Steve Harmison v Brett Lee

[Top_Cat]

Right now, I'd pick Lee but only because I like guys who, even when they're getting belted, are putting in absolutely everything they've got. I really, really like Harmi and he frustrates me because he has the raw ingredients to be a top-level Test bower. Why he hasn't been able to put it all together is beyond me.

That said, I think both Lee and Harmi are about to turn the corner; this Ashes series where they go head-to-head as the respective leaders of their attacks will be very interesting......

 

[Perm]

At the moment I would take Lee over Harmison just for the fact that his attitude his better and he tries hard, that kind of person is somebody you need in your team. However if Harmison gets a pitch that suits his bowling he is basically unplayable, the same of which cannot be said for Lee in tests.

 

[grecian]

Again Harmison is fairly good with the bat down the order when he bothers, should be above Hoggard. But most of the time he looks as though he'd rather be somewhere else.

Your so right there, in fact, maybe more so then his bowling, the guy can hit the ball, has a decent technique. He should be averaging about 19, but he doesn't seem to care.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not intending to have a go at anyone, and there are many exceptions, but I'm a bit amazed by how many English cricket fans you see on here who don't seem to have seen or even heard about any cricket in recent times outside of the Ashes and the games England play. We didn't get the English subcontinent tours on TV here, but most Australian cricket fans would still at least be aware of who the English players who performed well and so on are.

Judging Lee's current form on the Ashes would be like totally writing off Ian Bell as an international batsmen based on his Ashes series. He has in fact played 12 test matches and 20+ ODIs since then, and surely anyone who even read match reports from the home summer would know that he bowled well and that The Oval is not entirely representative of his range of abilities. Also seen English people on here recently suggesting Hayden won't be an issue in the Ashes or even that he should be dropped, despite the fact that he's scored 5 centuries in the last year and averaged 73 in the home summer.

 

[silentstriker]

Not intending to have a go at anyone, and there are many exceptions, but I'm a bit amazed by how many English cricket fans you see on here who don't seem to have seen or even heard about any cricket in recent times outside of the Ashes and the games England play. We didn't get the English subcontinent tours on TV here, but most Australian cricket fans would still at least be aware of who the English players who performed well and so on are.

I've found that, in general, Australians pay a lot more attention to all cricket whereas England tends to focus in very much on the Ashes.

Obviously, thats the series that is the most important to both countries and when it's exciting, there is very little that can match it. But Australia seems to care, and focus, on each series and winning that series. England's focus seems to be 'well, we'll treat all these tours as tryouts for the Ashes.' It's up to them in terms of what they see as most important, but I don't think it benefits them to be so singlularly attached to one series.

Australia always pays a lot of attention to the tours to subcontinent, which a lot of players don't personally like visiting (no night life, different culture, etc). But Aussies tend to try to make the best of it, whereas English players just want to find an excuse to pull out.

Anyway, I agree that Ashes are the most important to both countries and its OK to have favorites, but I don't know if such singular focus is a good thing.

I'm not singling out any English fan on this board, since a lot of them here are some of the most knowledgable about the game - but thats just the feeling I get when listening to most english fans or their media. Maybe an Englishman would like to give their opinion on this? I know about four or five English cricket fans personally, and they all pretty much only care about the Ashes. When pakistan visited, it was all about 'well yea, he is doing well but how's he going to do in the Ashes?'. Even in SL or India, "Yea, well Flintoff is doing well in India, but maybe they should let him rest in all Tests until the next Ashes." That type of thing. Of course, thats just anecdotal evidence - but it seems to be corroborated when I hear a lot of the commentary by English media (on air and paper commentary). Nothing overt, but just a general feeling of 'Yea, but what about the Ashes?'

 

[Pedro Delgado]

This may sound like ******** as I'm a little worse for wear.

Well I can't comment too much on his summer if I ain't seen any of it. I follow as much foreign international cricket as I can, mostly by reading threads on here and reading the odd report here too. Tbh it didn't seem like Aus had that much cricket really.

Some players one is naturally wary of, they don't perform against us so sometimes you take their "improvement" with a pinch of salt, Lee is one of those, he has done well against other teams before and not transferred it to the Ashes. I also know that just like Harmy, Lee has a fair few blind fans that will big him up and say he's the mañana man forever.

As for the Ashes, tbh in the dark 90s it felt like we were playing you far too many times for my liking, as soon as any progress was made all hope was dashed on the rocks of Australia, so although I looked forward to 'em I think I enjoyed the series' we had a chance in more. The summer gone against SL and Pak were very interesting and the grounds were full, there was some talk about the Ashes and I agree we are a little obsessed about the auld match (time was when every Aussie was just as obsessed, maybe they just got bored of beating us) but to say the early series' were training for the winter is nonsense, SL are always a challenge with Murali about and there's always summat to chew on when Pak are in town (as we saw yet again) plus it was a honour to have Yousaf and Younis about, and the fast bowlers were a treat to watch as usual. If we'd taken our eye of the ball we'd have been thumped.

Not sure any of that makes sense really, maybe I should've stayed in bed.

 

[GIMH]

Not intending to have a go at anyone, and there are many exceptions, but I'm a bit amazed by how many English cricket fans you see on here who don't seem to have seen or even heard about any cricket in recent times outside of the Ashes and the games England play. We didn't get the English subcontinent tours on TV here, but most Australian cricket fans would still at least be aware of who the English players who performed well and so on are.

Judging Lee's current form on the Ashes would be like totally writing off Ian Bell as an international batsmen based on his Ashes series. He has in fact played 12 test matches and 20+ ODIs since then, and surely anyone who even read match reports from the home summer would know that he bowled well and that The Oval is not entirely representative of his range of abilities. Also seen English people on here recently suggesting Hayden won't be an issue in the Ashes or even that he should be dropped, despite the fact that he's scored 5 centuries in the last year and averaged 73 in the home summer.

I agree with you Sean, but let's be honest, there are plenty of Aussies on here who give Bell no chance of scoring any runs down under, ignoring the fact that he scored three centuries in three this summer, and that his one-day form was nothing short of excellent. There's also many Aussies who were dismissive of Geraint's keeping skills because he dropped a few clangers in the Ashes, yet his keeping was really, really good post-Ashes, and his batting was what let him down.

I think it works both ways, Aussies are just as guilty of it as us poms - if I was to judge Lee just on the Ashes though, I'd have a high opinion of him anyway, his stats meant nothing to me, he was a star here last year, and he will trouble us down under, no doubt.

 

[GIMH]

I've found that, in general, Australians pay a lot more attention to all cricket whereas England tends to focus in very much on the Ashes.

Obviously, thats the series that is the most important to both countries and when it's exciting, there is very little that can match it. But Australia seems to care, and focus, on each series and winning that series. England's focus seems to be 'well, we'll treat all these tours as tryouts for the Ashes.' It's up to them in terms of what they see as most important, but I don't think it benefits them to be so singlularly attached to one series.

Australia always pays a lot of attention to the tours to subcontinent, which a lot of players don't personally like visiting (no night life, different culture, etc). But Aussies tend to try to make the best of it, whereas English players just want to find an excuse to pull out.

Anyway, I agree that Ashes are the most important to both countries and its OK to have favorites, but I don't know if such singular focus is a good thing.

I'm not singling out any English fan on this board, since a lot of them here are some of the most knowledgable about the game - but thats just the feeling I get when listening to most english fans or their media. Maybe an Englishman would like to give their opinion on this? I know about four or five English cricket fans personally, and they all pretty much only care about the Ashes. When pakistan visited, it was all about 'well yea, he is doing well but how's he going to do in the Ashes?'. Even in SL or India, "Yea, well Flintoff is doing well in India, but maybe they should let him rest in all Tests until the next Ashes." That type of thing. Of course, thats just anecdotal evidence - but it seems to be corroborated when I hear a lot of the commentary by English media (on air and paper commentary). Nothing overt, but just a general feeling of 'Yea, but what about the Ashes?'

When are you gonna cease with this nonsense? As Pedro said, grounds were full this summer, certainly there were higher attendances for our test matches than the ones we played in Pakistan and India. When I went along to England-Pakistan, I didn't do so thinking, "oooh this will be a nice build up to the Ashes" I did so to see England play Cricket against one of the world's better sides, and hopefully to see England win, and I was rewarded, with centuries from Cook and Bell. When I celebrated their tons, I wasn't thinking, "I hope they do this in the Ashes" I was just glad they had scored a ton. When we finished off Pakistan the next day, for a three-day victory, i wasn't thinking, "the Aussies will be quaking" I was just glad we had won. What rubbish.

I also did my best last winter to watch Australia V West Indies/South Africa and Australia in South Africa, I was gutted that I couldn't find coverage of India V Pakistan, and enjoyed South Africa V New Zealand. We're not as insular as people seem to think, all Cricket fans I know enjoy watching all Cricket, and Cricket debates in the pub aren't Botham 81 V Flintoff 05, they're Lara V Tendulkar or (dareIsayit) Warne V Murali.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Indeed. Even last night on the razz a friend and I were still discussing Hair, Inzi and the ICC plus the ICCCCCCCT coming up (even though it's JAMODIT tbh) and not a mention of the Ashes. Also there are cricket followers from around the globe that weren't really that bothered about the Ashes, not matter how great a series it was.

 

[Matt79]

it's because cricket is only meaningful when Australia is playing. Good news for Aussies, but t means you can't really blame the Poms for viewing everything else as a preview!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'd rather Brett Lee be an Englishman and Harmison and an Aussie, than the way it is now.

 

[Kyles_fast]

Personally I think Brett Lee has developed as a test match bowler alot since the Ashes and will be a force to be reckoned with in the next Ashes, not saying that he had a bad Ashes series.

It will be a good battle between them but I think brett lee is the better bowler or the one I would have in my side. He's quick, has lethal outswing and a fantastic short ball. He has wised up since the oval test and with Troy Cooley in Australia is bowling is going to go from strength to strength.

Another quick to watch out for is Mitchell Johnson from Australia. I've seen him first hand in domestic cricket and he looks the goods. Not to mention the great form he showed in Malaysia. Could be a trump card if he gets picked.

 

[Johnners]

I agree with you Sean, but let's be honest, there are plenty of Aussies on here who give Bell no chance of scoring any runs down under, ignoring the fact that he scored three centuries in three this summer, and that his one-day form was nothing short of excellent. There's also many Aussies who were dismissive of Geraint's keeping skills because he dropped a few clangers in the Ashes, yet his keeping was really, really good post-Ashes, and his batting was what let him down.

I think it works both ways, Aussies are just as guilty of it as us poms - if I was to judge Lee just on the Ashes though, I'd have a high opinion of him anyway, his stats meant nothing to me, he was a star here last year, and he will trouble us down under, no doubt.

Agreed on that note. I'm amazed how many people seem to think Lee bowled poorly last year. Given the fact that it was his 1st test series in 20 months, and he virtually had the role of leading the pace attack after the 1st test, he was fantastic. He did bowl some poor spells, and leak runs, but he sure bowled his fair share of great spells as well.

On the note of Harmison v. Lee though, as most people have said, if the pitch is to his liking, i'd take Harmison anyday. However, too often he seems to just be making up the numbers. Lee has improved a helluva lot though in the last 12 months, and just how he stacks up against Harmison in the ashes IMO would decide the debate.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Agreed on that note. I'm amazed how many people seem to think Lee bowled poorly last year. Given the fact that it was his 1st test series in 20 months, and he virtually had the role of leading the pace attack after the 1st test, he was fantastic. He did bowl some poor spells, and leak runs, but he sure bowled his fair share of great spells as well.

Lee was straight up and down virtually the whole series. So what if he was fast? He didn't do diddly with the ball and virtually every wicket he got was through a loose shot - he hardly ever bowled someone out properly like for instance taff did with his reverse swing. Once someone got in Lee was never going to get them out - in fact Lee would just get smashed about even more so and the game would get away faster. If Lee had bowled well he'd have been able to get anyone out at anytime with a snorter of a delivery and then follow it up with 2-3 more quick wickets. He didn't do that, he was almost wholly reliant on gormless batting to make inroads - not the sign of a good bowling performance, just a sign of England's russian roulette batting style.

The way Hoggard played Lee with a stick of rhubarb on the last day summed it up for me. Without movement most bowlers are easily played, Lee is no exception.

 

[marc71178]

There's certainly no question that in the last 12 months Lee has been a better test bowler than Harmison

If that were so, it's intriguing that Lee's still at number 20 in the world if he's been that good over 12 months...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If that were so, it's intriguing that Lee's still at number 20 in the world if he's been that good over 12 months...

Obviously the ratings take into account more than just the last 12 months. Fancy that eh?

Incidentally, since the Super Series, their test record are:
Lee - 11 tests, 50 wickets @ 26.34. SR: 49.2, econ: 3.21
Harmison - 9 tests, 37 wickets @ 30.39. SR: 56.86, econ: 3.21

And relative to the discussion of consistency, take away their best match each and Harmison has 26 wickets @ 40.31 to Lee's 44 wickets @ 27.91. Lee had a 7 wicket match too, but it cost about 160 so he'd have a better average without it than without the 6/89 against the West Indies.

If you don't think that constitutes a better year for Lee than Harmison, I'd be interested to hear the argument. As I said, Lee's been a fair bit better in the last year, and Harmison was obviously a far more successful test bowler prior to that.

 

[silentstriker]

When are you gonna cease with this nonsense?

What? I specifically asked for an English opinion, as that was the general feeling I got. I did not say it was accurate, it just seemed like it was true. I don't claim to be an expert on the limey fans, mine was just an honest inquiry. You don't think so, and thats fair.

 

[marc71178]

I was questioning exactly how good he has been, since he is still at 20 after that year.

And the ratings are actually set up so that the most recent year has the greatest effect...

 

[grecian]

Its not so much judging on the Ashes, but the only time I've seen him bowl live, which happened to be in the Ashes

Thyis is bound to have a bigger effect on my judgement then watching him on the tellybox, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Matt79]

You know what this thread is missing?

A frothing at the mouth with indignation Richard decrying Harmison and his achievements. Bring back Corky I say!