Steve Harmison

[BoyBrumby]

He hasn't made an irrefutable case for his selection, but he has bowled the best spell or rather best spells he's bowled since Adam was in short trousers. Quick, hostile, swung it and very few gimmes.

I thought we'd drawn a line under his test career, but could be a handy man to have up our collective sleeve even if he doesn't make the XI for Cardiff.

 

[Richard]

Frustrating bowler Harmison but that's harsh Rich

It really isn't. Harmison had 7 good Tests in early-2004; he has played 48 other Tests against Test-standard teams and averages 39.24. And this flatters him, hugely - any number of times he's had something like 1-90 and been gifted a couple of wickets at the end of the innings to finish with 3-114 or so. An average of 45-50 would be a more accurate reflection.

People have lived for a long, long, long, long time hoping for Harmison to be something he isn't and never has been. Yes, he bowled damn decently this game, far better than normal, but he has done this occasionally before. He can never, ever make it long-term. It has damaged England's prospects so badly to be constantly hankering for Harmison to be something so many wrongly believe he can be.

That's frustrating.

 

[zaremba]

Come on Richard, you have to admit that he was Test class in 2004.

 

[fredfertang]

With Flintoff, Anderson, Broad and Swann I think we can afford to take a flyer on a bloke who has won matches in the past and looks like he might just be in the mood/form to do it again

 

[Furball]

Frustrating bowler Harmison but that's harsh Rich

Aside from his golden year of 2004, and against Bangladesh, Harmison has pretty much struggled to rise above the level of mediocrity for his entire Test career.

 

[Uppercut]

Cricket Web - Ashes HQ: Steve Harmison? Really?

 

[zaremba]

Cricket Web - Ashes HQ: Steve Harmison? Really?

Harder to argue with that than Don Quixickinson's claim that GBH was never Test class

 

[Richard]

Come on Richard, you have to admit that he was Test class in 2004.

For the first 7 Tests and 3 months of it, yes - I'm never quite sure whether such a short time counts as "Test-class" TBH. Usually goes down more as "flash in the pan" in my book.

Let's remind ourselves - in the last 6 Tests of 2004 Harmison did nothing of note except knock-over West Indies' house-of-cards at The Oval. In the other 5 Tests he averaged 48.29. In the first 3 Tests of 2005, meanwhile, he would have taken 0 wickets (for plenty) in each had South Africa declared a few overs earlier.

That suggests that his improved accuracy of early-2004 was indeed a flash in the pan.

 

[Richard]

With Flintoff, Anderson, Broad and Swann I think we can afford to take a flyer on a bloke who has won matches in the past and looks like he might just be in the mood/form to do it again

"Let's give ourselves a very strong chance of playing with 10 men on the tiny outside chance that we might have 11-and-a-half".

Is essentially how I think that thinking translates TBH.

 

[fredfertang]

"Let's give ourselves a very strong chance of playing with 10 men on the tiny outside chance that we might have 11-and-a-half".

Is essentially how I think that thinking translates TBH.

Yes something along those lines but not quite that extreme - at the end of the day he does have 200+ test wickets

 

[zaremba]

For the first 7 Tests and 3 months of it, yes - I'm never quite sure whether such a short time counts as "Test-class" TBH. Usually goes down more as "flash in the pan" in my book.

Let's remind ourselves - in the last 6 Tests of 2004 Harmison did nothing of note except knock-over West Indies' house-of-cards at The Oval. In the other 5 Tests he averaged 48.29. In the first 3 Tests of 2005, meanwhile, he would have taken 0 wickets (for plenty) in each had South Africa declared a few overs earlier.

That suggests that his improved accuracy of early-2004 was indeed a flash in the pan.

We don't see eye to eye on this (although there's as usual a good deal of truth in what you say). I'm not getting sucked into this again! I was just picking up on your slight exaggeration that Harmison was "never, ever Test quality" when even on your own analysis he was in early 04.

 

[Richard]

Yes something along those lines but not quite that extreme - at the end of the day he does have 200+ test wickets

Quite a few of which have come against Bangladesh; 40-odd more of which came in those 7 Tests in early-2004.

In 48 others he has 145 wickets (and by my reckoning about 40 of these were gimmes - either tailenders or wickets just before a declaration). How does this possibly impress anyone?

 

[zaremba]

Picking up on the point which Richard and Fred are chewing over, one thing about Harmison is that even when he's bowling close to his worst he doesn't get slapped around and usually escapes with un-embarrassing figures. Usually because the batsmen can't reach the ball, obviously, but nonetheless while he can be something of a waste of space when he's bowling badly, he's not a liability in a Devon Malcolm sort of way.

 

[Richard]

We don't see eye to eye on this (although there's as usual a good deal of truth in what you say). I'm not getting sucked into this again! I was just picking up on your slight exaggeration that Harmison was "never, ever Test quality" when even on your own analysis he was in early 04.

Let's look at this another way: was Bob Massie Test-class in 1972? Or was he merely enjoying a flash-in-the-pan?

It isn't unfair to suggest someone can be Test-class over a period, however short. But I tend to view it as requiring a year or so of "being" to actually represent a "shift". Which, as I say, Harmison did not have.

 

[fredfertang]

The trouble is, well as I see it anyway, is that looking at the whole series objectively, on a man to man comparison we're not quite as good as the crims so if we play it with a straight bat (pun intended) then we'll get beaten - Harmison at the top of his game might change that

 

[zaremba]

Quite a few of which have come against Bangladesh; 40-odd more of which came in those 7 Tests in early-2004.

In 48 others he has 145 wickets (and by my reckoning about 40 of these were gimmes - either tailenders or wickets just before a declaration). How does this possibly impress anyone?

I said I didn't want to get sucked into this, but what the hell.

As for the tailenders point, you can do this to any bowler's stats because all bowlers' stats are improved by tailend wickets. Harmison has shaken and dismissed his fair share of top-order batsmen.

As for deleting his best figures from the equation, you're getting dangerously into the slightly Stalinist territory of historical purification.

If you delete Murali's 500 best overs, and you remove his tailend wickets and his wickets against minnows, he'd probably have an average like Ian Salisbury's.

 

[zaremba]

Let's look at this another way: was Bob Massie Test-class in 1972?

Yes.

Or was he merely enjoying a flash-in-the-pan?

No. But even if he was, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he wasn't Test class.

 

[fredfertang]

I said I didn't want to get sucked into this, but what the hell.

....... Mr Z this sort of thing is happening more and more often - are you losing your steely courtroom countenance?

 

[Richard]

The trouble is, well as I see it anyway, is that looking at the whole series objectively, on a man to man comparison we're not quite as good as the crims so if we play it with a straight bat (pun intended) then we'll get beaten - Harmison at the top of his game might change that

Australian underperformance (the like of which we had with Gillespie and - post-injury - McGrath in 2005) is in my view rather more likely than Harmison over-performance.

In such circumstances, England need to have their best team available to have a chance of capitalising.

 

[Richard]

Yes.



No. But even if he was, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he wasn't Test class.

Fair enough then - you view being Test-class as a little different to how I do. Simple difference of opinion never hurt no-one.