tuffey vs harmison

[BlackCap_Fan]

me and hlasley have been debating this on msn.Tuffeys better,just check the stats.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Harmison, all the way.

I am using the same argument as I did on MSN.

 

[southern man]

Tuffey is 10 times the player Harmison is.

 

[Armadillo]

harmison cannot bowl a ball straight

 

[Tom Halsey]

Coming from a biased New Zealander!!

Ask an Aussie. That would be fair.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Coming from a biased New Zealander!!

Ask an Aussie. That would be fair.

armadillo is from essex,like you.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Coming from a biased New Zealander!!

Ask an Aussie. That would be fair.

Adil posted just before me. That was aimed at southern man.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

ROFL! now hes saying hussains better than astle!!!]

halsleys an odd guy.

 

[southern man]

Well Tuffeys stats are alot better
Tuffey is up near the top of both ratings.
Harminsons test average is 29 with are RPO of 2.91
One day average is 49 with an RPO of nearley 6.

Tuffey
Tuffeys test average is 27.3 with an RPO of 3.03
One day average of 28 with an RPO of 4.5

 

[Langeveldt]

Tuffey is a fine bowler IMO..

And he has something which Harmison lacks... Control...

And a very good knack of getting a wicket very early on in the innings.. Im looking forward to watching him in England...

 

[ND_fan]

Tuffey is stacks better. He bowls a consistant line and length and he can bat well at the bottom of the order.

 

[nibbs]

Tuffey by a country mile...

 

[Tom Halsey]

armadillo is from essex,like you.

He lives in Essex, but he is Pakistani, who is very good at Pommie-bashing.

 

[Mister Wright]

When they both started their careers Harmison looked the much better bowler. I remember Tuffey's debut against Australia - it was one of the most embarrasing bowling performances ever, but since then he has developed into a very fine bowler, who would be a much better bowler if Bond was at the other end.

Harmison, is a player I like, and on his day can trouble the best batsman, but he lacks consistency, but does have potential IMO.

 

[marc71178]

They're not really alike as bowlers though.

 

[Mister Wright]

They're not really alike as bowlers though.

Yeah, true. Harmisson uses bounce and pace, whereas Tufey likes to be full and use the swing. Although I think Tuffey has become a bit faster in the last 2-3 years.

 

[Richard]

Harmison does not use pace and bounce! Because good batsmen aren't troubled by excessive pace and bounce.
Harmison uses the poor batting of poor batting-line-ups (namely Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) to get his average down.
Against decent teams he usually gets 0, 1 and 2-fors, with the occasional spell of good figures (6 for 156 against Aus in Fourth and Fifth Tests; 3 for 58 against India; 4 for 33 against South Africa in Fifth Test).
Tuffey, on flat wickets, appears to use the same things, though there was some evidence that this may be changing in India. On green wickets with a shiny ball, he uses seam and swing to devestating effect.

 

[Richard]

When they both started their careers Harmison looked the much better bowler. I remember Tuffey's debut against Australia - it was one of the most embarrasing bowling performances ever, but since then he has developed into a very fine bowler, who would be a much better bowler if Bond was at the other end.

Harmison, is a player I like, and on his day can trouble the best batsman, but he lacks consistency, but does have potential IMO.

Harmison will never trouble the best batsmen until he gets his seam-position sorted-out, and even then he still needs a favourable pitch.
Tuffey's best performances, meanwhile, have come without Bond in the side.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Harmison does not use pace and bounce! Because good batsmen aren't troubled by excessive pace and bounce.

I've seen Brian Lara, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Jacques Kallis and many other top-class batsmen troubled by excessive pace and bounce.

 

[Richard]

How often have they been dismissed because the ball that dismissed them bounced more than they expected?