Harvey shows his stuff

Port01 · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by dogboy23
First page you said Lehmann takes more wickets than Hogg.

While defending Zombie is illogical at the best of times, takes does not equal taken.

Lehmann takes more wickets than Steve Waugh, he has not taken more.

Zombie · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by dogboy23
First page you said Lehmann takes more wickets than Hogg.

He does take more wickets.

Zombie · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by Darky
Bowling returns for the last 16 matches are similar with Harvey being slightly ahead. Hogg's batting over that period is twice as good as Harvey's.

That's the purpose of an all-rounder, to be good at both facets, incase you hadn't worked it out yet.

How so? Harvey has scored more runs than Hogg in their last 15 matches, I would suggest that meant that Harvey had contributed more with the bat than Hogg had.

Catman · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by Darky
But what riles me a bit is an underlying tone of excessive pro-Victorianism, and a subtle anti-NSW bias... you've avoided saying it explicitly, but I know it's in you somehwere.

Who me? Never.

Darky · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by Zombie
How so? Harvey has scored more runs than Hogg in their last 15 matches, I would suggest that meant that Harvey had contributed more with the bat than Hogg had.

Hogg's average in that time is 28 (including a score of 71*), Harvey's is 13.5 and in all his 44 matches has not made a 50 despite batting as high as first drop.

I would suggest that he has underachieved with the bat, and I would also suggest that averaging 34 and going for almost 5 an over is not "good enough to be playing on his bowling alone". It makes him a fringe player, which he is lucky to be after 44 matches and several years without significant results.

Zombie · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by Darky
Hogg's average in that time is 28 (including a score of 71*), Harvey's is 13.5 and in all his 44 matches has not made a 50 despite batting as high as first drop.

I would suggest that he has underachieved with the bat, and I would also suggest that averaging 34 and going for almost 5 an over is not "good enough to be playing on his bowling alone". It makes him a fringe player, which he is lucky to be after 44 matches and several years without significant results.

In 15 games Hogg has only scored more than 15 once.

In Harvey's last 15 games he scored more than 15 on four occassions.

I'm not doubting that Hogg can bat, but when it comes to 5 overs to go I'd rather put Harvey in than Hogg. Harvey swings the bat and has a go, Hogg doesn't, simple as that. In the dying overs we need batsmen who are trying to score runs not trying to save their wicket.

Darky · Feb 13, 2003

Originally posted by Zombie
In 15 games Hogg has only scored more than 15 once.

In Harvey's last 15 games he scored more than 15 on four occassions.

I'm not doubting that Hogg can bat, but when it comes to 5 overs to go I'd rather put Harvey in than Hogg. Harvey swings the bat and has a go, Hogg doesn't, simple as that. In the dying overs we need batsmen who are trying to score runs not trying to save their wicket.

There's a difference between attacking batting and throwing away your wicket recklessly.

And Hogg often comes out with only 2-3 overs to go, not really time to make a decent score... usually he's not out for a lack of opportunity.

If you put Harvey in to bat with 5 overs to go, how often does he last the full 5 overs? I'd rather have a bloke scoring 75 /100 for the full 5 overs, than scoring 85/100 and getting out after four balls and exposing the tail because he throws the bat at bloody everything.

Zombie · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by Darky
There's a difference between attacking batting and throwing away your wicket recklessly.

And Hogg often comes out with only 2-3 overs to go, not really time to make a decent score... usually he's not out for a lack of opportunity.

If you put Harvey in to bat with 5 overs to go, how often does he last the full 5 overs? I'd rather have a bloke scoring 75 /100 for the full 5 overs, than scoring 85/100 and getting out after four balls and exposing the tail because he throws the bat at bloody everything.

Rubbish, I'd rather Harvey bat for 3 overs and make 20 runs, get out and bring in Lee who scores another 15 from the final 2 overs than leave Hogg in for the whole 5 overs and score 14 runs... not out ofcourse

Sure he has given his average a boost but he hasn't done the team total any good.

Port01 · Feb 14, 2003

How about you all compromise instead of arguing????

Keep Hogg and Harvey, send Bevan home.

Everyone is happy.

Catman · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by Port01
How about you all compromise instead of arguing????

Keep Hogg and Harvey, send Bevan home.

Everyone is happy.

Yeah, I'd be happy with that.

Perty4 · Feb 14, 2003

Hogg bowls left arm googlies, which are the ultimate variety any attack can offer. The pakis had heeps of trouble picking him, and could only sweep.
Lehmann bowls little tweakers like AB used to bowl, hardly inspiring or hard to pick stuff.
Hogg offers a lot in the field too, and generally looks like he enjoys his cricket, no doubt a helping hand to boost the drop in morale in the dressing room.

Zombie · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by Port01
How about you all compromise instead of arguing????

Keep Hogg and Harvey, send Bevan home.

Everyone is happy.

Why on earth would you want to drop Bevan? He is our 5th most important player.

Zombie · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by Perty4
Hogg bowls left arm googlies, which are the ultimate variety any attack can offer.

Left arm googly is a bit of a contradiction in terms, a googly is a term used to describe a right handed leg spinners wrong un.

lamby29 · Feb 14, 2003

Drop Martyn. Bevan is more consistent than him.

Zombie · Feb 14, 2003

Originally posted by lamby29
Drop Martyn. Bevan is more consistent than him.

What's Martyn done wrong?

In his last 15 matches he has averaged 44.11 runs a game and whilst he has scored slowly 69/100 it has often been because he has had to play an anchor role in an innings after the top order has crumbled.

lamby29 · Feb 14, 2003

Well he shouldn't be batting at 4 because quite often he will come in when there are fielding restrictions, and score very slowly. If he were to stay in the side, he should bat at 6 because he can work away the singles early in his innings. So if I had Martyn in the side, this is what my batting order would be:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Lehmann
Bevan
Martyn
Symonds
Harvey

Log In or Create New Account

Harvey shows his stuff

Norm Smith Medallist

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Premiership Player

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Club Legend

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Premiership Player

Similar threads