Steve Harmison v Brett Lee

[Salamuddin]

Who do you think is the better test match bowler ?

 

[nightprowler10]

Depends on the pitch. If you take something like the Old Trafford pitch, Harmison is unplayable. But overall I'd say Lee is more consistent, at least from what I've seen.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Depends on the pitch. If you take something like the Old Trafford pitch, Harmison is unplayable. But overall I'd say Lee is more consistent, at least from what I've seen.

Harmison does good only when the conditions help where's Lee may be an excellent ODI bowler but he is useless in tests.Both aren't great but I'd pick Lee because he has more experience.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

It really should be "who is less dear".

Anyway, they both have strengths and weaknesses, neither will go down as greats, but I'd go for Steve as steepling bounce and pace is more of a problem than just pace (in this match-up). That and he's a big daft Geordie who when faced with the prospect of no beer in Pakistan took the Lovejoy DVDs out to entertain the team. Quality.

In ODIs Lee is a mile ahead of course but I'm not really arsed about that stuff.

 

[grecian]

Lees a whole-hearted trier, and fast as light, but he doesn't get bounce, because of his lack of hgeight, and doesn't do much with the ball.

Harmison on the other hand seems to be disinterested half the time, and only gets up for it when the pitch is to his liking.

Ideally I'd like a combination of the two, tbh.

So in conclusion, I'm not sure..............

 

[Scaly piscine]

Lee has been pretty poor really since his first 7 Tests when he had incredible figures, he averages over 35 with the ball since then.

Harmison is clearly the better Test bowler. Lee the better bowler in the mickey mouse stuff.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Lees a whole-hearted trier, and fast as light, but he doesn't get bounce, because of his lack of hgeight, and doesn't do much with the ball.

Harmison on the other hand seems to be disinterested half the time, and only gets up for it when the pitch is to his liking.

Ideally I'd like a combination of the two, tbh.

So in conclusion, I'm not sure..............

Almost a vote there

Agree to a certain extent, Harmy is a bugger for making excuses, see his "aye canny pitch let's have more like it though but" speech after Old Trafford against Pak. I don't remember Curtly chewing too much about flat wickets.

Still prefer him to Lee but.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Generally speaking, Harmison is better in tests. Lee's come a long way in the last year or so though, and if he bowls like he did last summer in tests all the time, he'll be better.

Incidentally, when I say "last summer" I'm referring to the Australian summer, not the Ashes.

 

[wpdavid]

Who do you think is the better test match bowler ?

If the pitch suits, if he fancies it, and if the opposition are a bit out of sorts or just not very good anyway, then Harmison's your man. Most of the time you'll get more from Lee though.

 

[Loots]

Harmison's performances depend massively on the pitch, and I think on a flat track I'd prefer to have Lee. But you would never get Lee blowing away teams in the fashion that Harmison does (West Indies Tour, First Test) when the wicket favours the bowler. So I also vote with the undecided majority.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Lee.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Yes Lee has improved, if only he could bowl the way he did in the final knock at Trent Bridge. I realise that it was an extra gear in the circumstances, but what seperates the greats from the also-rans is the ability to perfom great deeds day-to-day as well as pressure time, and I think neither of these two have the wherewithall to do the former consistently at the highest level.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes Lee has improved, if only he could bowl the way he did in the final knock at Trent Bridge. I realise that it was an extra gear in the circumstances, but what seperates the greats from the also-rans is the ability to perfom great deeds day-to-day as well as pressure time, and I think neither of these two have the wherewithall to do the former consistently at the highest level.

Lee was alright at Trent Bridge, but he bowled far better spells in the Australian summer, IMO. He was brilliant on Boxing Day against South Africa (though only got 3 wickets, I beleive), and bowled a couple of sensational spells in the away series against South Africa too. When he got the new ball and took over from McGrath as the strike bowler he really improved his consistency, and if he keeps it up I'd be surprised if he doesn't have a successful Ashes series.

 

[Xuhaib]

Lee is the most underrated bowler on these forums his performances in the last 8-10 test matches matches up to his performances in the first 7, and only an idiot can say Lee dosent do much with the ball he is one of the best exponents of swing bowling.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Lee is the most underrated bowler on these forums his performances in the last 8-10 test matches matches up to his performances in the first 7, and only an idiot can say Lee dosent do much with the ball he is one of the best exponents of swing bowling.

In ODIs. Doesn't do that much with the new red one, unless he's changed completely since I saw him last.

Anyway I'm off to the pub.

 

[Jono]

Both should be better than they are.

In the end I'd probably rather Harmison, but the fact that he makes it so obvious he can't be arsed sometimes is a real turn off for a fast bowler. Lee gives his all every over.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Lee gives his all every over.

This is the one thing I really hate about Brett Lee. When he gives absolutely everything he can be truely fantastic, like he was at Trent Bridge. But most of the time he just goes into idiot mode, or bouncer/yorker mode, like at the Oval, v Pietersen after lunch when he got burned badly, sometimes he needs to just put his brain in gear.

Harmison, meh, sometimes devastating, rest of the time he goes between average and shocking.

 

[Jono]

This is the one thing I really hate about Brett Lee. When he gives absolutely everything he can be truely fantastic, like he was at Trent Bridge. But most of the time he just goes into idiot mode, or bouncer/yorker mode, like at the Oval, v Pietersen after lunch when he got burned badly, sometimes he needs to just put his brain in gear.

I disagree a little. I reckon he's always gibing 'absolutely everything' as you say. I just reckon for most of his career he's been plain dumb. And even though he's becoming a smarter bowler now, you still see some idiocy from him every now and then.

The Chappell Hadlee Series is one instance, where NZ almost chased down a massive 300+ score in game 2, and then chased down what was then the record ODI chase ever in game 3 were matcheswhere Lee bowled like an idiot. Bowling bouncers late in the innings giving away wides and stuff like that. You sometimes just wonder what goes through his brain.

 

[Goughy]

If the pitch suits, if he fancies it, and if the opposition are a bit out of sorts or just not very good anyway, then Harmison's your man. Most of the time you'll get more from Lee though.

My thoughts exactly. If I had to pick one guy that had to play the next 20 tests, I would pick Lee.

However, Lee at his best is not the same as Harmison at his best. If I had 1 test I had to win then I would pick Harmison and hope it was a track suited to him and he felt like turning it on that day.

Both are dangerous. Lee a little more consistent and Harmison a little more penetrative.

Pick your poison.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd pick McGrath :{