It's round 1 between Steve Harmison and Geoffrey Boycott.

[greg]

In case you hadn't noticed FF i am pretty irate at the moment with the English selection policy.

Wonderwide Harmison has bowled tripe for 3 years yet constantly got picked and Hoggard who carried the bowling thanks to Harmisons ineptitude is dumped after 1 poor game which to me is a disgrace so i am entitled to be annoyed about the preferential treatment given to Harmison when it wasn't deserved.

If you disagree then i am sorry for having an opinion which obviously differs to you.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by greg

If you disagree then i am sorry for having an opinion which obviously differs to you.

I agree with your opinion that Harmison was left to play for too long without doing much, and that Hoggard was unfairly treated. Where I disagree is your sentiments that he should be never allowed to play again, and that we ditch him for good.

I feel that if we can get him right (and it is an if) he is more of an asset than anything else. I do not enjoy the fact that he has been dropped, but it is a fact that he deserved to be, he did not warrant his place. I hope you can see where I am coming from.

I still feel that any true England fan would want a fit, firing and hostile Harmison in the team rather than the current situation.

[Occasional Fan]

I can see where everyone is coming from on this. I agree completely with FF's last sentence. But isn't the point that Harmison is not firing, is not hostile and therefore is not (at least presently) fit for place in the team? Seems pretty straightforward to me. If he can get back to the old form, I'd be as happy as anyone to see him take seven for 12 again. But I've been waiting quite a long time already. I'm not happy about that, and I'm not happy to see him out of the side. But I'm not surprised that he's out and I'll be unhappy to see him back as long as he retains his recent form.

[Moss]

I have never seen Harmison's attitude as good for the team. When he's firing, he's good, but it happened so very rarely.
He was always talked of as a dead cert for any team sheet, and I could never see why.
Why I relish his falling off the radar is because he has become bitter and twisted and all dignity he may have once had has evaporated.

I AM an England fan, and that is why I no longer want his negativity in my side.

[pie_chucker]

Why is everyone taking the side of Geoff Boycott. The man who once asked one of his teammates "Why does everyone take an instant dislike to me?" and the reply was "It saves time!".

Originally Posted by greg

Wonderwide Harmison has bowled tripe for 3 years.

That is harsh and wrong.

His bowling in the '05 Ashes was fine. On tour on dead wickets in Pakistan again he bowled well and came away with reasonable figures. He didnt do much in India but was injured. He had a decent series against Pakistan at home and pretty much single handedly won a test.

OK I wont talk about the last Ashes but he wasnt fit at the start of the series and shouldnt have been selected. When he was fit he bowled well in the 3rd, 4th and 5th matches of that series. He had a poor series against the WI last summer but started to hit form and got injured. In the Sri Lanka series just gone Harmison bowled well on dead wickets.

That (briefly) sums up the last 3 years and apart from one nightmare Ashes tour hasn't done that bad, especially as he's been injured during the last 3 years.

[greg]

Since the start of the ashes 2005 he has played in 27 tests taking 91 wickets @ 35.95 if you think that is good enough then you have far lower standards than me.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Why is everyone taking the side of Geoff Boycott.

Well I'm certainly not!

Now don't get me wrong, Harmison needed to be dropped as he hasn't performed well enough for too long. But Geoff Boycott regularly runs his mouth off with seemingly no aim in mind! He rarely, if ever, offers constructive criticism. I can't think of one instance off the top of my head where he said, "Now what X has to do is this," or even "X needs to work harder with the coaches, and seek out past players." What he does say is "This guy's just not good enough!" or "My old moother (no mis-spelling here ) could do a better job!" This is just completely tactless, does no good except to possibly harm the confidence of the player, and certainly does nothing to help him improve. Someone needed to say what Harmison said, and I'm glad he did.

[Rachael]

Leave out the first test of the 2005 Ashes... which was about the only Test in which he outshone the other bowlers: my instinct is to select Harmison from now until he retires on the basis that it's the coach's job to ensure such a great talent is not wasted... but had Thorpe played instead of Harmison in 2005... England's chances would have been better!

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Rachael

my instinct is to select Harmison from now until he retires on the basis that it's the coach's job to ensure such a great talent is not wasted... but had Thorpe played instead of Harmison in 2005... England's chances would have been better!

True about the coaches, but how much of it is up to the player himself? They've invested plenty in Harmison, and he just hasn't fired, despite his talent.

Besides, the way Stuart Broad's bowling- and batting, and catching- should Harmison really get in ahead of him? Anderson's place isn't secure, but who would you prefer to see taking his place- Harmison or Hoggard?

As for Thorpe, I agree that he should have played in the Ashes, but in place of Bell, not Harmison. Thorpe was a 100-Test veteran who'd performed well against Australia in the past, whereas Bell was inexperienced and only averaged 17 in the series- so England won despite Bell.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by greg

Wonderwide Harmison has bowled tripe for 3 years yet constantly got picked and Hoggard who carried the bowling thanks to Harmisons ineptitude is dumped after 1 poor game which to me is a disgrace so i am entitled to be annoyed about the preferential treatment given to Harmison when it wasn't deserved.

Greg

I think you have every right to be unhappy at Englands selection policies, as I am myself at times, but I urge you to look at these selections very much in context.

I hear what you're saying about Harmison, but I'm not sure you fully appreciate the reason Harmison was perservered with for so long when it was clear Harmison simply wasn't at his best. Harmison is a unique talent, by that I mean there are very few (if any) bowlers world wide who have the qualities and abilities that he has. Can you name anyone who bowls from his height at his speed and gets the bounce he gets? The potential of Harmison is phenomenal and it wouldn't take a lot for him to become the best bowler in the world - with the ability and talent that he has.

This is why he was perservered with for so long - his unique talent and potential that sadly continued to be unrealised, but you can (well I can) at least understand the reasoning of the selectors in continuing to select him in the vain hope he'd come good. Sadly he didn't and it was right to send him back to County Cricket.

Hoggard was just out of form, out of rhythm and had played very little cricket since coming back from injury - Anderson on the other hand had played in the ODI's, in NZ State Cricket and was an obvious slot in for Hoggard. They needed results and performance from their bowlers and unfortunately Hoggard had to give way. It's only temporary, as long as Hoggy gets himself back into rhythm again, I'm convinced he'll be back in the starting lineup come May.

Regarding Boycott, treat him in the same way as any other Cricket pundit, some of what he says is good, some of what his says is bad and some of what he says is simply bizarre, but there's no point in getting upset about it.

I think Harmison should have simply ignored his comments and shown that he didn't care about them, unfortunately by responding he's shown that he does and Boycott achieved his objective.