Who is the greatest Englishman never to win the Ashes?

[sirjeremy11]

If looking recently the best to miss out IMO is Angus Fraser. Only genuine world class bowler Eng has in the 90s

Gough? For me, I would have to say Gough and Thorpe, the two players that the Aussies of that period seemed to rate highly.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think there is a better option at the moment (at what Harmison does - in swinging conditions I'd be tempted to play Anderson).

But that doesn't alter the fact that Harmison, barring sporadic, isolated Tests, hasn't performed since October 2004.

I have never disputed that fact - and therein lies the difference between a considered opinion and a knee-jerk reaction (with the emphasis on the word 'jerk').

 

[Richard]

West Indies - Better than any bowler they have

No, certainly not better than Bravo and Collins.

New Zealand - Only Bond is better, although if we justify Bond as one of the world's best by how he has performed against West Indies in this series....

Clearly, though being better than Chris Martin, Kyle Mills and James Franklin is not that much of an achievement.

South Africa - Ntini is similary quick and inconsistent, but Harmison posses better height and bounce so is a better bowler IMHO. Pollock is far from what he used to be. Nel, who I rate highly, is perhaps the only bowler who can compare with Harmison, but still not as good.

WHAT???????????????
I can't really get through, I don't think, to someone who genuinely believes Harmison is better than Nel. Suffice to say I feel Nel has the potential to be one of the top seam-bowlers of the 2000s. He can do things with the ball that Harmison can only dream of.
Pollock might be far from what he used to be but clearly he's still much, much better than Harmison.
To compare Ntini to Harmison is also IMO illiterate. Ntini isn't the best bowler but he's damn sure been far more effective than Harmison has. Both, I assure you, posses height and bounce and, as that isn't effective in itself, what it comes down to is what that height and bounce compliments. And for me, Ntini has more to his armoury than Harmison.

Sri Lanka - I would say Vaas is better, but Harmy would clearly be the no. 2 pacer on this team.

Yes - again, I fail to see what being better than Farfeez Maharoof and Lasith Malinga really shows?

India - Better than any pace bowler they have played in years. Munaf and Sreesanth it is too early too tell much with, but Harmison would displace one of them at present. More realistically they would play all three.

They might - until Harmison repeatedly got nothing figures while Patel and Sreesanth got decent ones.

Pakistan - Harmison and Shoaib are similar in that when on form they are devastating, but rarely have been of late. I would say they are equal. Harmy is better than anything else they have.

You really do (IMO) overrated this "when Harmison is on form" thing. The simple fact of the matter is, even if you do believe that Harmison is actually dangerous when "on form" (which, frankly, I don't - I think that the few matches in which he's got good figures has been down to poor batting not good bowling), the matches where he's got good figures are so, so rare as to make a comparison with Shoaib totally ludicrous.
Clearly, too, Mohammad Asif and Shabbir Ahmed are better bowlers.

Leaving aside whether you think Plunket and Tremlett are any good or not, this is just absurd. Players do improve with experience, it is blatant fact. That's why the concepts of blooding players and forming a consistent pattern of selection are adhered to in all sports, nay all jobs around the world.

No, players improve with practice. Simple as.
Experience makes no massive difference.
Cricket is hardly comparable to most other jobs, anyway.
Picking a rubbish player and seeing him turn, 5 years later, into a good one is NOT justification of picking him when he was rubbish.

 

[Richard]

Richard clearly has lost his mind, and is going far far overboard, however he does have a point.

I don't think I am going overboard.
If you knock out the odd Test where Harmison has had dreadful batting (and it is no more than the odd Test - 1 here and 1 there), his career forms no better a pattern than Fidel Edwards, Chris Martin or Jermaine Lawson.

 

[Richard]

Ask Justin Langer who he would rather face with the new ball - Harmison or Dwayne Bravo.

Given that he's probably faced about 20 deliveries or so, at best, from Bravo, I hardly see how he's qualified to pass judgement.

 

[Richard]

Richard, while going slightly OTT with saying that he wouldn't improve any of the other Test-standard nations (he would improve a few), does have a point.

Harmison, barring the odd sporadic Test, hasn't performed against a Test-standard country since the end of our series against the West Indies in 2004. That's 1 and a half years of rubbish.

Clearly, if he can come back from this, great, but I see nothing to suggest he will.

Even that West Indies series in 2004 was only an odd sporadic Test. He was rubbish in most of the first 3, then got 3-3 at the end of the Old Trafford second-innings, and 9-121 at The Oval.
Harmison has done little or nothing of note since New Zealand 2004.

 

[Swervy]

Given that he's probably faced about 20 deliveries or so, at best, from Bravo, I hardly see how he's qualified to pass judgement.

...and you are I guess?

 

[Richard]

Richard doesn't have a point, because that's not the point that he was addressing. He was just carrying out his own, unimaginative personal vendetta like he always does. He brought the subject of Harmison up like he always does, because he has a bee in his bonnet about just about anything and everything. He is yet to offer one alternative (no, Cork doesn't count), and without an alternative, he is just peeing into the wind and hoping his shoes remain dry.

It's not about 'coming back from this' either - it's about finding someone who can do the same job better than Harmison does at the moment - you know, having a balanced bowling attack. Perhaps there's someone lurking in Essex seconds at the moment who can force batsmen on to the back foot and take them out of their comfort zone - in which case, they might force their way into the first team and from there into the England setup.

Great, if that's the case. If not, who would you play instead of Harmison at the moment? If you've got a name, good - let's hear it, but just saying 'he is rubbish' is a waste of time. This is where many people fall down (and is the bee in my own personal bonnet) - some are always ready to knock people but haven't got any sort of positive contribution to make on the subject.

Richard would presumably like someone like Bravo to be drafted in to the side - no wonder he regrets the premature discarding of the likes of Cork and White, DeFreitas and Caddick. Perhaps one of those would do? How about Ealham or Irani? Lewis? Chapple? If he came up with a single name, then there could be grounds for debate - but it's like me bemoaning the level my football team has sunk to. no point in hoping that they suddenly find a Thierry Herny or a Wayne Rooney - you make do with what you have got.

Richard would have more credibility if he, just once in his life, said something constructive - don't you make the same mistake that windbag does.

I presume from what you were saying that you would kick Harmison out - might I be so bold as to suggest that your ideal England attack might be Hoggard, Anderson, Flintoff, Jones? That's not bad when things are going well and all are fit - it'd certainly give Australia a few problems given their issues with the swinging ball.

Whether you read this I don't know, and I don't really mind because any post is addressed to anyone who reads it...
I'd propose a couple of alternatives - either a 4-man attack, or Anderson in for Harmison.
I've tried to address why I'm constantly on the attack at people who build-up Harmison - because I feel he's talked of as if he's something he categorically is not. Broadly speaking, he's a useless bowler. You can bang on all you like about "forcing batsmen onto the back-foot"; "taking them out of their comfort zone" - fact is, it's all hogwash. What matters in Test cricket is taking good figures, not being perceived as helping the rest of the attack take them, or making batsmen look uncomfortable. Therefore, a bowler who can't take decent figures (as Harmison virtually never can through his own skill rather than the paucity of the batting) doesn't come close to meriting a place, never mind being talked of as a good bowler.
And I won't cease harping-on on this subject, because it is one that annoys me like few. I won't stop saying things people think are ludicrous like "he'd make none of the Test-standard sides a better side". Because, as far as I'm concerned, it's the truth.
The only time there could possibly be a case for Harmison making England a better side, never mind others, is the brief 7-Test period in West Indies and at home to New Zealand. Other than that, these are his Test-matches:
49-120-5 - good figures, yes, but he actually bowled a heap of rubbish (the wickets were a cut to Third-man, something he often benefits from, from Agarkar; a prod from Patel; a slog from Harbhajan; a drag-on from Ganguly; and another over-ambitious stroke from Harbhajan)
28.2-106-2 - rubbish, and those figures flattered him.
28-86-1 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
36-108-0 (first-innings) - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
11.1-43-2 (second-innings) - OK
29-112-4 - OK
33-138-2 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
22-103-1 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
28-66-2 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested - a terrible pitch, Kirtley took 8-114
27-73-0 (first-innings) - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
19.2-33-4 - good figures, but he didn't really bowl that well - only the Kirsten ball was a good one.
33.3-73-9, 36.1-101-7, 33.1-76-6, 37-92-1, 60-202-8, 52.2-131-7, 57-131-6 - all broadly speaking pretty similar, all good figures due mostly to poor strokes and very little good bowling.
42-150-2 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
19-93-1 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
37-135-2 (most of Old Trafford) - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
2.4-3-3 and 31-121-9 - incredibly flattering figures, bowled as poorly as he had done previously. This is the most frustrating thing about it, because it disguised everything, and made people able to write-off the South Africa tour as a blip when it was actually a continuation
39-142-1 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
47-153-5 - not actually too bad, this one, bowled OK
45-137-1 - lucky to even get the 1, was when the slog was on
26.5-89-0 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
33-138-2 - lucky to even get the 2, didn't get on the sheet until the slog was on
39-87-8 - incredibly flattering, 2 good deliveries only in the match, on a malevolent pitch
28.3-110-2 - lucky to even get the 2nd, but rubbish anyway
32-114-2 - virtually a replay of the previous Test
39-141-4 - extremely fortunate to get the last 3 he got - a terrible decision and 2 tailenders
22.4-87-1 - rubbish, bowled no better than the figures suggested
36.1-80-6 - bowled pretty terribly, not a single wicket-taking ball all game
43.4-146-5 - again, rather flattering figures for a poor game
43-154-1 - however people go on about him being unlucky, there was little to bear this out - just 1 drop off his bowling
44.2-123-3 - bowled a heap of crap, incredibly fortunate to get more than 1-for - again got 2 when the slog was on
32-70-2 - bowled about as well as he ever does, and still didn't cause many problems
In short, if the 7-Test-period is excluded, he's played 29 Tests and been rubbish (with the figures to show for it) in virtually every one - even the odd-ones-out were cases of flattering figures not improvement in bowling.
So, therefore, I'll always talk him down as an exceptionally ineffective Test bowler.

 

[Richard]

...and you are I guess?

Well I wouldn't try if I didn't think I was.
I'd imagine I've watched a bit more of both of them than Langer has.

 

[Richard]

I don't think there is a better option at the moment (at what Harmison does - in swinging conditions I'd be tempted to play Anderson).

But that doesn't alter the fact that Harmison, barring sporadic, isolated Tests, hasn't performed since October 2004.

Make that July 2004

 

[Richard]

I think Steve Harmison is just going through a bad trot at the minute. He may need to be rested from the pressure of the Test side for a little while to get out of it but I think he has the pontential to be a great for England because he's unique; he's the only bowler worldwide who bowls that 'hip-to-heart' length. One place he falls down has always been when he tries to bowl short too often. As I've said for ages, he should keep the ball up and use the bouncer as a shock-ball a bit more. If he modelled himself on Curtly Ambrose a little more, I think he'll be devastating. What got to people about Curtly wasn't just his speed or aggression but his immaculate length. People were constantly shocked by the bounce he got from a length and Harmi should have a look at that I reckon.

Please, tell me - what use is there in pitching the ball up unless you make it swing?
And will people not stop comparing Harmison to Ambrose?
Do you really imagine "going through a bad trot" can last all but 2 years (when there was another 2-year "bad trot" not long before the very brief "good trot")?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You'd have Kaspa & Clark ahead of him? Serious question.

Well it's a bit early to say Clark is better than Harmison, of course, but if Harmison was available for Australia right this minute I wouldn't pick him over Clark, no. I'd rather have Gillespie in the side than Kasprowicz, and Harmison might get a place ahead of Kasper while McGrath was injured, but not afterwards.

Harmison isn't a poor bowler, but I don't think he's one of the best in the world either. He's simply middle of the pack, similar to guys like Kasprowicz.

 

[Richard]

Even though the like of Kasprowicz can do stuff with the ball that Harmison can only dream of?

 

[Goughy]

I can't really get through, I don't think, to someone who genuinely believes Harmison is better than Nel. Suffice to say I feel Nel has the potential to be one of the top seam-bowlers of the 2000s. He can do things with the ball that Harmison can only dream of.
Pollock might be far from what he used to be but clearly he's still much, much better than Harmison.
To compare Ntini to Harmison is also IMO illiterate. Ntini isn't the best bowler but he's damn sure been far more effective than Harmison has. Both, I assure you, posses height and bounce and, as that isn't effective in itself, what it comes down to is what that height and bounce compliments. And for me, Ntini has more to his armoury than Harmison.

I really do not like Nel but you do have a point with him. He has a great deal of potential and can certainly build on a very good start to test cricket.

However, the comment about Ntini having more in his armoury than Harmison is false. Ntini, is the least skilled experienced bowler in test cricket. Everything he does is based on a good level of athleticism and hard work. What he does well, he is good at. He runs in hard, hits the deck and gets good carry. He has no variation though. He does not swing the ball, finds it hard to change his length, does not bowl cutters and cannot bowl a slower ball. Also even more than Harmison he finds it hard to contain batsmen and maitain pressure at one end. 5 good balls are often followed by a 4 ball. At least Harmison has shown he can at least attempt to have a different approach and gameplan on different tracks and to different players.

Ntini is a decent bowler but he does not have more going for him than Harmison.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Even though the like of Kasprowicz can do stuff with the ball that Harmison can only dream of?

What can he do exactly? I haven't watched Harmison bowl extensively since the Ashes, but certainly then he was swinging the ball a bit both conventional and reverse at times, and when the pitches gave some assistance in a few of the ODIs he got significant seam movement. He certainly gets bounce off a length that Kasprowicz couldn't hope to match, as well as pace, obviously.

Kasprowicz is probably more of a "big" mover of the ball laterally, because his natural delivery takes the ball off the pitch in to the right-hander, but he doesn't have a great deal of variation, so I don't think Harmison would be dreaming too much. I think Kasprowicz is a very good subcontinent bowler, because he relies so heavily on cut off the pitch rather than swing, seam and bounce, but elsewhere he's middle of the pack, sometimes dangerous and other times not. The one time I would say Kasprowicz is universally a dangerous bowler is when he's getting some outswing, because his natural delivery is a leg-cutter, when he can vary it with the one that swings away from the right-hander he's very hard to handle indeed. We saw a bit of this in the Newlands test recently. He rarely swings the ball away these days though, except when he bowls with the new ball, which is almost never in tests.

Harmison doesn't rely so heavily on moving the ball big like Kasprowicz does, but he has pace and bounce off a length which are equally tough to handle, and when Harmison gets his length right he is quite a nasty bowler to deal with. Anyone who can get the ball to bounce like that at pace is going to be a handful when they get it right, and on for example a wicket that's a little uneven they can be quite deadly.

The main problems with Harmison are that he isn't accurate enough, and that he's not a particularly clever bowler. If Harmison could bowl with more McGrath-like accuracy than Lee-like accuracy he'd be a much more effective bowler. For comparison, someone like Simon Jones can be a very effective bowler without being flawlessly accurate, while Harmison can't, at least on most wickets. The reason is that he relies so heavily on being difficult to play generally rather than bowling monsterous unplayable deliveries. That's the main reason for the comparisons with Ambrose, because Ambrose was the same in that regard. He wasn't a huge mover of the ball unless the pitch was seaming, but he was relentlessly accurate, bowled a length that due to his bounce made him almost impossible to score freely off, and when the pitch seamed or was uneven he was capable of completely destroying any batting lineup. Harmison can't match him in the first categories because he isn't consistent enough with his length or his line, and batsmen can usually play him off and then put the bad balls away.

I still think there's hope for him if he can work on a few problem areas, but I'd say that 2004 was definitely a false dawn for him, and he's got a way to go yet.

 

[Goughy]

Even though the like of Kasprowicz can do stuff with the ball that Harmison can only dream of?

2 completely seperate bowlers who should not be compared in a sentance. Kasprowicz is an old style medium pacer, who because of his big chest, broad shoulders and massive backside can do what they did at 130kph.

He bowler big off-cutters in a very un-modern way and he muscles the ball down the track aiming to hit the bat hard with a bit of movement.

Harmison, is a tall, relaxed speedster who looks to hit his length and catch the batsman on his crease or making a false movement.

Harmison is a very dangerous bowler, but I fully accept that he is not accurate enough. This is the key to him as a bowler. The question is can he find that consistent accuracy? The Eng coaching staff seem to think so and they are persevering with him.

Harmison possesses so many of the talents that make coaches smile but it will be interesting to find out whether this lean patch is just that or whether mentally and accuracy wise he is not up to the job.

 

[marc71178]

You can bang on all you like about "forcing batsmen onto the back-foot"; "taking them out of their comfort zone" - fact is, it's all hogwash. What matters in Test cricket is taking good figures, not being perceived as helping the rest of the attack take them, or making batsmen look uncomfortable.

No, what is important is that the team wins, and he is part of the 5 man attack who work together as a unit to take the 20 wickets needed.

I would like to know how you with your experience of Test Cricket can say people who have played the game don't know as much about it as you claim you do.

And I won't cease harping-on on this subject, because it is one that annoys me like few. I won't stop saying things people think are ludicrous like "he'd make none of the Test-standard sides a better side". Because, as far as I'm concerned, it's the truth.

Even though in this very thread you've agreed to the contrary?

 

[marc71178]

Well I wouldn't try if I didn't think I was.
I'd imagine I've watched a bit more of both of them than Langer has.

Yes, but he's actually played the game - a far better way of judging them.

 

[Richard]

I really do not like Nel but you do have a point with him. He has a great deal of potential and can certainly build on a very good start to test cricket.

However, the comment about Ntini having more in his armoury than Harmison is false. Ntini, is the least skilled experienced bowler in test cricket. Everything he does is based on a good level of athleticism and hard work. What he does well, he is good at. He runs in hard, hits the deck and gets good carry. He has no variation though. He does not swing the ball, finds it hard to change his length, does not bowl cutters and cannot bowl a slower ball. Also even more than Harmison he finds it hard to contain batsmen and maitain pressure at one end. 5 good balls are often followed by a 4 ball. At least Harmison has shown he can at least attempt to have a different approach and gameplan on different tracks and to different players.

Ntini is a decent bowler but he does not have more going for him than Harmison.

I'm certainly not saying Ntini is that good a bowler. To criticise him for lack of accuracy, however, is a moot point. Ntini has times when he bowls extremely accurately. Then he has times (usually shorter, but 10 accurate overs can easily be cancelled-out by 5 wayward ones) where he's all over the shop. Never, I don't think, has there been a better demonstration of that than this Test, where at one point he had 13-19-0, then his next 11 went for 70.
Harmison is a type who's more consistently wayward, indeed there was one spell of 9 Tests where he went for more than 3-an-over in every single one.
Ntini doesn't have too many wicket-taking tricks and it's something of a mystery to me why he's got even as good a record as he has (which is not that brilliant) but Harmison sure doesn't, either.
In fact, Harmison's only wicket-taking trick is hoping for poor strokes.

 

[Richard]

What can he do exactly? I haven't watched Harmison bowl extensively since the Ashes, but certainly then he was swinging the ball a bit both conventional and reverse at times, and when the pitches gave some assistance in a few of the ODIs he got significant seam movement. He certainly gets bounce off a length that Kasprowicz couldn't hope to match, as well as pace, obviously.

Neither of which are that important if you can't get the ball to go sideways.
Certainly if Harmison ever does get much of either type of swing, he usually negates it with waywardness. And it's not that unusual to see an entire game go by without much or anything in the way of sideways-movement. Yes, he can get the ball to seam, but so can I - that doesn't really prove much.

Kasprowicz is probably more of a "big" mover of the ball laterally, because his natural delivery takes the ball off the pitch in to the right-hander, but he doesn't have a great deal of variation, so I don't think Harmison would be dreaming too much. I think Kasprowicz is a very good subcontinent bowler, because he relies so heavily on cut off the pitch rather than swing, seam and bounce, but elsewhere he's middle of the pack, sometimes dangerous and other times not. The one time I would say Kasprowicz is universally a dangerous bowler is when he's getting some outswing, because his natural delivery is a leg-cutter, when he can vary it with the one that swings away from the right-hander he's very hard to handle indeed. We saw a bit of this in the Newlands test recently. He rarely swings the ball away these days though, except when he bowls with the new ball, which is almost never in tests.

Kasprowicz's natural delivery is a leg-cutter? To the left-hander, obviously.
I'm a little surprised he doesn't seem able to bowl the outswinger-to-the-right-hander very much these days, because obviously without it he's something of a one-tricky-pony. Still, it's more tricks than Harmison posseses.

Harmison doesn't rely so heavily on moving the ball big like Kasprowicz does, but he has pace and bounce off a length which are equally tough to handle, and when Harmison gets his length right he is quite a nasty bowler to deal with. Anyone who can get the ball to bounce like that at pace is going to be a handful when they get it right, and on for example a wicket that's a little uneven they can be quite deadly.

Harmison's played on plenty of uneven wickets, and only on a couple of occasions (West Indies first 3 and Lord's 2005) has he got good figures. Even these haven't been down to batsmen being beaten by uneven bounce, just poor strokes.
Given that good batsmen aren't discomfited just by high bounce, Harmison isn't very often difficult to deal with, and it's no surprise that in the majority of cases he's been dealt with easily.

The main problems with Harmison are that he isn't accurate enough, and that he's not a particularly clever bowler. If Harmison could bowl with more McGrath-like accuracy than Lee-like accuracy he'd be a much more effective bowler. For comparison, someone like Simon Jones can be a very effective bowler without being flawlessly accurate, while Harmison can't, at least on most wickets. The reason is that he relies so heavily on being difficult to play generally rather than bowling monsterous unplayable deliveries. That's the main reason for the comparisons with Ambrose, because Ambrose was the same in that regard. He wasn't a huge mover of the ball unless the pitch was seaming, but he was relentlessly accurate, bowled a length that due to his bounce made him almost impossible to score freely off, and when the pitch seamed or was uneven he was capable of completely destroying any batting lineup. Harmison can't match him in the first categories because he isn't consistent enough with his length or his line, and batsmen can usually play him off and then put the bad balls away.

I still think there's hope for him if he can work on a few problem areas, but I'd say that 2004 was definitely a false dawn for him, and he's got a way to go yet.

I don't think Ambrose was anything like the one-trick-pony you suggest. Ambrose had all sorts of ways of taking wickets through means other than poor strokes - none of them, though, involved the ball going straight on. When it didn't seam - and there were, of course, more seaming pitches in his day than at the moment - he bowled cutters, off-cutters, leg-cutters, you name it, he bowled it. He wasn't much of a swing-bowler, like McGrath, but if you think he never swung a ball you'd be mistaken, exactly like you would if you thought it of McGrath.
Even on some of the occasions Harmison has bowled accurately, he's still been played with few problems. Of course, as the first 7 Tests of 2004 demonstrate, not always, but plenty often enough to suggest that lack of accuracy alone isn't his problem.