For a few days now, a friend of mine has been saying that England must pick Steve Harmison for Edgbaston. He has been on fire in County cricket, he's saying, and he's a matchwinner. He isn't alone in this - Vic Marks, one of the more astute and engaging cricket writers around, has written two separate articles in the Guardian calling for Harmison's inclusion.
Now, I refresh my Twitter homepage, and here again is my friend, tweeting "They better play Harmless!"
I think they mustn't. Here's why.
In 30 Test matches since the first Test of the 2005 Ashes at 2005, Harmison's figures show that he's been, well, harmless.
He's picked up 94 wickets, at the average of 38.53 and a strike rate of 68.1. Both his five wicket hauls in this period came in the same Test, at Old Trafford against Pakistan just over three years ago. Measure that against an overall average of 31.78 and strike rate of 59.3.
Even in the 2005 Ashes, the supposedly talismanic Harmison's series average and strike rate were behind those of Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - the Matthew Hoggard whose role in that triumph is forgotten against the backdrop of Harmison hitting people on the helmet in a Test England lost.
Let's compare the career trajectories of the two H-men, shall we?
In the period I mentioned above - Harmison's harmless phase - Hoggard took 88 wickets in 26 Tests, averaging 31.98 and striking every 59.9 balls, with two five-wicket hauls. Not much worse than an overall average of 30.50 and strike rate of 56.00.
Even so, after both were dropped after bowling badly in a terrible defeat to New Zealand at Hamilton in March 2008, it was Hoggard who suffered the worse fate, disappearing entirely from the Test side. Harmison, meanwhile, has played four Tests in three series in three different continents, doing nothing to suggest he'll give Australian batsmen nightmares.
Hoggard's 'nip', an intangible quality that he apparently cannot do without, is gone forever, it seems, while Harmison's fiery pace and steep bounce can be summoned up as soon as he breathes the air of Northumberland.
Agreed, Hoggard, at 32 is older than Harmison by two years, but this isn't really a 'bring back Hoggy' blog post. It is, instead, a blog post that has veered entirely out of track, but attempts now to return to what it started out trying to say - no, sorry, Harmison shouldn't play.
Now, I refresh my Twitter homepage, and here again is my friend, tweeting "They better play Harmless!"
I think they mustn't. Here's why.
In 30 Test matches since the first Test of the 2005 Ashes at 2005, Harmison's figures show that he's been, well, harmless.
He's picked up 94 wickets, at the average of 38.53 and a strike rate of 68.1. Both his five wicket hauls in this period came in the same Test, at Old Trafford against Pakistan just over three years ago. Measure that against an overall average of 31.78 and strike rate of 59.3.
Even in the 2005 Ashes, the supposedly talismanic Harmison's series average and strike rate were behind those of Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - the Matthew Hoggard whose role in that triumph is forgotten against the backdrop of Harmison hitting people on the helmet in a Test England lost.
Let's compare the career trajectories of the two H-men, shall we?
In the period I mentioned above - Harmison's harmless phase - Hoggard took 88 wickets in 26 Tests, averaging 31.98 and striking every 59.9 balls, with two five-wicket hauls. Not much worse than an overall average of 30.50 and strike rate of 56.00.
Even so, after both were dropped after bowling badly in a terrible defeat to New Zealand at Hamilton in March 2008, it was Hoggard who suffered the worse fate, disappearing entirely from the Test side. Harmison, meanwhile, has played four Tests in three series in three different continents, doing nothing to suggest he'll give Australian batsmen nightmares.
Hoggard's 'nip', an intangible quality that he apparently cannot do without, is gone forever, it seems, while Harmison's fiery pace and steep bounce can be summoned up as soon as he breathes the air of Northumberland.
Agreed, Hoggard, at 32 is older than Harmison by two years, but this isn't really a 'bring back Hoggy' blog post. It is, instead, a blog post that has veered entirely out of track, but attempts now to return to what it started out trying to say - no, sorry, Harmison shouldn't play.
Very retarded post. Blahed all over the place. Speak about now! Broad and Onions bowled so 'harmlessly'. Onions, in fact leaked runs at over 4.5 an over. In fact, Onions and Anderson have figures that are a lot worse than Mitchell and the whole world thinks Mitchell has fucked up. England won because of Flintoff, Strauss, and a lot of luck. They may not be so lucky again. The minute Broad or Onions came on there was no pressure at all. And Anderson's two wickets? One of a slider down the legside and the other didn't even hit Ponting's bat. And ranting about Hoggy being ignored is not reason enough to not pick Harmless.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Harmless necessarily do any better? What proof exists other than the Lions match, where Harmison bowled well, admittedly, but so did Bresnan and the Onions who took all the pressure away at Lord's.
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you think Harmison's recent Test performances don't indicate anything about the 'now' you exhort me to speak about? For more than four years, Harmison has been a bowler in decline.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanna go back four years, yo may as well go back a few more where he was awesome. I called the going back retarded cos everyone knows he sucked bigtime in the last few years. You don't have to spend paragraphs and throw up statistics to prove the point. And I know that too. Obviously, I'm saying he should play despite all of that. Because I believe that at his best he can win a match in a spell. I just don't see Onions or Broad doing that. They are support staff. I don't believe in support staff. I don't believe in supposedly safer options. And they certainly don't need the both of them.
ReplyDelete"At his best he can win a match in a spell."
ReplyDeleteI know everyone knows he's bowled badly for quite some time, but I think the statistics show how badly, and for how long, and how deluded, therefore, everyone believing he is still capable of winning matches in one spell are. 'At his best' was a long time ago.
Puhleese. We all know how long ago. And the stats, frankly, were better than I expected. But it doesn't matter cos I choose to disregard them anyways. And chuck eet. I've made my point.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Hoggard should have been in the squad. He has been performing well recently in county cricket too...Harmison is one day hot three days cold, but in the case of Hoggard you can bet your bottom dollar that he will not lose control of a cricket ball while bowling and will be there day in day out in the corridor.
ReplyDelete