Who is the greatest Englishman never to win the Ashes?

[Richard]

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.

As I've said above - there have been enough times in Harmison's Test career where he's bowled accurately and not offered a threat to suggest that lack of accuracy isn't his only problem.
Harmison, for me, is only dangerous when the batting's loose.

 

[Richard]

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.

So if your team wins you have to be making a contribution?
Rubbish.
If you're not getting good figures, you're not contributing enough.

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.

Because playing isn't what teaches you - watching is.
I've never, incidentally, said "x doesn't know as much about the game as I do".
You, incidentally, have, with Jack Bannister.

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

Sorry, where?

 

[Richard]

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

Not if you haven't played against them. And, as I say, Langer has faced far more Harmison than he has Bravo.
Even if he had faced them equally, someone who watched him facing them would be equally well qualified - if not even better - than him to judge.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

He swings the ball occasionally, not often, but then he's not a swing bowler, and not every bowler has to be.

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.

I meant an off-cutter, of course. Anyway, he swings the new ball a little, as he always has, but he doesn't get to use it much, so it's basically the stock delivery and a bit of reverse later on.

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.

Not everything in cricket is down to absolutes. It's not about batsmen being "discomforted by just high bounce" and suddenly getting out to it, it's about the fact that bounce off a length is awkward to play. One of the reasons McGrath has been such a successful bowler is because he creates good bounce with immaculate control of his length on just about any surface. As is blatantly obvious to anyone who even just watches cricket on TV, if a bowler is consistently bowling the ball on a good length and getting it to bounce up into your ribcage, it restricts your strokeplay significantly, and one of the reasons guys like Ambrose are so economical is because of that, not just because they bowl straight. The ability to get bounce without having to pitch short is an asset that relatively few bowlers possess, and if you can combine that asset with the ability to control your line and length, it makes it difficult for batsmen to get comfortable with you, or to get on top of you in terms of runscoring. Obvious examples are Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Clark and other tall bowlers, and Harmison's pace just makes it more difficult.

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.

Where did I call Ambrose a one trick pony? He was nothing of the sort, he was a fantastically good bowler. What I said was that the main thing Harmison and Ambrose have in common (other than similar bowling actions) is that they both have a combination of height and pace that, when combined with control, makes it extremely difficult to score, and extremely difficult to survive if the pitch is uneven. Neither Ambrose or Harmison are the quickest bowlers you'll see, but batsmen were always uncomfortable against Ambrose because he used his height and the pace he did generate so effectively, while Harmison often wastes it.

Ambrose didn't swing the ball much, as you say, and while he was lethal on a seaming wicket, one of the reasons he maintained such a good record as a bowler is because when the ball wasn't moving around for him (and if you think that it moved around all the time, you're definately wrong) he was incredibly tough to score off because he had an excellent bouncer and his stock delivery was straight, back of a length and rose sharply. If you can find it, take a look at Ambrose's famous 7 for 1 at Perth, and you'll see the way he used bounce and accuracy to take wickets. The pitch had a bit of menace about it because of the cracks in the surface, but mostly it was just hard and flat and quick, and Ambrose bowled one of the best spells you'll ever see with only minimal movement laterally. Harmison and Ambrose have obvious traits in common, and the reason they are mentioned together so much is because with an improvement in his control Harmison could become a very good test bowler, utilising the same assets that made Ambrose great.

As I said, the main problem he faces now is that when conditions aren't particularly good for him (which like all bowlers, is most of the time) he can be quite unpenetrative because he doesn't build pressure effectively on batsmen. He is too wayward, and good players who are set at the crease can wait for him to bowl a bad ball and put it away. It's only when there's a bit of uneven bounce around or some seam movement that he becomes genuinely dangerous, and he's not a Simon Jones type who can pull out an unplayable ball at any moment. Harmison needs to be accurate to be successful.

 

[Richard]

He swings the ball occasionally, not often, but then he's not a swing bowler, and not every bowler has to be.

No, they don't, but they do have to have some other tricks.
You implied that swing could make him into a good bowler. Unless something dramatically changes, it can't.

I meant an off-cutter, of course. Anyway, he swings the new ball a little, as he always has, but he doesn't get to use it much, so it's basically the stock delivery and a bit of reverse later on.

Yet a stock-ball that moves is all well and good, but it's so much more use if you can get it to go the opposite way once in a while.
If Kasprowicz still could bowl the outswinger regularly, he'd be one hell of a bowler.

Not everything in cricket is down to absolutes. It's not about batsmen being "discomforted by just high bounce" and suddenly getting out to it, it's about the fact that bounce off a length is awkward to play. One of the reasons McGrath has been such a successful bowler is because he creates good bounce with immaculate control of his length on just about any surface. As is blatantly obvious to anyone who even just watches cricket on TV, if a bowler is consistently bowling the ball on a good length and getting it to bounce up into your ribcage, it restricts your strokeplay significantly, and one of the reasons guys like Ambrose are so economical is because of that, not just because they bowl straight. The ability to get bounce without having to pitch short is an asset that relatively few bowlers possess, and if you can combine that asset with the ability to control your line and length, it makes it difficult for batsmen to get comfortable with you, or to get on top of you in terms of runscoring. Obvious examples are Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Clark and other tall bowlers, and Harmison's pace just makes it more difficult.

Err, yes, that's pretty obvious. Tall bowlers are, and always have been, harder to get after if they get their line right.
But still - Test cricket isn't just about being hard to get after, it's about taking wickets. Garner, Ambrose, McGrath and, BTSOT, Clark, have the ability to do that. Harmison doesn't.

Where did I call Ambrose a one trick pony? He was nothing of the sort, he was a fantastically good bowler. What I said was that the main thing Harmison and Ambrose have in common (other than similar bowling actions) is that they both have a combination of height and pace that, when combined with control, makes it extremely difficult to score, and extremely difficult to survive if the pitch is uneven. Neither Ambrose or Harmison are the quickest bowlers you'll see, but batsmen were always uncomfortable against Ambrose because he used his height and the pace he did generate so effectively, while Harmison often wastes it.

Ambrose didn't swing the ball much, as you say, and while he was lethal on a seaming wicket, one of the reasons he maintained such a good record as a bowler is because when the ball wasn't moving around for him (and if you think that it moved around all the time, you're definately wrong) he was incredibly tough to score off because he had an excellent bouncer and his stock delivery was straight, back of a length and rose sharply. If you can find it, take a look at Ambrose's famous 7 for 1 at Perth, and you'll see the way he used bounce and accuracy to take wickets. The pitch had a bit of menace about it because of the cracks in the surface, but mostly it was just hard and flat and quick, and Ambrose bowled one of the best spells you'll ever see with only minimal movement laterally. Harmison and Ambrose have obvious traits in common, and the reason they are mentioned together so much is because with an improvement in his control Harmison could become a very good test bowler, utilising the same assets that made Ambrose great.

As I said, the main problem he faces now is that when conditions aren't particularly good for him (which like all bowlers, is most of the time) he can be quite unpenetrative because he doesn't build pressure effectively on batsmen. He is too wayward, and good players who are set at the crease can wait for him to bowl a bad ball and put it away. It's only when there's a bit of uneven bounce around or some seam movement that he becomes genuinely dangerous, and he's not a Simon Jones type who can pull out an unplayable ball at any moment. Harmison needs to be accurate to be successful.

Of course bounce alone can take wickets at The WACA. That's well-known. It's a unique ground in World cricket. I'm not surprised he didn't need much sideways movement to take the 7-1.
As I've already said, Harmison has bowled on uneven pitches plenty, and been ineffective about as often as he's been effective (and even when he's been effective, it's been down to poor strokes rather than uneven bounce). There have also been times (as I've also said) when he's bowled accurately and been played-out without anyone gifting their wickets as they did in the first 7 Tests of 2004.
Harmison's action is nothing like Ambrose's - Ambrose was nice, simple, up-down-through; Harmison's is regularly all over the place, and it's no coincidence that people regularly comment on how he can start "falling away". How much difference that makes, I don't know, because even when he doesn't "fall away" little tends to change in the way the ball comes out. But certainly Ambrose had a far better action than Harmison.
And to suggest that Harmison could become good if he became more accurate is ONE HUGE if. Improving accuracy - certainly to the extent Harmison would need to - is not something that's often been done.

 

[marc71178]

So if your team wins you have to be making a contribution?
Rubbish.
If you're not getting good figures, you're not contributing enough

If a team plan asks you to do something and you do it, you're making a contribution.

Because playing isn't what teaches you - watching is.

So how does watching on TV tell you more about a bnowler than actually analysing him in training sessions (and the small matter of playing against him)

Sorry, where?

Try post number 63 or will you try and claim that doesn't contradict yourself?

 

[Goughy]

Experience makes no massive difference.

Funny

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't even bother reading Richards posts anymore.

I'd rather eat live kittens.

 

[albo97056]

Harmisons average speaks for itself. Anyone averaging in the 20's at this level should be in the side. He may not be an ambrose or a mcgrath but hes worth his place in the side ahead of anderson, plunkett and anyone else youd think about bringing in.

 

[Richard]

If a team plan asks you to do something and you do it, you're making a contribution.

So a team plan would be for Bowler X to take 2-130 in a match?
Somehow I think not.

So how does watching on TV tell you more about a bnowler than actually analysing him in training sessions (and the small matter of playing against him)

Playing against is no different to watching play against.
As far as I know, Langer hasn't trained with him.
In case you've noticed, I've not said "I know more than Duncan Fletcher" etc. about Harmison.

Try post number 63 or will you try and claim that doesn't contradict yourself?

That is quite a long post - what exactly did I say there that I'd said the opposite of before?

 

[Richard]

Funny

Care to provide an explanation why, instead of just a smiley?

 

[Richard]

Harmisons average speaks for itself. Anyone averaging in the 20's at this level should be in the side. He may not be an ambrose or a mcgrath but hes worth his place in the side ahead of anderson, plunkett and anyone else youd think about bringing in.

Ahead of the Anderson we'd seen before the most recent Test, maybe, but that only says how terrible he was and how rubbish Plunkett is.
Harmison's Test average sure goes plenty over 30 when you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe "Tests".

 

[Pothas]

Richard are you trying to say that the England atack is inferior? because that is a little obsurd

 

[Langeveldt]

Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Richard]

Richard are you trying to say that the England atack is inferior? because that is a little obsurd

Inferior to what?
Harmison is clearly much inferior to Flintoff, Hoggard and Jones.
And possibly to Anderson, too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sir Winston Churchill

You've been beaten to that particular gag...

Charles Darwin, maybe Churchill... not sure.

 

[Richard]

Might be ignoring the pratt, same way he ignores half the board?

 

[marc71178]

That is quite a long post - what exactly did I say there that I'd said the opposite of before?

Hmm, if you can't see it you're even more stubborn than originally thought.

 

[Richard]

I can't even completely remember the thing - it was a while ago.
If you can't point it out to me I hardly see why I should go searching for it myself.

 

[marc71178]

I can't even completely remember the thing - it was a while ago.
If you can't point it out to me I hardly see why I should go searching for it myself.

Read the post, and tell me how it doesn't contradict you're "not improve" comment.