Steve Harmison - How good was he?

[TheJammyTurtle]

Been watching a lot of the ashes 2005 Egbaston test ball by ball shown on sky sports UK at the moment.I was only 9 years old when this actually aired and so haven’t really seen much but highlights to go off, but I was just wondering what the perception of Steve Harmison as a bowler was?He was ranked 8th in the world in this test having been number one the year previous and in the 1st innings between the sides he was probably pick of the seamers or at least top 2, although his figures didn’t show it. Nasser said on commentary that he was alongside McGrath as the top 2 seamers in the world at that point which is massive praise,and I know he had a big last year leading up to that series,with big success against West Indies and also New Zealand,but not a great time in the winter against South Africa . I was old enough though to remember that wide in the 2006/07 Ashes and that seemed to be the beginning of the end of his international career. He played the last two ashes test in 2009 with middling returns and then that was that for england at the age of 30,with Broad,Anderson,Onions,Finn and Tremlett etc taking over.

He ended with a test bowling average of a shade under 32 which is very respectable but it was under 27 during this test and it just seems the way he was talked up here he probably should have ended up with a lot more then the 226 test wickets he got. Was he a decent bowler who had a world class 12-18 months or an underachiever who should have done more?I know he had mental health problems as well which probably played a role in his decline.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Oh god, he cleaned us up in 2004..had figures of 7 for 12 or something.

 

[Bijed]

Was he a decent bowler who had a world class 12-18 months or an underachiever who should have done more?

Basically this, I'd say, although I wouldn't be generous enough to call him 'decent' outside of his 12-month or so peak - he had a few moments outside of it, but there really was no consistency IIRC and I think he was persisted with longer than, with hindsight, he should have been.

Although I didn't realise he was only 30 when he played his final test, had assumed he was a bit older than that

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He had a golden 18 months much like Vaughan did with the bat, other than that both were just decent test players.

 

[fredfertang]

On his day he was the best English quick I ever saw, though I might not say that if I'd seen John Snow or Alan Ward at full tilt

 

[Tom Flint]

He was genuinely quick, a bit of an ugly action and could often spray it around. Although for those 2 years his radar was spot on nearly every test. With his height and pace blending with an unusual action he became very difficult to play. He definitely had it in him to be consistent as 18 months is too long to just be a lucky streak. I'd be interested to know if the was any changes in his bowling coaches around that time

 

[Fuller Pilch]

He destroyed a very good NZ side in 2004. We went over there with a good team. Unfortunately Bond got injured and couldn't play. Richardson scored a lot of runs and Fleming did well but the rest collapsed to Harmison and we lost 0-3 despite being in strong positions in all the tests.

 

[kingkallis]

He was right handed version of Mitch Johnson. Well, almost!

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yet my most vivid memory of him is bowling the first ball of an Ashes to second slip.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Was in good form for a year or 2 but outside of that was pretty poor tbh

Yet my most vivid memory of him is bowling the first ball of an Ashes to second slip.

not just you. That's generally what he's known for.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really never rated him at all even when he was meant to be good. Whenever people talked about him not living up to his potential or having days where he bowled really well but wasn't rewarded or anything like that I was always really puzzled. If anything I was always much more surprised when he took a bag, and I watched him do so plenty of times.

He had an ungainly and very unrepeatable action that made him prone not only to horror days but also pressure release balls even on his good days; he wasn't express (usually bowled in the 135-140 range, with an effort ball a bit quicker); he didn't move the ball in the air and his seam presentation was never good enough to be a great seam bowler either; and he got absolutely drilled whenever he bowled full.

He was basically a bounce bowler who got it through at decent (but not express) pace, with no other redeeming qualities. He made that fairly limited package work pretty well for him in forging an effective Test career IMO.

 

[iPankajKhanna]

Steve Harmison definitely was one of the heros for England in the 2005 Ashes win and a force to be reckoned with at his peak. Got good pace and bounce.

 

[stephen]

Steve Waugh called him the "White West Indian" in his autobiography, which is high praise.

Harmison was a lot like Morkel - a guy with all the physical assets who underperformed relative to expectations. He was tall, sharp enough and got good bounce but was way too inconsistent over his career.

 

[Spikey]

i'd argue he was consistent. look at this progressive bowling summary, he was very good, and then he wasn't test quality, in quite a linear manner: Stephen Harmison - Test Cricket - Performance Analysis by Year

the old trafford match in 2006 where he took 11 wickets for the match is the only issue

 

[Tom Flint]

I really never rated him at all even when he was meant to be good. Whenever people talked about him not living up to his potential or having days where he bowled really well but wasn't rewarded or anything like that I was always really puzzled. If anything I was always much more surprised when he took a bag, and I watched him do so plenty of times.

He had an ungainly and very unrepeatable action that made him prone not only to horror days but also pressure release balls even on his good days; he wasn't express (usually bowled in the 135-140 range, with an effort ball a bit quicker); he didn't move the ball in the air and his seam presentation was never good enough to be a great seam bowler either; and he got absolutely drilled whenever he bowled full.

He was basically a bounce bowler who got it through at decent (but not express) pace, with no other redeeming qualities. He made that fairly limited package work pretty well for him in forging an effective Test career IMO.

I agree with everything there, other than he wasn't express pace. He was very quick and was one of only about 5 bowlers around who could bowl spells consistently over 90mph. He was fat and unfit at the end but up until 2005 he was rapid

 

[andruid]

Better than Saj Mahmood, not quite peak Simon Jones.

 

[quincywagstaff]

I really never rated him at all even when he was meant to be good. Whenever people talked about him not living up to his potential or having days where he bowled really well but wasn't rewarded or anything like that I was always really puzzled. If anything I was always much more surprised when he took a bag, and I watched him do so plenty of times.

He had an ungainly and very unrepeatable action that made him prone not only to horror days but also pressure release balls even on his good days; he wasn't express (usually bowled in the 135-140 range, with an effort ball a bit quicker); he didn't move the ball in the air and his seam presentation was never good enough to be a great seam bowler either; and he got absolutely drilled whenever he bowled full.

He was basically a bounce bowler who got it through at decent (but not express) pace, with no other redeeming qualities. He made that fairly limited package work pretty well for him in forging an effective Test career IMO.

Agree with this. Maybe because he didn't have a good overall record against Australia but I never rated him that highly. Was the least of England's 2005 Ashes bowling lineup imo.

I mean they say his stats don't tell the whole story for a bowler like him but they shouldn't be ignored either. How many other pace bowlers who took over 150 wickets in the past 20 years have a worse average?

 

[Woodster]

Steve Harmison was the ideal type of bowler that England were looking for at that time, someone capable of bowling truly quick spells and intimidating opposition batsmen. When everything came together for Harmison like it did mainly for those aforementioned 18 months he was hostile and could run through a batting line-up, he claimed his way up to that number 1 Test bowling spot through bowling quickly and hitting that really awkward length to attain steep bounce on a fairly consistent basis.

He actually struggled on tours where you’d expect him to represent a significant threat with his pace and bounce in Australia and South Africa but they are pretty small sample sizes with him travelling to these countries on three tours in total.

Harmison could always go for runs, at times his erratic looking action affected his radar (dramatically on occasions) and with his pace he could be picked off, but was still a wicket-taking threat. As his fitness decreased and his pace dropped his threat inevitably diminished.

I would say at his peak, he was world class quality who no batsman would relish facing, but that peak lasted about 18 months and outside of that he probably lacked the consistency (even within a Test match) to be considered a top class quick.

 

[Kirkut]

Steve Harmison - How good was he?

Kirkut thinks he was very very good. Full marks.

 

[Father Time]

Always felt he should have been picked when much younger. He was much quicker but wild. His touring stats might be misleading as from memory I think he suffered from a similar depression problem away from home as Marcus Trescothick. A right handful on his day. A big tall bloke.