Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Richard]

yes even though harmison bowled with nowhere near the same accuracy that he did during the summer.

So he bowled accurately at The Oval against West Indies? Come off it!
The only time during the summer that Harmison was accurate was the New Zealand series. Against West Indies he sprayed it all over the place, yet he still got a fantastic average in his last 3 spells of the summer.
The point of the matter is I said I didn't think Harmison would go on being effective, and lo-and-behold - he hasn't.

especially considering how long ago it was that you suggested that katich and martyn werent especially good players of spin, or even worse when you said that clarke was just as poor a player of spin as ponting.

Wow, so I phrased something poorly.
There was no evidence at the time that either were good players of spin, and we've since seen that both are.
And when I mentioned Clarke's prowess against spin I should have mentioned that the only times I'd seen him bat against it in Tests were the New Zealand and Pakistan Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

So he bowled accurately at The Oval against West Indies? Come off it!
The only time during the summer that Harmison was accurate was the New Zealand series. Against West Indies he sprayed it all over the place, yet he still got a fantastic average in his last 3 spells of the summer.
The point of the matter is I said I didn't think Harmison would go on being effective, and lo-and-behold - he hasn't.

rubbish he bowled accurately in the WI and against NZ, which is why he had such good figures in both those series. hes bowled nowhere near as accurately against SA, hence the 2 cant be compared.

Wow, so I phrased something poorly..

no you didnt phrase it poorly at all. you meant what you said, and after you got proven wrong you decided to say that you phrased it poorly. you called the both of them poor players of spin, even though anyone whos watched either of them would know that it was clearly not the case.

There was no evidence at the time that either were good players of spin, and we've since seen that both are.

there was no evidence? martyn scored a massive amount of runs in SL and looked the most comfortable against spin amongst all the players. katich scored prolifically on a turner at sydney under pressure against kumble and the likes and in his only test against SL in SL scored an 85 against murali and the rest. clearly there was no evidence. perhaps you should start watching cricket more if you want more evidence because it was glaringly obvious to anyone who watched either of the 2 play that they are extremely good players of spin. in katich's case you infact went on to justify your claim that he was a poor player off spin by saying that he looked completely out of sorts against kumble when he scored all those runs at sydney and even when he played price against zimbabwe!!

And when I mentioned Clarke's prowess against spin I should have mentioned that the only times I'd seen him bat against it in Tests were the New Zealand and Pakistan Tests.

and you went on to make a bold claim based on those 2 series that if clarke could score runs in india so could ponting. not to mention of course that clarke had no problems dealing with vettori in the series against NZ, so you made those claims based on 1 series. apparently 1 series counts as enough evidence for you to make bold claims like that, yet when katich scores against kumble at sydney and against murali at home its clearly 'not enough evidence' to suggest that hes a good player of spin.

 

[Richard]

rubbish he bowled accurately in the WI and against NZ, which is why he had such good figures in both those series. hes bowled nowhere near as accurately against SA, hence the 2 cant be compared.

And he bowled nowhere near as accurately against WI in England, either - yet at The Oval he still got a stack of wickets.
The basic crux of the matter is that Harmison was getting wickets with nothing deliveries aplenty in the first half of 2004, and he hasn't done in the second half and in early 2005. For whatever reasons (and I don't think the accuracy played any real part in anything except the economy-rates) he's not got the wickets, and that's exactly what I predicted would happen.

no you didnt phrase it poorly at all. you meant what you said, and after you got proven wrong you decided to say that you phrased it poorly. you called the both of them poor players of spin, even though anyone whos watched either of them would know that it was clearly not the case.

No, that'd be what it would be most convenient for you had it happened.
I said there was no evidence that Martyn was a good player of spin and there was not sufficient evidence that Katich was - and now there is, for both.
So, by waiting, I have not been proven wrong on Katich. I have on Martyn, and I am perfectly prepared to admit that.

there was no evidence? martyn scored a massive amount of runs in SL and looked the most comfortable against spin amongst all the players. katich scored prolifically on a turner at sydney under pressure against kumble and the likes and in his only test against SL in SL scored an 85 against murali and the rest. clearly there was no evidence. perhaps you should start watching cricket more if you want more evidence because it was glaringly obvious to anyone who watched either of the 2 play that they are extremely good players of spin. in katich's case you infact went on to justify your claim that he was a poor player off spin by saying that he looked completely out of sorts against kumble when he scored all those runs at sydney and even when he played price against zimbabwe!!

Not to mention when he played Salisbury and Saqlain, and Brown and Swann. No, Katich did not used to be a good player of spin - and I was not prepared to change my impression of him on 2 Test-matches.
With regards Martyn, I didn't have the chance to watch him in Sri Lanka so all I knew is that he played 1 large chanceless innings. I don't know how comfortable or otherwise he looked during his 30s or 40s. So if not having the chance to watch stuff is a crime, yeah, maybe I'd better start doing something I can't do, then!

and you went on to make a bold claim based on those 2 series that if clarke could score runs in india so could ponting. not to mention of course that clarke had no problems dealing with vettori in the series against NZ, so you made those claims based on 1 series. apparently 1 series counts as enough evidence for you to make bold claims like that, yet when katich scores against kumble at sydney and against murali at home its clearly 'not enough evidence' to suggest that hes a good player of spin.

Nope, not when a change would have been neccessary for him to be a good player of spin. If I'd never seen him bat before I might have been as hasty as you were. Either way, we both ended-up with the same outcome - as far as we are both concerned, Katich is a good player of spin.
In the upcoming years, I'll doubtless see more of Clarke - so I'll be able to make-up my mind.

 

[tooextracool]

And he bowled nowhere near as accurately against WI in England, either - yet at The Oval he still got a stack of wickets.

yes so he got wickets without bowling accurately in 1 game, oh so obviously it means that hes a rubbish bowler even when he bowls accurately.

The basic crux of the matter is that Harmison was getting wickets with nothing deliveries aplenty in the first half of 2004, and he hasn't done in the second half and in early 2005. For whatever reasons (and I don't think the accuracy played any real part in anything except the economy-rates) he's not got the wickets, and that's exactly what I predicted would happen.

please, i've already pointed out times when harmison took wickets in the WI and against NZ off wicket taking balls. and if you think that someone who bowls accurately is just as successful as someone who doesnt, then you are obviously out of your mind. like it or not, its simply inane to compare a bowler when hes bowling accurately to when hes not, and you only have to look at your idol vaas to know that.

No, that'd be what it would be most convenient for you had it happened.
I said there was no evidence that Martyn was a good player of spin and there was not sufficient evidence that Katich was - and now there is, for both.
So, by waiting, I have not been proven wrong on Katich. I have on Martyn, and I am perfectly prepared to admit that.

umm you said that the aussie batsmen bar hayden arent particularly good players of spin. hence by definition you mean that katich and martyn arent particularly good players of spin. so go on then twist and turn that comment and tell me how you never said it or you meant that all of that no evidence rubbish.

Not to mention when he played Salisbury and Saqlain, and Brown and Swann. No, Katich did not used to be a good player of spin - and I was not prepared to change my impression of him on 2 Test-matches.
With regards Martyn, I didn't have the chance to watch him in Sri Lanka so all I knew is that he played 1 large chanceless innings. I don't know how comfortable or otherwise he looked during his 30s or 40s. So if not having the chance to watch stuff is a crime, yeah, maybe I'd better start doing something I can't do, then!

for a start you might actually want to watch any cricket game, instead of just looking at scorecards and first chance averages. and as ive said 1 million times, browne, salisbury and whoever it was couldnt trouble katich even if he batted with a baseball bat.
and you yourself admitted that katich did in fact play kumble extremely well(and it was adequately demonstrated with his SR against him too), so well done with that sherlock.

Nope, not when a change would have been neccessary for him to be a good player of spin. If I'd never seen him bat before I might have been as hasty as you were.

how was i hasty? as far as im concerned only a fool would not be capable of seeing how insanely comfortable katich looked against the likes of murali and kumble. if anything you were too slow, which is the story of your life really.

Either way, we both ended-up with the same outcome - as far as we are both concerned, Katich is a good player of spin.
In the upcoming years, I'll doubtless see more of Clarke - so I'll be able to make-up my mind.

yes we did, largely because you had to save face from the comments you had made about katich being not especially good against spin.

 

[Richard]

please, i've already pointed out times when harmison took wickets in the WI and against NZ off wicket taking balls. and if you think that someone who bowls accurately is just as successful as someone who doesnt, then you are obviously out of your mind. like it or not, its simply inane to compare a bowler when hes bowling accurately to when hes not, and you only have to look at your idol vaas to know that.

And I've said several times that Harmison quite conceivably would not be able to go on bowling with the accuracy he bowled with in the first 7 Tests of 2004.
Equally there have been spells - not whole match-spells - where he's bowled accurately yet still been wholly ineffectual. Just that overall he's not been able to keep-up the accuracy the way he had been previously.

umm you said that the aussie batsmen bar hayden arent particularly good players of spin. hence by definition you mean that katich and martyn arent particularly good players of spin. so go on then twist and turn that comment and tell me how you never said it or you meant that all of that no evidence rubbish.

What I meant - which may not have been perfectly phrased and you could have been forgiven for misunderstanding - was that only Hayden (and Lehmann, actually) were proven to be good players of spin.
Some (like Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist) were very obviously weak against it, some (like Katich and Martyn) had been very poor against it but have improved.

for a start you might actually want to watch any cricket game, instead of just looking at scorecards and first chance averages. and as ive said 1 million times, browne, salisbury and whoever it was couldnt trouble katich even if he batted with a baseball bat.

They couldn't if they bowled at him again now, no.
But, as you'd know if you'd had the chance to watch the games in 2000 and 2003 that I did, they used to be able to and did.

and you yourself admitted that katich did in fact play kumble extremely well(and it was adequately demonstrated with his SR against him too), so well done with that sherlock.

Well done with what? What's the fact that he played Kumble well got to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that he did look uncomfortable of times against Price.

how was i hasty? as far as im concerned only a fool would not be capable of seeing how insanely comfortable katich looked against the likes of murali and kumble. if anything you were too slow, which is the story of your life really.

I saw how comfortable he looked - but I wasn't prepared to base an assumption that he was good against spin on those 2 innings within a few months, given the fact that he'd previously been weak against spin for 3 years and more.

yes we did, largely because you had to save face from the comments you had made about katich being not especially good against spin.

I had to avoid face being lost, yes - there is a difference.