England v Australia, 3rd Test, Edgbaston, Jul 30 - Aug 3

Four Tests ago vs SA. Bowled excellently all match - figures don't really back it up, though.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/296912.html

OK, so you've found one game where he apparently bowled excellently but didn't take many wickets. This is not exactly overwhelming evidence that he should be chosen is it?

Dello wrote:Four Tests ago vs SA. Bowled excellently all match - figures don't really back it up, though.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/296912.html

And that was his first test for 6 months after being dropped. He needs bowling. Lots of it. He'd been playing county cricket all season before that final test last summer.

Dello wrote:Four Tests ago vs SA. Bowled excellently all match - figures don't really back it up, though.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/296912.html

Ah, a dead rubber match. Serious pressure.

At least we'd be picking him when he's in form and bowling regularly.
Worth a punt, I reckon.

Since the beginning of 2006 he's played 22 Tests, and taken 67 wickets at an average of 39.

And people want him to replace Broad? For what, exactly?

Well, Broad averages 40, so stastistically Harmi is better even when he's bowling tosh.

Broad will improve. Harmison won't.

And Broad can bat and catch too.

Oh no, you fools you've all be suckered by Harmy-steria.

JKLever wrote:Oh no, you fools you've all be suckered by Harmy-steria.

Quite. A perfect example of someone apparently becoming better simply by not playing.

Shoeshine wrote:OK, so you've found one game where he apparently bowled excellently but didn't take many wickets. This is not exactly overwhelming evidence that he should be chosen is it?

You asked me when he last bowled well for England and I told you. As recently as four games ago.

I never claimed it would make an unanswerable case for his inclusion - it's common knowledge that he's disappointed more than he's delivered in recent years.

But the fact remains that he has delivered occasionally, in amongst all of the dross, and is bowling exceptionally well at present. You couldn't say that for Stuart Broad.

Shoeshine wrote:Broad will improve.

Not in this series, he won't.

No, he's become better because he's bowling better. He was bowling 80 mph rubbish in the Windies earlier in the year. At Worcester against Aus he was consistently up around 90mph and was bowling acccurately.

His best mate's deeds at Lord's have probably inspired him a bit more as well.

Absence makes the Harm bowl a blinder.

The funny part to me is that suddenly Freddie has become world class.

JKLever wrote:Oh no, you fools you've all be suckered by Harmy-steria.

Not really. Just being pragmatic. Australia didn't fancy it when Flintoff came hard at them, got them hopping around a bit.

He won't be able to keep charging in for back-to-back Tests, and the rest of the attack is feeble in terms of hostility.

Harmison is an obvious choice to spread the load with, and who, even on his worst days, still offers more of a wicket threat than Broad.

Dello wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:OK, so you've found one game where he apparently bowled excellently but didn't take many wickets. This is not exactly overwhelming evidence that he should be chosen is it?

You asked me when he last bowled well for England and I told you. As recently as four games ago.

I never claimed it would make an unanswerable case for his inclusion - it's common knowledge that he's disappointed more than he's delivered in recent years.

But the fact remains that he has delivered occasionally, in amongst all of the dross, and is bowling exceptionally well at present. You couldn't say that for Stuart Broad.

He bowled so well the South Africans didn't seem to have too many problems against him? A couple of wickets in each innings hardly suggests he was that brilliant, does it? How do you define "well"? Hit the cut strip?

I still don't see the difference between him doing well in the County Championship, and Ramprakash getting tons of runs in it. How many times does Harmison have to bowl utter shit before people give up on him? He's 30, not 20. He ain't getting any better.

taipan wrote:The funny part to me is that suddenly Freddie has become world class.

Yep, your guys would have played him with consummate ease had they faced his spell on Monday......

I seem to remember it didn't take much for you to declare Morne Morkel 'world class'.

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:The funny part to me is that suddenly Freddie has become world class.

Yep, your guys would have played him with consummate ease had they faced his spell on Monday......

I seem to remember it didn't take much for you to declare Morne Morkel 'world class'.

Er, I have never said Morkel was world class. Steyn, I said maybe.

Look at Freddie's figures FFS. Kallis has better stats,

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:OK, so you've found one game where he apparently bowled excellently but didn't take many wickets. This is not exactly overwhelming evidence that he should be chosen is it?

You asked me when he last bowled well for England and I told you. As recently as four games ago.

I never claimed it would make an unanswerable case for his inclusion - it's common knowledge that he's disappointed more than he's delivered in recent years.

But the fact remains that he has delivered occasionally, in amongst all of the dross, and is bowling exceptionally well at present. You couldn't say that for Stuart Broad.

He bowled so well the South Africans didn't seem to have too many problems against him? A couple of wickets in each innings hardly suggests he was that brilliant, does it? How do you define "well"? Hit the cut strip?

I still don't see the difference between him doing well in the County Championship, and Ramprakash getting tons of runs in it. How many times does Harmison have to bowl utter shit before people give up on him? He's 30, not 20. He ain't getting any better.

But Ramps never really scaled any heights in test cricket, did he? Harmison was once rated the best bowler in the world at that level not that long ago. And it looks like he's showing signs of that form again.
It might be true to say that Broad will get better, but there's plenty of time for that and, as Dello says, it's not likely to happen much over the next three games.

Obviously Flintoff's stats don't accurately reflect how well he has bowled in the last 5-6 years. Granted, his length is sometimes a bit too short, meaning he doesn't often take the edge, but against Aus he turns into a raging beast who is very much world class.

Shoeshine wrote:

He bowled so well the South Africans didn't seem to have too many problems against him? A couple of wickets in each innings hardly suggests he was that brilliant, does it? How do you define "well"? Hit the cut strip?

I watched it. With my eyes. And then I formulated an opinion in my brain based upon what I'd witnessed.

A couple of wickets in each innings doesn't suggest he was brilliant, you're right. Based upon the scorecard, "South Africa didn't seem to have too many problems against him." Correct - based upon the scorecard.

But then I already mentioned that his figures weren't representative of how well he bowled, as witnessed by me and perhaps others.

taipan wrote:
Look at Freddie's figures FFS. Kallis has better stats,

Not this again T.

Sine 2003, Fred has been a far better bowler with a better average against better sides.

Henry wrote:Obviously Flintoff's stats don't accurately reflect how well he has bowled in the last 5-6 years. Granted, his length is sometimes a bit too short, meaning he doesn't often take the edge, but against Aus he turns into a raging beast who is very much world class.

PMSL

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Obviously Flintoff's stats don't accurately reflect how well he has bowled in the last 5-6 years. Granted, his length is sometimes a bit too short, meaning he doesn't often take the edge, but against Aus he turns into a raging beast who is very much world class.

PMSL

So you think Kallis is a better bowler than Flintoff? Err, ok......