Stephen Harmison or Dominic Cork?

[marc71178]

He wasn't, there were only 2 deliveries out of the 11 that took wickets that were genuine wicket-taking deliveries.

He looked like getting batsmen out at will.

Genuinely quick and lots of bounce left the batsmen in all sorts of problems.

 

[wpdavid]

I can't help thinking that several guys are understating Cork's record by a bit and overstating Harmison by a heck of a lot.

Regarding Cork, those suggesting that he only performed at home have forgotten the SA tour in 1995/6, where he performed perfectly well, averaging about 25. Even if he did nothing after then, that SA lineup and the WI side in 1995 were significantly better, imo, than the sides that Harmison came across in his brief good spell during 2004.

As for Harmson, all the talk about him being inconsistent is simply untrue. Apart from that period in 2004, he's been enormously consistent, and it hasn't been pretty. It's one thing to trot out the theoretical advantages of having a guy with his height & pace in the side, but it's rarely added up to much in reality. And the idea that he makes wickets for others is just daft: the truth is there have been far too many times when Flintoff has had to come to our rescue after Harmy has completely wasted the new ball. Since the summer of 2004, his good performances cagainst proper test sides an be counted on the fingers of one hand - Lords Day 1 in 2005, a couple of decent attempts in Pakistan and India in tough conditions, and Old Trafford day 1 in 2006. And that's it. It isn't a question of him being inconsistent, or not doing the biz quite as often as we'd like. Truth is he's abysmal about 85% of the time. Now if people prefer that to Corky, then that's up to them ...

 

[tooextracool]

People tend to forget that Harmison actually did have an excellent series in Pakistan. If you get rid of the last test(he was averaging 21 after the first 2 tests) where every England bowler got hammered, Harmison was actually our best bowler and was genuinely hostile and had a fair few of the Pakistan batsmen in a spot of bother. For one thing, Hasan Raza never had a clue how to play him and it gives you an indication of what he can do when he has his head straight.
And no he hasnt bowled anywhere near as well since, but the fact is that you could also count Cork's good performances on one hand, because when the ball didnt swing he was not only ineffective, but he also used to get the daylights hammered out of him. His ER is only marginally below Harmison's despite bowling on a plethora of swinging conditions so it wasnt like he was fulfilling the pollock role either

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, those (in Pakistan) are the tests I was alluding to. tbf I vaguely recall him bowling quite well at times in India, even if his figures weren't all that, so perhaps we're talking about the fingers & thumb of one had.

So what do we have since the summer of 2004? No good tests out of 5 in SA. One out of five against Aus. Two out of two in Pakistan, on the basis that the third doesn't really count on that wicket. Possibly one good test out of 3 in India. One out of four at home to Pakistan. And, if we're being generous, one out of five in Aus. And actually all of that is being generous, because in several of those games he only did his bit in one innings. He's a very lucky man - you really couldn't see many of the other test sides putting up with that sort of return. He reminds me a lot of Andy Caddick, another player who regularly failed to make the most of his attributes, and also one who was overly fond of excuses.

Obviously the Cork things a bit of a false issue. I still think he's getting a raw deal from some of the posters here, but they're different types of bowlers and we're not really comparing like with like. Maybe Harmison vs Caddick would be a better question, in that sense. I do think a combination of Harmison's attributes and Cork's attitude (apart from the occasional dickhead tendencies) would be handy though.

 

[Goughy]

I get the impression from previous posts that you are roughly the same age as me.

Now I dont believe anyone of legal drinking age or older in the early-mid 90s could consider Cork anything but an average Test bowler and a hard working and bustling County pro.

 

[wpdavid]

I get the impression from previous posts that you are roughly the same age as me.

Now I dont believe anyone of legal drinking age or older in the early-mid 90s could consider Cork anything but an average Test bowler and a hard working and bustling County pro.

Sounds about right. He was very good for a while, but at the end of the day "average test bowler" is a fair assessment. And it's also no disgrace, fwiw. What I was trying to address is the implication in some previous posts that he was rather less than that.

Which brings us on to Harmison, who, for all his supposed attributes, has actually been well below average for around 80% of the last two years. Of course I completely understand the logic in your analysis what Harmison supposedly brings to the side, but I just can't see that it's rooted in reality. It's a lovely theory, but he just doesn't do it.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, those (in Pakistan) are the tests I was alluding to. tbf I vaguely recall him bowling quite well at times in India, even if his figures weren't all that, so perhaps we're talking about the fingers & thumb of one had.

So what do we have since the summer of 2004? No good tests out of 5 in SA. One out of five against Aus. Two out of two in Pakistan, on the basis that the third doesn't really count on that wicket. Possibly one good test out of 3 in India. One out of four at home to Pakistan. And, if we're being generous, one out of five in Aus. And actually all of that is being generous, because in several of those games he only did his bit in one innings. He's a very lucky man - you really couldn't see many of the other test sides putting up with that sort of return. He reminds me a lot of Andy Caddick, another player who regularly failed to make the most of his attributes, and also one who was overly fond of excuses.

Obviously the Cork things a bit of a false issue. I still think he's getting a raw deal from some of the posters here, but they're different types of bowlers and we're not really comparing like with like. Maybe Harmison vs Caddick would be a better question, in that sense. I do think a combination of Harmison's attributes and Cork's attitude (apart from the occasional dickhead tendencies) would be handy though.

Harmison had his moments in the 2nd test of the India series, but by and large i think his performances werent upto the mark and most people felt the same around that time.

For mine i think we can segregate his pre India tour performances from his post India tour performances. IMO his Ashes 2005 performance and his performances in Pakistan are not quite represented in his statistics and that he actually bowled a better than those figures suggest even if he wasnt brilliant. Since then however he has been rubbish, and theres no way anyone can claim otherwise.

I do agree with you that he is a bit like Caddick, although Caddick rarely sprayed the ball in such a manner and usually just tended to bowl too short or too full. Similarly i think Cork is only marginally better than Mark Ealham (and such a comparison would be more apt), both of whom will go down as having excellent test and FC records, that misrepresent their bowling abilities as they are nothing more than county pros.

 

[Richard]

He looked like getting batsmen out at will.

Genuinely quick and lots of bounce left the batsmen in all sorts of problems.

Looked like being the key words. He's looked like it many times.

In reality, he didn't. They got themsevles out.

(Mostly - in all bar 2 cases)

 

[Richard]

Similarly i think Cork is only marginally better than Mark Ealham (and such a comparison would be more apt), both of whom will go down as having excellent test and FC records, that misrepresent their bowling abilities as they are nothing more than county pros.

Now that really is silly. For starters, neither of their Test records are just-about-acceptible, for 2nds neither of their First-Class records are anything other than fairly reasonable.

For 3rd, Cork had all sorts of things Ealham never did, number-one being the ability to bowl the surprise delivery, be that a quicker-ball, Yorker, one that swung in the opposite direction, or even a short-ball (and yes, a short-ball at 83mph can be effective). Not to mention the fact that he was taller and everso slightly quicker, as well as having a better action that enabled him to swing the ball more elaborately.

 

[Richard]

I get the impression from previous posts that you (wpdavid) are roughly the same age as me.

Without wanting to touch any nerves in either of you, I think Dave's a few years older than you, Kev.

I know for certain that he first got into this game in 1971.

 

[wpdavid]

Aye, and it seems like longer ...