Angus Fraser has been expressing concern over Steve Harmison’s dodgy radar ahead of next Wednesday’s first test against New Zealand.
England cricket fans have lost more hair over Harmison’s scattergun overs down the years than Michael Vaughan’s injury woes. Those clever graphics which show where each of his deliveries have pitched have a nasty habit of resembling a particularly violent game of splodge cricket.
But we have also endured, because on his day, there are few bowlers in world cricket that have the ability to be so destructive.
The problem is that many of us have sometimes felt a little short changed by Harmison, particularly these past couple of years.
His reluctance for overseas tours down to homesickness is well known. In 2004, he refused to tour Zimbabwe for reasons of conscience. Without doubting his understandable abhorrence for the political situation in Zimbabwe, some observers felt this excuse was all a little too convenient. His retirement from one-day cricket too in 2006 was, for many, a little premature.
To put the demands of international cricket these days into some sort of context, we just need to look at the recent retirements of two Australian players who would probably walk into the current England side.
Adam Gilchrist also recently departed, citing a dropped catch in the series against India for his exit. If such an error forced retirement in the England set up, there would be few backstops left.
Similarly, when Damien Martyn made the surprise decision to retire from international cricket during the 2006 Ashes, despite having had a decent series, he cited the fact that he could only afford to give the Baggy Greens 100 per cent. His team mates, he said, were entitled to more than that.
Harmy has been one of the greatest cricketing talents to pull on an England cap so far this century, and seems a decent sort of bloke.
But how often do we feel from him that we’re just not getting close, even to Martyn’s 100 per cent?
Comments