Steve Harmison pulls out of Zimbabwe tour

[Richard]

A good economy rate only lasts so long before a chronic lack of wickets starts to tell.

If the team had 5 Gough's then they'd be conceding a lot more than just 200 a game.

Well - if they had 5 guys with Gough's figures they'd be conceding something in the region of 200 every game.
If they had 5 guys all bowling like Gough they'd (probably) be conceding more than 200.
But the fact is, they don't - they have one - and, until the 2 most recent games, Gough's record has been more than acceptible since his recall in June 2003, however poor it was in 2000\01-2002.
In those games, Gough has by and large done his job. He can't be dropped because "if we had 5 bowlers like you we'd be conceding xxx".

 

[marc71178]

2 wickets at 80odd is not "doing his job"

It is poor, and if it were Harmison or someone you don't like with those figures, you'd be calling for his head.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is wholy unfair and would not be the case were he 5 years younger.
A 28-29-year-old would never be getting the stick Gough is if he were as established as Gough.

yes which is the entire point, you cant be mediocre and mono skilled at his age!

 

[tooextracool]

You've wildy misinterpreted that.
It doesn't matter if you take 0 wickets if you bowl well - ie less than or just over 4-an-over.
Wickets only come into it if you've been expensive.

no wickets come into it on any seamers wicket, and going for over 4 runs an over and not picking up wickets on a seamer friendly wicket is just extremely poor.

Except that relative expensiveness doesn't matter if that's only relative to an exceptionally low rate.

yes it does because it means that you are quite possibly the worst in the side, that the side had to bowl fa better to get the score where it was and that the pitch was obviously a lot more favourable for the bowlers than gough made it out to be.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, if they're so infinately much better than Blignaut, Ervine and Friend it's not that surprising, is it?

your point being? yes they are far better than blignaut and co because blignaut and co are pathetic. on a scale of 1 and 10 you would give them 1 and give bracken and williams a 4.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course if it were Gough 10-1-30-1 and Harmison 7-0-34-0, you'd be criticising Harmison, but when it's this way round you say the only reason he's got these figures is because the conditions have helped him, but Gough's aren't so bad because the others are exceptional.

and of course if mcgrath came out with 1/26 while lee and warne got better figures he'd be criticising mcgrath.

 

[Richard]

2 wickets at 80odd is not "doing his job"

It is poor, and if it were Harmison or someone you don't like with those figures, you'd be calling for his head.

Rubbish, I'd never call for the head of someone going at a fraction over 4-an-over.

 

[Richard]

yes which is the entire point, you cant be mediocre and mono skilled at his age!

Why not?
If you can get away with it at Harmison, Anderson, Trescothick (no, Trescothick's bowling DOES NOT come into it - he is a net-bowler and no more) etc.'s age, why not at Gough's?
Indeed, why can Alex Wharf get away with being a no-skilled player - neither his batting nor bowling are ODI-standard and his fielding is no more than acceptible.

 

[Richard]

no wickets come into it on any seamers wicket, and going for over 4 runs an over and not picking up wickets on a seamer friendly wicket is just extremely poor.

Rubbish, if you've been economical you've done your job.
It's far better to restrict a side to 200\4 on a seaming\turning wicket than bowl them out for 190 in 35 overs, because that means the pitch has got a chance to get better.

yes it does because it means that you are quite possibly the worst in the side

Which matters not in the slightest if you're still good enough, just like it doesn't matter if you're the best in the side if you're still not good enough.
D'you really think Colin Croft worried that he was the worst in the side when he was playing with Marshall, Holding and Garner?

that the side had to bowl fa better to get the score where it was and that the pitch was obviously a lot more favourable for the bowlers than gough made it out to be.

Or he got hit a bit better than the others.

 

[Richard]

your point being? yes they are far better than blignaut and co because blignaut and co are pathetic. on a scale of 1 and 10 you would give them 1 and give bracken and williams a 4.

Personally I'd give them all a 3 and be done with it.
My point being that they weren't better than Blignaut, Ervine and Friend - they were every bit as poor.

 

[Richard]

and of course if mcgrath came out with 1/26 while lee and warne got better figures he'd be criticising mcgrath.

No, I wouldn't, because 10-26-1 is an excellent spell in any one-day game.
And, not surprisingly, McGrath is a very good one-day bowler at any level of the game on any surface.

 

[marc71178]

Rubbish, if you've been economical you've done your job.
It's far better to restrict a side to 200\4 on a seaming\turning wicket than bowl them out for 190 in 35 overs, because that means the pitch has got a chance to get better.

You what?

For a start, if a team only loses 4 wickets in 50 overs, they'll score a lot more than 200.

Secondly if you bowl them out for 190 in 35 overs, it suggests run making is possible, seeing as they scored at more than 5.5 an over.

 

[tooextracool]

Why not?
If you can get away with it at Harmison, Anderson, Trescothick (no, Trescothick's bowling DOES NOT come into it - he is a net-bowler and no more) etc.'s age, why not at Gough's?
Indeed, why can Alex Wharf get away with being a no-skilled player - neither his batting nor bowling are ODI-standard and his fielding is no more than acceptible.

because harmison is performing consistently well maybe? anderson hasnt which is why he isnt even a consistent feature in the side, so well done in bringing him up. and tresco has been far more reliable that gough has been lately. and a thing that you completely ignored was that all of them are not slow in the field, tresco in particular has a very safe pair of hands.

 

[tooextracool]

Rubbish, if you've been economical you've done your job.
It's far better to restrict a side to 200\4 on a seaming\turning wicket than bowl them out for 190 in 35 overs, because that means the pitch has got a chance to get better.

and where did you come up with the random numbers from? no if there were 5 goughs(assuming that they all got the same figures) teams would get 200+. if there were 5 harmisons taking 2/30 then they would be 150 all out. gee which one is better?
and its not like gough has been economical in most of those seamer friendly wickets either, in most cases hes gone for 4 when every else has gone for 3. if hes not taking wickets, then he must be twice as economical.

Which matters not in the slightest if you're still good enough, just like it doesn't matter if you're the best in the side if you're still not good enough.
D'you really think Colin Croft worried that he was the worst in the side when he was playing with Marshall, Holding and Garner?.

and england have such a great list of bowlers dont they?seriously if you end up being the worst bowler in a list that includes anderson and wharf then surely you cant be too proud of yourself.

Or he got hit a bit better than the others.

or he just isnt good enough to bowl as well as they can anymore?

 

[tooextracool]

No, I wouldn't, because 10-26-1 is an excellent spell in any one-day game.
And, not surprisingly, McGrath is a very good one-day bowler at any level of the game on any surface.

and i think even you would know that i was referring to the test in SA....

 

[tooextracool]

Personally I'd give them all a 3 and be done with it.
My point being that they weren't better than Blignaut, Ervine and Friend - they were every bit as poor.

yes because whenever convenient you look at potential and whenever its not you look at stats.....and when the latter proves you to be wrong you end up modifying them to try and save face.

 

[Swervy]

Which matters not in the slightest if you're still good enough, just like it doesn't matter if you're the best in the side if you're still not good enough.
D'you really think Colin Croft worried that he was the worst in the side when he was playing with Marshall, Holding and Garner?

just to pick up on that (and it is totally irrelevent)...Croft was considered the better bowler compared to marshall pretty much up to the end of his test career..anyway..on with the debate

 

[Langeveldt]

Just a thought, but seeing as nearly all of Zimbabwe's white cricketers are doing something else, isn't all this kuffuffle a waste of time? Its like trying to flog a dead horse...

 

[Neil Pickup]

They're doing something else because they can't play Internationally. Given the political situation to return to as it stood mid-90s, then I think 80%+ would go back.

 

[Richard]

You what?

For a start, if a team only loses 4 wickets in 50 overs, they'll score a lot more than 200.

Normally, yes - but if they lose 2 early wickets at a rate that causes them to score at 2-an-over for the first 20 overs, because they've got to conserve wickets and the bowling is outstanding, and whenever they try to go after it they play-and-miss.
Then they've got to score 160 in the last 30 - difficult, on a seaming pitch, but possible. With good bowling on a helpful pitch, it'll happen that way.

Secondly if you bowl them out for 190 in 35 overs, it suggests run making is possible, seeing as they scored at more than 5.5 an over.

Exactly. My point exactly.