has become the second youngest person to reach 4000 test runs, behind Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I am willing to write him off already

He's 25!