View Full Version : Ian Harvey - Australia's most overrated cricketer
wagstaff
11 Jan 2002, 20:40
Haven't had the chance to watch all of tonight's Aus/NZ match as I live in Melbourne but it seems by what was said on radio that Ian Harvey's batting wasn't up to standard. (took a good catch though)
We've had several puff pieces in the Herald Sun about how Ian Harvey has "matured" and is a chance to be in Australia's test squad to go to South Africa but I don't even think he's worth his place in the one-day side.
After 36 matches, he averages 20 with the bat (no fifties) and averages 33.20 with the ball while conceding 4.50 RPO - hardly the stuff of star all-rounders.
His bowling is vastly overrated because he is capable of bowling a few flashy slower balls and a good yorker, but most decent bowlers who bowl at the death are capable of bowling like that. I can't remember too often when he's really made a difference with his bowling.
Why does Australia persist with this guy? He is the guy nicknamed 'the freak' isn't he?
From what I have seen he is not up to the standard of international cricket, let alone the higher standard of the Australian team.
I don't understand what role he is supposed to fill in the side. Surely if Bevan and Gilchrist are your 'strike' genuine alrounders, why not pick a player to address a particular need, i.e a legitimate batsman or a bowler.
You can not manufacturer a Chris Cairns, so instead of choosing someone who is a compromise half way house why not choose a cricketer who deserves to be there.
kretchy
12 Jan 2002, 07:32
His bowling i reckon is very good in the one-dayers but he is too inconsistent when he bats. There is no way he well ever make the test team he isn't a strike bowler and he isn't good enough to hold a place with his batting.
Kangas_Big_Fan
12 Jan 2002, 07:51
Harvey is a bowling all-rounder we all know but he is one of those bowlers who gets a wicket every match and he batting crap
S.Lee is a batting all-rounder he bats well but cant bowl as good as hius batting skills
M.Bevan is not an all-rounder he cannot bowl his wickets are when the players miss time a slog and get cought
Ian Harvey is the best "all-round" option that Australia has. 4.5 runs an over equates to 45 in 10 and that is not bad (225 off 50). He is a wicket-taker and he hasn't got any 50's because he bats at 7 or 8 for Australia.
Andy Symonds - great hitter, gets wickets with poo
Shane Lee - great hitter, can get wickets as well but is the same sort of player as THE FREAK
Shane Watson- we'll wait and see
Brad Hodge - put him in!!!!!!!
Hoggy
The Hitman
12 Jan 2002, 08:28
Symonds is our best all-rounder. 'The Freak' is good, but not great, and I am honestly surprised he gets the chances he does. Don't rate Shane Lee.
The Hitman
Symonds is a better all-rounder.At least he can bat.
Harvey's bowling is okay,but he is in the side to bowl well & make some runs.
Kade Harvey would be a better choice than Ian.:p
nolsey77
12 Jan 2002, 09:59
These one day game revolve around a four year cycle, and there is only really one competition the world cup. It amazes me that the selectors can be praised for picking an Australia 'A' for two games. Another words they are praised for picking guys on the verge of international cricket, Are Australia not number 1 in the world, why dont they pick as many players for the number 1 aussie team as they think are up to the task, not rewarding players who are just on the verge but players who actually will wera the over bearing poor disgusing musturd colour one day uniform that FILA have designed (how bad is that top).
I would rest the Waugh for the first 5 games, give them a break because at the rate they both are going, Boony, AB, TREV and Hildich are going to give them both the tap on the shoulder.
kretchy
12 Jan 2002, 17:25
They could always call on Lehmann as the all-rounder after his great bowling in the 'A' games. :D
the over bearing poor disgusing musturd colour one day uniform that FILA have designed (how bad is that top).
"That's Australian gold my friend and don't you ****ing forget it!":D :D :D
GoEagles
12 Jan 2002, 22:42
Harvey is put in the team as an all-rounder, mainly as Australia's 5th bowler rather than a batsman although we've got the bowling covered, it's the batting that needs improving!
The selectors would be crazy if they didnt play Symonds or Lehmann tomorrow against South Africa. My bet is that there are up to 4 changes to the team tomorrow!
dogboy23
13 Jan 2002, 11:06
Harvs averages 20 and I can tell you any team would take that at number 8 at that level.Everytime he comes in he is forced to smash it straight away.His batting is great at pura cup level this season and his bowling has always been tremendous.Symonds is not much stronger with the bat than Harvs and his bowling is no better than I could do.
Well Symonds certainly showed what a quality all-rounder he is yesterday, didn't he? :rolleyes:
As for Harvey. The ball he got from Cairns on Friday was a pearler, not many batsmen would have managed to survive that one.
NICK THE PIE MAN
14 Jan 2002, 21:09
Originally posted by Catman
As for Harvey. The ball he got from Cairns on Friday was a pearler, not many batsmen would have managed to survive that one.
I can't remember his wicket specifically,
but are you talking about the slower ball? If so, come on, its a bloody slower ball, batsmen should know how to play them. After all, the bloody captain of the side invented it! :D
The Ewok
14 Jan 2002, 22:41
Back to the name of this thread - Simon Katich is actually Australia's most overrated cricketer (as highlighted in one of the papers last week)
wagstaff
14 Jan 2002, 23:45
As for Harvey. The ball he got from Cairns on Friday was a pearler, not many batsmen would have managed to survive that one
Certainly it was a good ball but Harvey's defence was in such a mess that he made it an unplayable one.
Back to the name of this thread - Simon Katich is actually Australia's most overrated cricketer (as highlighted in one of the papers last week)
I wouldn't take much notice of that article, this is coming from the same group of writers who have been pushing up Ian Harvey as a candidate to tour South Africa with the test squad! While Katich may be overhyped, he hasn't had a proper go at international level yet.
One of my votes for Australia's most overrated cricketer would be Greg Blewett. People allegedly keep wondering how he can't be in the Test side when he has had plenty of chances (over 40 Tests) and after a bright beginning, found wanting. His one-day international record is very disappointing as well, especially for someone who would be ideally suited as Australia's fifth bowler when fit.
wagstaff
15 Jan 2002, 00:17
As for Harvey. The ball he got from Cairns on Friday was a pearler, not many batsmen would have managed to survive that one
Certainly it was a good ball but Harvey's defence was in such a mess that he made it an unplayable one.
Back to the name of this thread - Simon Katich is actually Australia's most overrated cricketer (as highlighted in one of the papers last week)
I wouldn't take much notice of that article, this is coming from the same group of writers who have been pushing up Ian Harvey as a candidate to tour South Africa with the test squad! While Katich may be overhyped, he hasn't had a proper go at international level yet.
One of my votes for Australia's most overrated cricketer would be Greg Blewett. People allegedly keep wondering how he can't be in the Test side when he has had plenty of chances (over 40 Tests) and after a bright beginning, found wanting. His one-day international record is very disappointing as well, especially for someone who would be ideally suited as Australia's fifth bowler when fit.
SeinDude
15 Jan 2002, 08:42
I think Ian Harvey is good enough to hold down the #7 spot in the Australian one-day line up. His bowling is great under pressure and as the 4th seamer is ideally suited to the role. His batting is ok, and he has the ability to score quickly by hitting the 4's & 6's.
SeinDude
Groucho
15 Jan 2002, 10:03
Harvey's definitely our best option. He averages 20 ,but more importantly, has a strike rate of more than 90,very acceptable figures for a Number 7 or 8. He usually bowls "at the death" so 4.5 RPO is quite good. It has to be accepted that Symonds is a batsman who bowls a bit and can never be considered as a genuine 5th bowler.
Jars458
15 Jan 2002, 10:14
Originally posted by Groucho
Harvey's definitely our best option. He averages 20 ,but more importantly, has a strike rate of more than 90,very acceptable figures for a Number 7 or 8. He usually bowls "at the death" so 4.5 RPO is quite good. It has to be accepted that Symonds is a batsman who bowls a bit and can never be considered as a genuine 5th bowler.
Well if that's the case Lehmann is a much better option than Symonds
Symonds has only made two fifties in ODI's whilst Lehmann has made 12 including two centuries
Clearly Symonds has more wickets, but Darren's bowling this year has been much better and I think he has been working on it quite hard
The selectors don't like him for whatever reason though. He would make any other International side in the world at both levels
Katich had one good season and is way overated
I would put Lehmann Bevan, Hodge, Love and Maher ahead of him in Australia at least.
Originally posted by Jars458
Well if that's the case Lehmann is a much better option than Symonds
As bad as it may be Symonds bowling is still light years ahead of Lehmanns.
Symonds has only made two fifties in ODI's whilst Lehmann has made 12 including two centuries
Lehmann's played a few more matches than Symonds and as he has opened this is not a valid comparision of their worth to the side. When has Symonds had the opportunity to make a century?
The selectors don't like him for whatever reason though.
Yeah, it's a anopther conspiracy.
He would make any other International side in the world at both levels
So? I could make Bangladesh's test side, what does that prove?
Jars458
15 Jan 2002, 11:53
Originally posted by Dave
So? I could make Bangladesh's test side, what does that prove?
Yeah right
And I could be Prime Minister.
Originally posted by Jars458
Yeah right
You know what I meant. There are a number of cricketers in this country that would be automatic picks for other test nations. What relevance does that have to whether they should be in our side given we are the official world champions in both forms of the game?
And I could be Prime Minister.
Now there's a scary thought :eek:
Pies rock
15 Jan 2002, 12:24
IMHO:
Symonds' batting is no better than Harvey's, but Harvey can bowl. If Harvey was there instead of Symonds on Sunday night, we would have won.
Katich is ridiculously overrated.
Lehman is a gun, but there isn't any room really.
Our best side:
Gilchrist
M.Waugh
Ponting
Bevan
S.Waugh
Martyn
Harvey
Warne
B.Lee
Gillespie
McGrath
12th man: Hayden
BTW, Hayden is desperately unlucky...
Originally posted by Jars458
Yeah right
And I could be Prime Minister.
You can't be anywhere near as bad as the dweeb we currently have. ;)
Groucho
15 Jan 2002, 14:35
Originally posted by Jars458
Well if that's the case Lehmann is a much better option than Symonds
Symonds has only made two fifties in ODI's whilst Lehmann has made 12 including two centuries
Clearly Symonds has more wickets, but Darren's bowling this year has been much better and I think he has been working on it quite hard
The selectors don't like him for whatever reason though. He would make any other International side in the world at both levels
Katich had one good season and is way overated
I would put Lehmann Bevan, Hodge, Love and Maher ahead of him in Australia at least.
Well I'd have Lehmann in as a batsman but you can't be serious about his bowling. As Dougie Walters would say : " he's fruit for the site board!".
wagstaff
17 Jan 2002, 20:54
As the one who started the thread, I might as well comment on Ian Harvey's effort in today's match.
For me, his efforts today confirmed what I already thought of him as an international one-day player. His bowling today was one of his better efforts, but he's never somebody who's going to run through a side; something Australia needed after tying down NZ for so long yet not getting any wickets.
As for his batting, if anything it was less impressive then last Friday because he spent more time at the crease. The only shot he timed well was the one that led to Martyn's run-out. He is not good enough to be batting at Number 7 and I don't think his bowling is good enough to warrant a side on that alone.
grimlock
17 Jan 2002, 21:00
His dismissal tonight was very, very soft indeed. The thing about Harvey is that his batting isn't good enough nor his bowling good enough to get him in the side by themselves. Surely Symonds would be a better option.
Neither Harvey or Symonds are at international level yet. Symonds needs a lot of work on his bowling whilst Harvey needs a lot on his batting. We may as well play another batsmen who can bowl a bit and spread the last 10 overs through Bevan,Martyn and whoever else there is.
NICK THE PIE MAN
17 Jan 2002, 21:13
Too bad Shane Lee is injured me thinks.
I was impressed with the Freak's bowling and warming to him, then when he came out to bat, it seemed like he had no idea what he was doing. He was getting edges, lollipops into the air, then finely, a very very soft dismissal.
Briedis
18 Jan 2002, 07:02
Harvey should be dropped. He cracked under pressure last night and played one of the worst shots I have seen for a long time. Gutless! It was Chris Harris for god's sake.....
Get rid of him and bring Lehmann into the side. Martyn is on shakey ground as well, I haven't seen a 'batsman' hit the ball that poorly for a while, he is out of touch at the moment.
How can the Aussies lose that maytch after being 4/174? UNbelievable....:(
Jars458
18 Jan 2002, 08:08
Why don't the selectors look to the future??
Bring in young watson if Shane Lee isn't fit.
Try someone new
Mark Waugh is on very shaky ground and could go before the end fo the series
Haydyn has to be in the side - Waugh said he was batting as well as anyone ever has yet can't make the side - you have to be kidding
A spot must be found for Lehmann. He has changed his game this year and is now playing very controlled brilliant one day innings'.
Australias fielding has also gone down the gurgler.
SeinDude
18 Jan 2002, 08:41
The problem I am seeing with Ian Harvey's batting is that he isn't playing his natural game. His game is to attack the bowling, not push it around. That is not the first time I've seen Ian Harvey get out like that, and to be honest, I would rather see him get out caught on the boundary going for the big hit then they way he got out last night.
I think they need to give Ian a license to play his own game regardless of the result and see what happens.
I wouldn't be writing him off just yet.
SeinDude
Fat Red
18 Jan 2002, 09:12
Originally posted by Briedis
Harvey should be dropped. He cracked under pressure last night and played one of the worst shots I have seen for a long time. Gutless! It was Chris Harris for god's sake.....
It was a terrible shot, but I don't know what Harris has to do with it. He is one of the best one-day bowlers in the world.
stoisle
18 Jan 2002, 10:56
Why don't we open with Harvey? He played better for Victoria in that position, than when he was dropped back into the middle order.
If he gets going then he will score his runs quickly, if not then at least he will not be at Number 7 and coming in when the pressure is on.
dogboy23
19 Jan 2002, 08:13
Drop Harvey?Are you people blind?He got 2 for 40 bowling at the death the other night.There is not another allround option as good as Harvey in the country.He was decieved by a slower ball who cares we have all played shots like that.Harvey can bathe is just worried about his spot in the team and he is not playing his natural game because of it.Symonds is a terrible bowler so is not an option and Watson is to raw.
The only thing Harvey has in his favour is that Brett Lee has to get the chop before him.
Harvey can also not bat higher than 8.
Originally posted by dogboy23
Drop Harvey?Are you people blind?He got 2 for 40 bowling at the death the other night.There is not another allround option as good as Harvey in the country.He was decieved by a slower ball who cares we have all played shots like that.Harvey can bathe is just worried about his spot in the team and he is not playing his natural game because of it.Symonds is a terrible bowler so is not an option and Watson is to raw.
Noffke looks a good prospect as an all-rounder. Like Gillespie, he is defensively inclined as a batsman, but he CAN bat, and unlike Harvey, he'd be picked on his bowling alone.
I agree with Port01 about Harvey batting at 8. He's a good number 8, but a shocking number 7.
Shane Lee is a batting all-rounder who bowls, and his career bowling analyses compare quite well with Harvey.
As batsmen :
Symonds 45 matches, av 26.65, S/R 102.97
S.Lee 45 matches, av 17.66, S/R 95.40
Harvey 37 matches, av 19.68, S/R 87.58
Harvey has the highest proportion of not outs, of those three players. Symonds is clearly the best batsman, with Harvey and Lee about equal on performance (although it can be argued Lee can bat at 6 or 7, and is more likely to make a higher score, whereas Harvey should remain at 8).
As bowlers :
Symonds 40 wickets (0.89 per game), av 30.35, E/R 4.98 rpo, S/R 36.5 balls per wicket
S.Lee 48 wickets (1.07 per game), av 25.93, E/R 4.37 rpo, S/R 35.5 balls per wicket
Harvey 41 wickets (1.11 per game), av 32.56, E/R 4.50, S/R 43.4 balls per wicket
Lee is clearly the best-performed bowler, with the other two about equal.
Harvey takes fractionally more mickets per game because he gets to bowl more overs. I don't think this should necessarily reflect a lack of faith by captains in the other two bowlers - I think it reflects that Lee played at a time when Australia had more bowling resources to stretch across its 50 overs (M.Waugh, S.Waugh, Bevan, Martyn, Ponting, Lehmann bowling more than they do these days).