Love sport? Try betting on your favourite team and win!

 


Twitter

 

Recent Posts

Cricket news



Fantasy Cricket

The problem with Harmison

By Will 4 years ago, at the end of October Add your comment below

I have a feeling I'm going to be chuntering and shaking my head long into my grey years well after Steve Harmison retires. I still wax lyrical about him to all my friends, as well I should. Here is a bowler so frighteningly good "on his day" as to make his path to greatness a formality. Yet we now all know this will never happen.

And we thought we had problems with Andrew Caddick. His partnership with Darren Gough was a vital cog in England's resurgence in the early 2000s yet Caddick was England's Jekyll & Hyde. Which will turn up today? We never knew, and we're similarly in the dark about Steve Harmison. We just don't know. Another dreadful display against Australia no doubt has Ponting and co. licking their lips at the dross he might serve up. They'd be wise not to get too cocky too soon, though; Harmison can destroy a side in about 40 minutes if he so chooses. Equally, his confidence can be ruined in half that time. Reason I'm rambling is this:

But paceman Steve Harmison showed again that while he has developed since his last tour of Australia, the danger of him turning in horror performances remains as clear and present as it was when his rhythm deserted him in Perth four years ago.

I'd forgotten the horrors of listening to that tour four years ago, and of Harmison's yips and general inadequacy. He has improved in consistency since then, and delivered match-winning performances to remind us of his potential. But the p word is not one we should associate with him now. As he himself admitted this week, prior to England's game against Australia, he is an experienced bowler now. Yet why, and how, is he still utterly unable to bowl like one?

Oh woe is us. 

Tags: , , , , |

9 Responses to “The problem with Harmison”

  • Get Shirty wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 10.41 am

    The problem with Harmison is the problem with the entire bowling attack without Flintoff – it’s VERY fragile.

    Last summer, if one of the bowlers was bowling like a drain, we always had Freddie to come on and bowl fast in the right lines.

    at the moment, if Harmy is wayward and going for a few, who can we turn to? Mahmood is exactly the same, but slightly slower, Anderson is erratic at best, Lewis can’t seem to get a pick despite bowling good 80’s accurate and swinging.

    Harmy is, unfortunately, never going to be able to land the ball in the same place twice, and we have to accept he’s a luxury who is brilliant one day and wouldn’t get a pick for wobbleton-on-the-wolds 3rd XI another day.

    in one-day cricket, you need to start with the basics – get a couple of bowlers who can bowl in the corridor, move it off the seam or in the air, and then pick a luxury bowler if you can manage to get through 48 overs with 5 other bowlers should in not be his day.

  • ernold same wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 11.46 am

    Its a long winter -let him build into it gradually -i personally couldnt give a stuff about this competition anyway – these games are just ‘middle practice’ for the real events -the ashes, and less so-the world cup.

  • Coalster wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 12.24 pm

    Ernold, Whilst I agree with your opinion regarding the importance of this competition, I don’t believe you can pass off Harmison’s recent performances as being because he views it as practise for the Ashes – every one-day game he plays can’t be considered practice.

    If England prepare for the Ashes by bowling wides and long-hops then it will be a long winter…

  • ty wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 1.48 pm

    I don’t think Harmison is capable of playing AWAY games. He has admitted that he absolutely hates being away from home, and this is probably the cause of his downfall. He loses all his confidence and bowls with a heavy heart. Maybe he should just play home games.

    England should bring in Dom Cork!!! How exciting would that be!

  • Reverse Swing wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 3.21 pm

    Trouble with the ‘can’t play away games’ theory is that he actually peaked in the West Indies three years ago.

    Maybe the secret is to make him feel at home wherever he is – stick a case of Newcastle Brown in his hotel room, air conditioning turned up full, loads of dry ice to replicate the ‘fog on the Tyne’ – and a hundred teenage girls in three inch mini skirts and little else to replicate the Bigg Market on a Friday night…

    That’ll do the trick!!

    Of course, if Ray Illingworth was still England manager it would have been a case of “Pull yourself together Harmy, you big Jessie, you’re playing for your country for heavens sake…” – but times have moved on a bit since then haven’t they…

    http://www.reverseswingmanifesto.blogspot.com

  • Coalster wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 3.56 pm

    The other trouble with the away games theory is he hasn’t done that well playing the one-day games at home lately either.

    I get the impression that you get the best out of him when he is hunting as part of a pack of fast bowlers. That way, the pressure is not on him as a spearhead. Look back to England’s purple patch in test matches – it was Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, and each one did their bit.

    Bring that forward to consider injuries, and you had Hoggard, Harmison, and then 3 rookies, and he hasn’t done so well.

    Even in the one-dayers, if you go back to the last Champions Trophy, Harmison, Gough and Flintoff were the 3 pronged attack that saw England nearly win it.

    I think if you take the pressure off him, you get the best out of him, but taking Reverse Swing’s point, these days the pressure is much lower. I’m sure Mark Ramprakash, for example, would rather have been playing under the current set up, so you can understand where the “pull yourself together” viewpoint comes from..

  • Sean wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 6.49 pm

    I guess GBH’s form and Flintoff’s recent return from injury is one reason why England are sure to revert to a five man attack come Brisbane.

    Hoggard spoke of a preference for a five man attack recently also, citing having to bowl the other end from Monty as a problem because the Montster gets through his overs so quickly.

    I’m not that bothered about Harmison’s form on its own; with a couple of exceptions (his Lords performance and the sublime slower ball to Clarke) I’d say he was largely anonymous in the Ashes last year.

    For me, it is how the attack performs as a whole that matters and I think there is reasonable evidence to suggest that Anderson or Mahmood might very well step up, and of course we don’t know what they’ll make of Monty.

  • ty wrote:
    October 23rd, 2006 at 7.27 pm

    good point Reverse Swing!

  • loofer wrote:
    October 25th, 2006 at 10.35 pm

    As an Australian, it’s Mahmood that I’m worried about.

    Well perhaps worried is too strong a word. The series had better not be decided by the time I start using all my tickets for the Sydney Test. :)

    Still, Mahmood looks to have the package that can really worry our aging batsmen.

    • Comments

     


    Receive email updates on new comments


    « | Main | »