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

Jontyh wrote:

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.

Oh he did. Periodically everyone would say he's made the great breakthrough, only for him to flop yet again. In the case of Harmison, his performances and returns got steadily worse over a period of time. It seems bizarre to believe that he'd suddenly switch direction and become a world class bowler again. As for his "form", he's done that several times before as well, only to bowl a pile of cack in the Test team. There is nothing whatsoever to believe he'll do that again except blind hope. Onions has done better than Harmison recently in county cricket. No-one seems to believe he's about to run through the Australian line up, because in his case people rightly say "oh it's only county cricket".

Broad might not have been brilliant so far in this Test series, but there's still nothing except hope over expectation that Harmison will do better. He has been utter, utter crap for England for years now. Why should that change? Same question again, how many more times before people finally get it and give up on him?

JKLever wrote:

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.

L, I am not the one who is trying to turn F into a WC A/R.

Henry wrote:

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......

Nah, about the same, with a shithouse more runs

Dello wrote:

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.

Broad bowled superbly in the West Indies with comparatively little reward. I watched that with my own eyes too. You can't talk about Broad's average and so on and then ignore Harmison's.

Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

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......

Nah, about the same, with a shithouse more runs

Kallis can only dream of being able to bowl a spell like the one Flintoff did the other day.

Over the last 5 years, during which Fred has been a world class bowler Kallis has averaged:

34 v Aus, 42 v Eng, 71 v Ind, 45 v SL & 76 v WI

Meanwhile he has 21 wickets against Zim & Ban at 12 !!

Flintoff in the last 5 years despite his injuries piling up......

49 wickets @ 30 v Aus, 18 at 30 v Ind, 32 at 28 v SA, 12 at 29 v SL

That's nearly 100 wickets against the best 3 sides at about 29.

Only a complete moron would suggest Kallis has been a better bowler. Who would bring A/R into it? One bats 4 the other at 7.

Dello wrote:Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Broad too has bowled well at times in his short test career, and saying that Harmison bowling badly is the same as Broad bowling well is not a justified comment. I still haven't heard a single justifiable reason for Harmison's inclusion. I'd absolutely love him to come in and take 7-25, but I don't see the slightest reason why it would happen when he's been so crap for so long.

JKLever wrote:Over the last 5 years, during which Fred has been a world class bowler Kallis has averaged:

34 v Aus, 42 v Eng, 71 v Ind, 45 v SL & 76 v WI

Meanwhile he has 21 wickets against Zim & Ban at 12 !!

Flintoff in the last 5 years despite his injuries piling up......

49 wickets @ 30 v Aus, 18 at 30 v Ind, 32 at 28 v SA, 12 at 29 v SL

That's nearly 100 wickets against the best 3 sides at about 29.

Only a complete moron would suggest Kallis has been a better bowler. Who would bring A/R into it? One bats 4 the other at 7.

OOH, I seem to have touched a nerve.

All I said was Kallis' figures were better.

I am not the one calling Freddie an allrounder, you poms are.

I have said, on this forum, repeatedly that Flintoff is overrated. The response is that Kallis is a fat overrated qunt.

Fark me, if Kallis was English he would have been knighted by now.

One reason for Harmison over Broad is that despite all the shit Harmison has bowled over the years, that one day at Lord's in 2005 has meant the Aussies are still fearful of him.

Henry wrote:One reason for Harmison over Broad is that despite all the shit Harmison has bowled over the years, that one day at Lord's in 2005 has meant the Aussies are still fearful of him.

Yeah, right

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Broad too has bowled well at times in his short test career, and saying that Harmison bowling badly is the same as Broad bowling well is not a justified comment. I still haven't heard a single justifiable reason for Harmison's inclusion. I'd absolutely love him to come in and take 7-25, but I don't see the slightest reason why it would happen when he's been so crap for so long.

Why do you think that he couldn't have regained his form and confidence? It was shot to pieces by being brought back too soon in the last Ashes and it's taken him a while to rebuild it. Seriously, if you have a tall, fast, aggressive bowler who can get quick, steepling bounce (against which most of the Aussies look uncomfortable) and he's showing good form, why not take a chance?
It's not as if he's part of a 4 man attack, so even if he doesn't bowl that well he'd still be guaranteed to mop up the lower order in the worst case scenario.

Jontyh wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Broad too has bowled well at times in his short test career, and saying that Harmison bowling badly is the same as Broad bowling well is not a justified comment. I still haven't heard a single justifiable reason for Harmison's inclusion. I'd absolutely love him to come in and take 7-25, but I don't see the slightest reason why it would happen when he's been so crap for so long.

Why do you think that he couldn't have regained his form and confidence? It was shot to pieces by being brought back too soon in the last Ashes and it's taken him a while to rebuild it. Seriously, if you have a tall, fast, aggressive bowler who can get quick, steepling bounce (against which most of the Aussies look uncomfortable) and he's showing good form, why not take a chance?
It's not as if he's part of a 4 man attack, so even if he doesn't bowl that well he'd still be guaranteed to mop up the lower order in the worst case scenario.

Because he hasn't done so for years. He wasn't guaranteed to mop up the tail before, so why should he be now? He's had plenty of occasions where he's had a good workout and still bowled a pile of poo when it comes to the tests. His record is of a bowler who has declined consistently over the period of several years. Why do you suddenly believe the form of 5 years ago is back?

Henry wrote:One reason not to choose Harmison over Broad is that despite all the shit Harmison has bowled over the years, that one day at Lord's Brisbane in 2005 2006 has meant the Aussies are still fearful of laughing at him.

Fixed.

You underlined instead of deleting. Poor forumming form.

EDIT: By gadfrey, well done sir!

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Broad too has bowled well at times in his short test career, and saying that Harmison bowling badly is the same as Broad bowling well is not a justified comment. I still haven't heard a single justifiable reason for Harmison's inclusion. I'd absolutely love him to come in and take 7-25, but I don't see the slightest reason why it would happen when he's been so crap for so long.

Similarly, there's no justifiable reason for Broad's continued inclusion other than his youth. The hope that he'll get better in time doesn't seem any more or less fanciful than the hope that Harmison might turn up and give one of his rare blistering performances.

However, Broad has had the easiest introduction to Test cricket imaginable - he's played the majority of his games against two minnows: NZ and WI. Thus far, he's looked nothing other than bog ordinary against the better sides (Aus, Ind, SA, SL) where he manages just two wickets per game.

Knock Harmison all you want - and he's more than earned it - but he has taken wickets against everyone and when he has gotten it right, even the best batsmen in the world have found him a handful.

If Flintoff and Anderson are going to lead this England seam attack, they need to be backed up by bowlers who can keep up the wicket-threat. I don't think Stuart Broad has shown any indication that he's up to the task in this series.

He might come good. But so might anyone. At least Harmison has 40 Aussie wickets under belt already. Infuriating though he is, I'd rather bank on the possibility that he might come good than the possibility that Broad might. Because Harmison's good, should it arrive, is proven to take regular Test match wickets.

And, more importantly, as I stated before, I think his attributes will compliment Flintoff better and hopefully ease the burden on the one-legged freak.

Harmison 221@31.78
Flintoff 225@32.17
Kallis 258@31.08

Shoeshine wrote:

Jontyh wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:Where have I ignored Harmison's average?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out that Broad too has bowled well at times in his short test career, and saying that Harmison bowling badly is the same as Broad bowling well is not a justified comment. I still haven't heard a single justifiable reason for Harmison's inclusion. I'd absolutely love him to come in and take 7-25, but I don't see the slightest reason why it would happen when he's been so crap for so long.

Why do you think that he couldn't have regained his form and confidence? It was shot to pieces by being brought back too soon in the last Ashes and it's taken him a while to rebuild it. Seriously, if you have a tall, fast, aggressive bowler who can get quick, steepling bounce (against which most of the Aussies look uncomfortable) and he's showing good form, why not take a chance?
It's not as if he's part of a 4 man attack, so even if he doesn't bowl that well he'd still be guaranteed to mop up the lower order in the worst case scenario.

Because he hasn't done so for years. He wasn't guaranteed to mop up the tail before, so why should he be now? He's had plenty of occasions where he's had a good workout and still bowled a pile of poo when it comes to the tests. His record is of a bowler who has declined consistently over the period of several years. Why do you suddenly believe the form of 5 years ago is back?

Because he's bowling well and with confidence. I disagree that his decline has been 'consistent', other than being consistent with being picked when he wasn't fit or bowling regularly and the result was his confidence being shot. It's not the same as declining because of age or lack of effort. And what are the occasions when he's had a good workout and then bowled badly?
I'm not disputing he has, but I refer you to my previous argument!
I agree with Dello in that I think he'd complement Flintoff and Anderson; if he's on form you can't dispute that a first change of Harmy and Sidearse, especially if the latter is now up around 90mph, with the spin of Swann to come and the dibbly dobblers of Colly and Bopara as partnership breakers or to use up old ball overs, looks like as decent an attack as we've had since 2005, can you?

taipan wrote:Harmison 221@31.78
Flintoff 225@32.17
Kallis 258@31.08

Clearly Harmison is a better bowler than Flintoff

Kallis = minnowbasher

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:Harmison 221@31.78
Flintoff 225@32.17
Kallis 258@31.08

Clearly Harmison is a better bowler than Flintoff

Kallis = minnowbasher

If that makes you happy

You all realise of course that taips is belittling the Embiggened One secure in the knowledge that Fred ain't going to absolutely farqin humiliate his team later this year?

PeterCS wrote:You all realise of course that taips is belittling the Embiggened One secure in the knowledge that Fred ain't going to absolutely farqin humiliate his team later this year?

Fred is coming to SA?

Maybe on his holliers.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:Harmison 221@31.78
Flintoff 225@32.17
Kallis 258@31.08

Clearly Harmison is a better bowler than Flintoff

Kallis = minnowbasher

Hoggard was a better bowler than any of them.

Kallis is a brilliant, selfish batsman. We all know that. But the fat lemon is in no way on the same planet as a bowler. He's a lazy weakboy who loves to trounce the minnows. If you asked any top batsman today "who is the best bowler" they'd jump in with "Flintoff". Then it would be about 70 other bowlers, then eventually after a few clues they'd probably say "Oh, yes, that fat qunt who bats slowly".