The Offical Neil Harvey Classic Quotes Thread - Some real Beauties in here

[Adelaide Hawk]

Hayden than either Barnes or Morris?

Hayden before Barnes, definitely, but I'm not too sure about Morris. Everything I've read or heard about Morris suggests he was a great player whose career was severely hampered by World War II.

 

[Fred]

It's worth bearing in mind when comparing players from past eras that pitches weren't covered in those days. If it rained, they got wet.
It would be interesting to see how modern players would cope with an old-fashioned sticky wicket.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

It's worth bearing in mind when comparing players from past eras that pitches weren't covered in those days. If it rained, they got wet.
It would be interesting to see how modern players would cope with an old-fashioned sticky wicket.

Theyd cope just fine Fred.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's worth bearing in mind when comparing players from past eras that pitches weren't covered in those days. If it rained, they got wet.
It would be interesting to see how modern players would cope with an old-fashioned sticky wicket.

At the same token, we could consider how players of yesteryear would have fared in the modern era of "professional sport" where they would be subject to concentrated bowling atttacks based on cleverly devised planning and analysis of a batsman's weaknesses.

In addition, there's the increased pressure applied by fielding teams (fielding, throwing, etc), as well as no benefit of the doubt with run outs. Then there's expectations placed upon them by overzealous supporters and a rabid media ready to pounce on every little imprefection thay may display.

I've often wondered if the Harveys of this world would still have such a simplistic overview on the modern player if placed in the same environment. My guess would be no.

 

[crownie]

It's worth bearing in mind when comparing players from past eras that pitches weren't covered in those days. If it rained, they got wet.
It would be interesting to see how modern players would cope with an old-fashioned sticky wicket.

also bare in mind that a system of comparing players from different eras is almost impossible when you have seen one team play but not the other.

 

[Ninja]

...........quiet news day at the Herald Sun, the editor picks up the phone...................

"Jimmy, I need a headline for the back page, get me Ian Chappell on the line."

..............thinks for a few seconds..................grabs the phone again........

"Actually, I need a headline for the back and front page, better get me stupid old Neil Harvey instead."


(muses to himself)..........."Where would I be without Harvey?".........

 

[dobbo_18]

Originally Posted by Romeo
Have any of you guys seen some of the footage of the pie chuckers around at that time too?

Basically all of the footage I've seen at that time is amateurish. Obviously the game has become more professional and the training techniques have improved but there were so many off-spinners/gentle mediums who around who just trundled in and bowled. The off spinners in particular were incredibly bad and they just seemed to bowl gentle darts which were in effect gentle medium pacers. As for the tailenders, well, they make today's tailenders look like batting geniuses and its amazing how many times I've seen one of the past tailenders miss the ball by basically 2 bat widths.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

there were so many off-spinners/gentle mediums who around who just trundled in and bowled. The off spinners in particular were incredibly bad and they just seemed to bowl gentle darts which were in effect gentle medium pacers.

This is why older cricket fans show concern about Murali. Off spinners in the 60s bowled mainly gentle off spin, over spin, loop and drift. Generally they were not large turners of the ball because deliveries such as the doosra were illegal. Batting against off-spinners today would be 50 times more difficult than years gone by.

 

[OldLion]

Warne and Gilchrist would have made every Aussie Test team since Captain Cook introduced the 8 ball over to the locals. And the Poms wouldn't have produced those dodgy pitches with Shane in the sheds ..

Still, imaging Gilly and Keith Miller coming in at about 6 for ..

 

[weevil]

Theyd cope just fine Fred.

No mate, no one would be ‘fine’ on a sticky wicket.

 

[scooter600x]

Surely when he said Chappell's 72 team he meant the 74-75 team?

Redpath
McCosker
I. Chappell
G. Chappell
R. Edwards
Walters
Marsh
Walker
Mallett
Lillee
Thompson

Gilmour and Jenner for bowling options.

The funny thing is McCosker was really a battler as an opener and Gilmour only played when Lillee broke down before the last test. So the only real weakness in the side was an opener and an all-rounder.

 

[scooter600x]

From 48

Hayden or Barnes
Ponting or Brown/Hassett/Loxton/Harvey.
Gichrist would have Don Tallon covered.
McGrath would have Ernie Toshack or Bill Johnstone covered.
Warne would have Ian Johnson covered.

Morris
Hayden
Bradman
Ponting
Harvey
Miller
Gilchrist
Warne
Lindwall
Bill Johnstone
McGrath



The English side still had Hutton, Washbrook, Edrich, Compton, Laker, Yardley, Bedser and Evans.

 

[Bourky23]

neil harvey... what a t*sser

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The "invincibles" tag is actually a bit of a misnomer. In the 4th Test where they made 404 on the final day to win, it was a wonderful effort. What people don't tell us is they were assisted by an English declaration in the 3rd Innings. Evans and Laker had already put on 35 runs and batting comfortably. They may have batted another 30 minutes and the Aussies would never have won.

The 3rd Test, the Poms were once again in control of the game and led on the 1st Innings by 142 runs. Their lead blew out to 316 when they declared still with 7 second Innings wickets in hand and Washbrook 85 not out.

Rain intervened forcing to game to a draw. So, although they never actually lost a Test, they were in a very delicate position in 2 of them. By naming these guys "invincible" it gives the impression they were never pushed nor headed at any stage.

Sorry to rain on the parade of cricket history, but although I do marvel at what they achieved statistically on that tour, I still feel history rates them a little higher than perhaps it should.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Harvey has given an interview to Cricinfo. THe whole thing can be seen here.

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/360570.html

Here are some snippets.

---------------------------------------------------

The reason Shane Warne was so successful was because not many people attacked him

Really? Can this guy not give any credit at all to a modern day player. Maybe Warne was so successful because he had freakish talent. Maybe batsmen went into their shell against him because his skill was to good for them. It seems to be selling Warne short by saying "oh, if batsmen attacked him he wouldn't have got 700+ wickets".

(Kerry) Packer did change cricket. It was sad, the Packer affair. I was the chairman of selectors then and never thought it would work and said so in the press. The next thing I know, I get a knock on the front door with a couple of blokes standing there, 9 o'clock in the morning. "Mr Harvey, there's a writ for you: shut up or else." I never met Packer in my life, never spoke a word to him.

I would have thought the packer affair bought cricket into line with the modern times. I guess Harvey saying it wouldn't work is not the first time his been very wide of the mark. How could Harvey say it wouldn't work if he had never spoken a word to Packer at all?

The three things that haven't changed in the game are the length of the pitch, the stumps and the ball. Everything else has changed.

-----------------------------------------------

 

[the_interloper]

His first tour in 1968 was okay, he made 343 runs @ 38.11, and this was after he'd missed a lot of cricket due to National Service. His first 2 Test innings on English soil was 81 & 86, but it all went downhill from there.

I don't think Dougie ever made a ton in England did he?

And yeah, I think all cricket lovers know what an angry old git Neil Harvey is. You'd imagine if the Test team of the century was picked today Punter would get the nod over him. Wouldn't you love to be a journo and pose that question to him, would be hilarious!

And I remember a quote from him from a while back saying something like the 1948 team "was twice as good" as the Aussie team from around 2000 (the Steve Waugh era if you like). Twice as good? Geez, if I was a journo I'd have his number on speed dial, he'd always be good for a quote.

 

[aaronm46]

good ol' nezza

 

[Cassius_Clay]

He's right about the Adelaide test not being the best ever. Making 400+ on the last day to win is amazing.

 

[DaRick]

He's right about the Adelaide test not being the best ever. Making 400+ on the last day to win is amazing.

Yes, it is, but so is dismissing 9 batsmen (some of whom were at least competent Test batsmen) on a road. They're not really comparable, anyway. Both run-chases occured in different eras.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

That's the whole point that Neil Harvey doesn't understand - describing one player or achievement as being very good doesn't mean you are dismissing or denigrating all others.