Harvey to go?

[bomber70]

How long before the selectors realise Ian Harvey is a dud and drop him?? I suspect all Watson has to do is stay fit and bowl a few more overs, and it's bye bye Harv's for good.

Problem is, Harv's will be back in time to displace a regular Victorian player and make 'a pair' in the Pura Cup final.

 

[bluechampion]

marvellous.

What a wonderfully constructive post. Congratulations.

Have I missed the point? Or is the point 'I hate Ian Harvey'... because if that's it, then thanks for starting a thread on the topic. Really. Thanks.

 

[Jaymin]

Just another Victorian who 'should' have played Test cricket for Australia?

 

[vicpride99]

HHAHA your comments are so dumb it isn't funny. Look at the past year you idiot, oh and yeah why is he a dud give us some reasons????

 

[Cooldude]

He bowled better than Brett Lee at the 1st half of the VB series

 

[grayza]

I dont necessarily agree with you...and im with all the other people on this thread who have said you are quite strange or words to that affect for putting this topic forward
Harvey is doing a good job for Australia, has been for the last year

 

[P76]

I have posted on this topic before, I am a Victorian but my views have not changed - Harvey will always be a fringe player for Australia, he just doesn't quite make the grade - he has been lucky in the past as we have had a lack of good all rounders in the side. Symonds is rapidly becoming one - much better bat than Harvs and becoming a handy bowler, and Clarke and Katich are now options. Watson and possibly White are also looming.

Harvs is not a dud, but he is inconsistent, and I think his time is nearing an end.

 

[The Spornstar]

For the past 12 months Harvey has been in career best form for Aus. He still pretty much remains a fringe player tho. He should, however, survive until Watson or White really come on.

 

[dan warna]

if you stop thinking about harvey as an 'all rounder' and look at him as a bowler who can bat, he seems to be better.

he has a swag of wickets at 28 or 29, and is pretty much our third seamer behing bing and dizzy.
he also bats at an average of about 22ish.

symonds. clarke etc can't get in the same room as harveys bowling, and harvey is the bowler of choice to bowl at the death.

harvey - third best ODI fast bowler for aus.

 

[The Spornstar]

Re: Re: Re: Harvey to go?

Originally posted by lamby29
Second to which bowler?

To Binga, our great one day specialist

 

[CatManDo]

Originally posted by dan warna
if you stop thinking about harvey as an 'all rounder' and look at him as a bowler who can bat, he seems to be better.

he has a swag of wickets at 28 or 29, and is pretty much our third seamer behing bing and dizzy.
he also bats at an average of about 22ish.

symonds. clarke etc can't get in the same room as harveys bowling, and harvey is the bowler of choice to bowl at the death.

harvey - third best ODI fast bowler for aus.

Third best?

As purely a bowler, and fitness allowing, Id pick McGrath, Warne, Lee, Gillespie and Williams before Harvey. And Bracken isnt far off either in the one day game.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Someone's been to the Jaymin school of trolling.

**** poor effort that.

 

[Darky]

His bowling has been quite good over the past 12 months, but he's the second highest wicket taker basically because the first-choice bowlers have been plagued by injury (and suspension). The only other bloke who has played almost all the games, has been Brett Lee, who has taken more wickets and at a better rate.

Harvey will hold his spot for a bit longer, but it will be as a bowler only. I don't think his batting has held up at ODI level, and I'd even argue that Bichel should bat above him in the same team.

When selected as a bowler only, he might struggle to hold a consistent place when Australia has the full complement to pick from, if that ever happens.

 

[w00dy]

in 2003 harvey averaged 20 with the ball... he played 6 less matches than lee did, bowled 124 overs against 205, and only took 18 less wickets, 28 vs 46... pretty good figures i would have thought, good enough for him to warrent selection regardless of his batting...

 

[The Passenger]

Harvey had a great 2003, but he's just never going to be the type ofp layer who will ever cement his spot in the Australian team.

A really good domestic player whos just not quite all there at international level. But he's having a very good run at the moment.

 

[The Passenger]

Originally posted by w00dy
good enough for him to warrent selection regardless of his batting...

definately is and it would wanna because i;ve been massively disapointed with his batting. hes never looked like the all rounder he's supposed to be.

he's a pretty good bowler, who can bit a little better than a normal tail ender. but not an all rounder.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Darky
His bowling has been quite good over the past 12 months, but he's the second highest wicket taker basically because the first-choice bowlers have been plagued by injury (and suspension). The only other bloke who has played almost all the games, has been Brett Lee, who has taken more wickets and at a better rate.

That may well explain him being second on the wickets list, but how do you explain his average, which was considerably better than most (if not all), that bowled for Australia in 2003.

 

[CatManDo]

2003: (matches, wickets, average)

Bracken: 8, 18, 13.83
Gillespie: 11, 17, 17.61
McGrath: 19, 25, 19.65
Harvey: 18, 28, 20
Lee: 24, 46, 20.13
Williams: 12, 18, 24.72
Bichel: 28, 38, 26.05

Harvey was a good performer.

And these stats go some way to showing why Bracken will be a long term player in our one day side. He had the lowest average of anyone on the list to have played more than a couple of games.

 

[Catman]

Re: Re: Re: Harvey to go?

Originally posted by nicko18
so you'd tow the same line with macgill i spose d..khead.

The only thing I said about MacGill was his highly inconsistent line and length to the Indians during the Sydney test, who just feasted on his bowling. I criticised him then and IMO, he deserved it.

I have not be on MacGill's case for the entire summer, as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Crooked Rain]

Originally posted by The Spornstar
For the past 12 months Harvey has been in career best form for Aus. He still pretty much remains a fringe player tho. He should, however, survive until Watson or White really come on.

Gee some of his performances in the recent VB series were pretty ordinary.

I really hope Watson gets back to full fitness so he can take Harvey's place. Watto is top shelf!

 

[The Spornstar]

Originally posted by Crooked Rain
Gee some of his performances in the recent VB series were pretty ordinary.

Yeah, two of them were, the rest were good. It was a batsmen's series anyway, overall I thought Harvs bowled quite well. Lee also had a few bad performances too as far as I can recall. Hell even Gillespie did.

 

[Dogga]

Bowls at his best when wickets are falling or when bowling to the tail.

Batsmen who are set seem to have no problem picking his slower ball, and that's when his figures suffer, eg Yuvraj's 130+ at SCG when Harvey copped a pasting.

 

[Insider]

Harvey is over-rated ... was nearly going to be dropped from the Vic team before Watson broke down before the World Cup. Plays a good game every now and again to keep his spot.

Greg Blewett would have been a better option than Harvey for the past couple of years ... but thankfully it is only a matter of time before Watson is back from injury !

 

[Grasshopper17]

Originally posted by bomber70
How long before the selectors realise Ian Harvey is a dud and drop him?? I suspect all Watson has to do is stay fit and bowl a few more overs, and it's bye bye Harv's for good.

Problem is, Harv's will be back in time to displace a regular Victorian player and make 'a pair' in the Pura Cup final.

I very much doubt that bomber - last time I checked Harvey wasn't even in the Victorian 4 day side. Can't for the life of me figure out why that was, but maybe it had something to do with his batting. Or his bowling, whichever...

 

[vicpride99]

Yeah Insider
Greg Blewett you got to be kidding. Watson mate won't take Harveys spot, i can assure you of that. What you want Watson to come in at Number 8 and bat. Also for the facts Harvey won't be dropped unless he has a couple of woeful series, as you said they picked him for the world Cup didn't they with no form and have backed him countless times in the past.