tuffey vs harmison

[luckyeddie]

Well. I must admit this has become a bit of a scrap. I have nothing against Harmison or England in general. I rated Tuffey higher based on what I has seen of him in matches I had watched as against those I watched of Harmison. Its possible Harmison may have bowled much better at other times and Tuffey may have bowled worse.

This doesnt mean that any of us who express an opinion are necessarily biased or will just never change their opinions because they are 'fixed'.

And being a newcomer or part of the old gang at this board has, and should have, absolutely nothing to do with what one says or how it should be percieved.

I rest my case.

No scrap at all - it wasn't aimed at you.

You quoted an entire post of mine without addressing any of the points within it, then you made a series of assertions or statements which are, in themselves, almost totally unrelated to what I've said.

Welcome to Cricket Web - you'll fit in well.

A few points, though, seemed to be little refer-backs to some of the points I made in yesterday's limericks (newby digs), which I thought at the time that you took in very good spirit. If the barbs hurt, I am truly sorry, but I have to find out which members have a sense of humour.

The ones who have get picked on a little.

The ones who haven't get picked on a lot.

I steal your case and sell it on the market.

 

[biased indian]

harmison might have improved a lot but he is still to face quality opposition
other than brian lara.
By the year end u could definetyy say wether he will be a great - good- avg bowler

 

[Craig]

And so, in an ideal world, would England.

He was thrust in because of injuries and had such a dramatic impact that it was almost inevitable he would end up being over-used.

Now, as just one of a fairly decent England seam attack (and with Corky doing much of the donkey work for Lancashire) there's scope for him to learn his craft without having to bear the brunt of being used as a spearhead/strike bowler.

I would agree with you there.

After he showed potential, it was certain he would get picked.

 

[SJS]

No scrap at all - it wasn't aimed at you.

You quoted an entire post of mine without addressing any of the points within it, then you made a series of assertions or statements which are, in themselves, almost totally unrelated to what I've said.

Welcome to Cricket Web - you'll fit in well.

A few points, though, seemed to be little refer-backs to some of the points I made in yesterday's limericks (newby digs), which I thought at the time that you took in very good spirit. If the barbs hurt, I am truly sorry, but I have to find out which members have a sense of humour.

The ones who have get picked on a little.

The ones who haven't get picked on a lot.

I steal your case and sell it on the market.

Hi.
No. I did not feel hurt at your poetry and the 'barbs'. You always managed to bring a smile to my face. So no need to apologise. Please.

I think I wrote the last post since I felt my views on Harmison may have appeared to be 'persistently negatively' because I had 'made-up-my-mind'. Being a cricketer myself and an old fashioned lover of the game I thought I must clarify. Finally, the new member bit. It was funny when you mentioned it in the limerick. When you mentioined it again in your long post, I thought it was 'directed'. Anyway, forget it. It was fun.

PS and Harmison is no Larwood

 

[luckyeddie]

Hi.
No. I did not feel hurt at your poetry and the 'barbs'. You always managed to bring a smile to my face. So no need to apologise. Please.

I think I wrote the last post since I felt my views on Harmison may have appeared to be 'persistently negatively' because I had 'made-up-my-mind'. Being a cricketer myself and an old fashioned lover of the game I thought I must clarify. Finally, the new member bit. It was funny when you mentioned it in the limerick. When you mentioined it again in your long post, I thought it was 'directed'. Anyway, forget it. It was fun.

PS and Harmison is no Larwood

OK. Glad we've got that cleared up. I agree he's no Larwood - never been down t'pit in his life. Only mentioned the 'nooby' thing because you more than likely hadn't read many of the DD articles which extracted the Michael in no uncertain terms from Steve Wayward-Harmison, that's all.

 

[luckyeddie]

harmison might have improved a lot but he is still to face quality opposition
other than brian lara.
By the year end u could definetyy say wether he will be a great - good- avg bowler

Sorry, not true.

He made a huge contribution to levelling the series against South Africa in the second innings of the final test, destroyed Bangladesh (nothing to see here, these are not the droids you are looking for), destroyed the West Indies (same droid gag) and destroyed New Zealand in the first test (droid).

What he's got to come this summer is more New Zealand (if he took another 8 in each game many would have learned nothing) and more West Indies to come (droid).

No, we need another series against Australia - and that's next year, not this.

 

[a massive zebra]

Sorry, not true.

He made a huge contribution to levelling the series against South Africa in the second innings of the final test, destroyed Bangladesh (nothing to see here, these are not the droids you are looking for), destroyed the West Indies (same droid gag) and destroyed New Zealand in the first test (droid).

What he's got to come this summer is more New Zealand (if he took another 8 in each game many would have learned nothing) and more West Indies to come (droid).

No, we need another series against Australia - and that's next year, not this.

The South Africans had little trouble against him, his series average was over 70 before the innings you mention. Going for over 200 runs against New Zealand while taking 8 wickets is by no means destroying them, its simply an acceptable performance. Anyone with pace can get wickets against the West Indies on bouncy tracks or against Bangladesh.

 

[twctopcat]

The South Africans had little trouble against him, his series average was over 70 before the innings you mention. Going for over 200 runs against New Zealand while taking 8 wickets is by no means destroying them, its simply an acceptable performance. Anyone with pace can get wickets against the West Indies on bouncy tracks or against Bangladesh.

8 out of 20 wickets an acceptable performance? This isn't murali we're talking about here, wake up and smell the roses. He's become an extremely potent bowler who is becoming more and more consistent with the ability to get any batsmen in the world out, and no doubt he will, barring injuries etc.

 

[a massive zebra]

8 out of 20 wickets an acceptable performance? This isn't murali we're talking about here, wake up and smell the roses. He's become an extremely potent bowler who is becoming more and more consistent with the ability to get any batsmen in the world out, and no doubt he will, barring injuries etc.

If you go for that amount of runs you are bound to pick up a few wickets. If he has the ability to get any batsman in the world out then why has he not done so?

 

[twctopcat]

If you go for that amount of runs you are bound to pick up a few wickets. If he has the ability to get any batsman in the world out then why has he not done so?

He's been getting out the majority of the bowlers he's faced,so you can't really ask more form him than that. And he can't be exactly blamed for taking those wickets in the first test,given he bowled the most overs. If Jones, Flintoff etc were to have bowled those overs i'd bet that they'd have gone for more. He did get them for 25 at the end of the day.

 

[Adamc]

If you go for that amount of runs you are bound to pick up a few wickets. If he has the ability to get any batsman in the world out then why has he not done so?

???? Are you suggesting he needs to get out every batsman in the world before he is any good?

 

[biased indian]

???? Are you suggesting he needs to get out every batsman in the world before he is any good?

no but he will ahve to dismiss some decent batsmen or he will have to perform the same way he is now consistantly.

his good performance have come in last 8 test and 6 of them where aganist the 8,10 ranked teams.let him play well aganist any three of the NZ,SA,AUS,IND,PAK,SL and then we can say he is a great bowler .for now he is only a GOOD TEST bowler and AVG ODI bowler

 

[luckyeddie]

If you go for that amount of runs you are bound to pick up a few wickets. If he has the ability to get any batsman in the world out then why has he not done so?

We've done this before, haven't we? What do the following have in common?

Ganguly
Martin x 3
Gilchrist x 2
Hayden
Ponting
Love x 2
Taibu
G Flower
Kirsten x 2
Gibbs x 3
Kallis
and as many West Indians and New Zealanders you'd care to mention, but by definition they're rubbish anyway.

You're beginning to look more foolish by the minute, but don't let me stop you.

 

[a massive zebra]

He's been getting out the majority of the bowlers he's faced,so you can't really ask more form him than that. And he can't be exactly blamed for taking those wickets in the first test,given he bowled the most overs. .

The Bangladeshi's do not have any top class players and he could not get Lara out when the wicket finally favoured the batsmen in the last Test could he? (ps Don't say no one else could because im not comparing him to the other England bowlers im saying he is not a proven top-class bowler yet) He has done nothing noteworthy against any other opponent.

He did get them for 25 at the end of the day.

Exactly, so he didn't destroy them. He put in an acceptable performance like I said.

 

[luckyeddie]

his good performance have come in last 8 test and 6 of them where aganist the 8,10 ranked teams.let him play well aganist any three of the NZ,SA,AUS,IND,PAK,SL and then we can say he is a great bowler .for now he is only a GOOD TEST bowler and AVG ODI bowler

Do you quite realise what you are saying?

The only people here using the word 'great' are the people who are arguing against Harmison. You keep saying 'He's not a great bowler' or 'then we can say he's a great bowler'.

Against you guys, I will argue Steve's corner any day of the week, because I know when I'm on to a good thing. You Einsteins make it too easy - I don't have to say anything.

 

[PY]

no but he will ahve to dismiss some decent batsmen or he will have to perform the same way he is now consistantly.
.............
for now he is only a GOOD TEST bowler and AVG ODI bowler

I won't disagree with the first point to be honest but I take issue with the second.

1) He does have to continue with his form currently but who is to say that he won't?

2) I don't think he can be 'classified' like you have into the good Test bowler category because who's to say that his figures currently wouldn't be similar if he was playing Australia or India. If that makes sense.

Once he has played everyone then people can call him whatever they like, but until then, I would just like people to concede that he is England's best bowler and his figures are up there (at the moment) with the best in the world.

And as Eddie says, not one of us (unless in jest) has said Harmison is a 'great'. He will be if he continues like he is and taking wickets at the same rate.

Please note that the 'if' in bold is there for a reason.

 

[twctopcat]

Since when has the likes of Akhtar run through the indian and australian batting lineups?You don't read people writing him off as rubbish or unproven as people are with the harmison. Ridiculous after how the great WI batting that scored a fair few centuries against SA and looked pretty tidy is suddenly as brittle and pathetic as Bangladesh (who aren' that brittle) because no one likes to admit england might be on to something ala england, jonny wilkinson, rugby blah blah.....

 

[biased indian]

We've done this before, haven't we? What do the following have in common?

Ganguly Martin x 3 Gilchrist x 2 Hayden Ponting Love x 2
Taibu G Flower Kirsten x 2 Gibbs x 3 Kallis

thats a total of 18 out of 72 exactly 25% is that enough then he is the Greatest bowler

and u could may count out Love x 2, ganguly the one who dont play pace??

 

[PY]

If you did the same for McGrath or Akram, then most of their wickets would be rabbits at the bottom. They play the same teams and take the same % amount of wickets of crap batsman.

Plus where the hell has 'greatest bowler' come from? I don't recall anyone saying that Harmison was the greatest. I think people are taking what pro-Harmison people are saying to an extreme as we (I count myself as one) just think he is doing very well for himself at the moment.

 

[a massive zebra]

Since when has the likes of Akhtar run through the indian and australian batting lineups?You don't read people writing him off as rubbish or unproven as people are with the harmison. Ridiculous after how the great WI batting that scored a fair few centuries against SA and looked pretty tidy is suddenly as brittle and pathetic as Bangladesh (who aren' that brittle) because no one likes to admit england might be on to something ala england, jonny wilkinson, rugby blah blah.....

Akhtar has run through the Australian batting lineup a number of times. And how many times do I have to say that the West Indies are weak on bouncy pitches. The Australians did the same to them in 1998/99. Im not saying they cannot score runs when the pitches are good like in South Africa.