tuffey vs harmison

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

SJS said:
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.

That suggests to me you've not seen much of the improved Harmison...

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

koch_cha said:
harmison might have improved a lot but he is still to face quality opposition other than brian lara.

I think Eddie's list answers this one perfectly...

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

a massive zebra said:
Going for over 200 runs against New Zealand while taking 8 wickets is by no means destroying them, its simply an acceptable performance.

Unless you look at the context of the game rather than the figures.

An average of 25 when no other bowler who bowled at top order batsmen for a decent length of time averaged less than 34 (and no Kiwi less than 42) is more than acceptable...

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

a massive zebra said:
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?

Look at Eddies list - some pretty good players on there.

And the runs argument kind of conveniently overlooks the number of runs Cairns scored off him in the first innings (when he was going beserk - 38 from 20 balls) and the second (2 boundaries off consecutive edges...)

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

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

So what would have been more than acceptable considering the opposition got in excess of 700 runs in their 2 innings then?

8-50?

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

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

You're the only one calling him greatest, but then since you're from India I guess he would count as a great quick compared to all the one's you've seen for your team!

And add in Lara (3), Gayle (4), Sarwan (4), Chanderpaul, Richardson (2), Fleming...

A bit more than 25% then isn't it?

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

koch_cha said:
early promise there was no promise in the first 10 test

Which you'll know because you saw them all?

Didn't think so...

IIRC he played in the Ashes in those and got some very good reviews from the Aussies, but then again what do they know about decent cricketers?

luckyeddie · May 28, 2004

marc71178 said:
You're the only one calling him greatest, but then since you're from India I guess he would count as a great quick compared to all the one's you've seen for your team!

Harmison v Pathan thread in 5....4....3....

chicane · May 28, 2004

marc71178 said:
You're the only one calling him greatest, but then since you're from India I guess he would count as a great quick compared to all the one's you've seen for your team!

Not really. They are not so bad. Srinath was miles ahead, no comparison. Pathan is also better.

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

Nnanden said:
i think tuffey is better than harmison... they`re about equal in the longer version of the game but tuffey is by far the better in one-dayers. as for batting... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh yes, because quite clearly the only criteria to separate pace bowlers is how well they bat...

chicane · May 28, 2004

luckyeddie said:
Harmison v Pathan thread in 5....4....3....

No need. We'll just take over this thread and put it way off course!

marc71178 · May 28, 2004

chicane said:
Not really. They are not so bad. Srinath was miles ahead, no comparison. Pathan is also better.

Yes, as shown by their career averages, or does that not count?

Pathan may one day be a great bowler, but to rank him ahead of Harmison at this stage requires a great deal of imagination!

chicane · May 28, 2004

marc71178 said:
Yes, as shown by their career averages, or does that not count?

Pathan may one day be a great bowler, but to rank him ahead of Harmison at this stage requires a great deal of imagination!

Career averages count when Harmison will have a career as long as Srinath's, and has to be taken in context.
And Pathan's ability is not my imagination. His career average is higher because he has played against better teams (Australia and Pakistan so far). Let's see how Harmison fares Vs the Aussies.

chicane · May 28, 2004

Shows how preconcieved your thoughts are. Shows you really haven't seen Pathan much, or you just don't acknowledge him or anything Indian. Or why else will you put such a huge gap between Pathan and Harmison?

luckyeddie · May 28, 2004

marc71178 said:
Which you'll know because you saw them all?

Didn't think so...

IIRC he played in the Ashes in those and got some very good reviews from the Aussies, but then again what do they know about decent cricketers?

First test was against India - 5-120 in the match, but of course that doesn't count.
Next 4 matches were against Australia, and he got pasted on occasion (true), never got any decent batsman out except with lucky or bad balls (lie).
Against Zimbabwe, he did ok but we pass over that, but got belted again against South Africa until the second innings of the final test, when he produced a devastating spell to help England to victory and tie the series.
The next few months, we have to gloss over and ignore, but we can look forward to next week when he will be awful, bowl loads of wides and no-balls before getting shown up for the journeyman he is and laughed out of international cricket.

luckyeddie · May 28, 2004

chicane said:
No need. We'll just take over this thread and put it way off course!

As usual

luckyeddie · May 28, 2004

chicane said:
Shows how preconcieved your thoughts are. Shows you really haven't seen Pathan much, or you just don't acknowledge him or anything Indian. Or why else will you put such a huge gap between Pathan and Harmison?

He didn't. You were the imaginative character who rated Pathan higher - marc purely said that 'it takes a great deal of imagination'.

That's Coventry-speak for saying that you're speaking out of somewhere the sun seldom shines

twctopcat · May 28, 2004

luckyeddie said:
Harmison v Pathan thread in 5....4....3....

I hope so, then we can get some really good pointless argueing,full of fruitless hypothesising and slandering, wait a sec.......

SJS · May 28, 2004

luckyeddie said:
As usual

This is funny. From a comparison between Tuffey and Harmison this has become a treatise on Harmison alone.

He is either a good for nothing , terror-for-Bangladeshis, poor 'actioned', fluke joke of a bowler
OR
the greater than Larwood, talent-of-the-century, greatest bowler 'either-side-of-Akram', fastest bowler never to have come out off a Nottingham mine etc etc etc

Lets all agree that he is some thing in between shall we 8-)

luckyeddie · May 28, 2004

SJS said:
This is funny. From a comparison between Tuffey and Harmison this has become a treatise on Harmison alone.

He is either a good for nothing , terror-for-Bangladeshis, poor 'actioned', fluke joke of a bowler
OR
the greater than Larwood, talent-of-the-century, greatest bowler 'either-side-of-Akram', fastest bowler never to have come out off a Nottingham mine etc etc etc

Lets all agree that he is some thing in between shall we

Not at all.

He is either

a)the best bowler in the England side at the moment
or
b) you have made one of the most stupid, unsubstantiated, idiotic remarks it has been my pleasure to see on CricketWeb - well, in the last 10 minutes at least.

Note: on second thoughts, the two are not mutually exclusive.

You are the winner.

tuffey vs harmison

whos better?

Tuffey(NZ)

Harmison(ENG)

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Eyes not spreadsheets

Cricket Web Staff Member

State Captain

Eyes not spreadsheets

State Captain

Eyes not spreadsheets

State Captain

State Captain

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

Cricket Web Staff Member

International Regular

Hall of Fame Member

Cricket Web Staff Member