Caddick Praises Hoggard

[flanflinger]

True, I must admit for the Aussies I might be tempted to go with Caddick over David Harrison, Jon Lewis, Sajid Mahmood or Kabir Ali.

However, I still feel selecting Caddick woul be a backward step and would go against the recent selction policy. I would prefer to see Saggers or Johnson though, if we did need a short-term replacement.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Funnily enough I thought about Johnson. Thing is he's only played against bang and Zim - hardly cricketing giants. Wish he'd been on this tour instead of jimmy to be honest.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The fact remains though that of the two players, Hoggard and Anderson, the correct player was chosen, that does show that Fletcher is flexible in his plans, which is also a good thing.

How do you know that ff, Anderson if he had been given the same chances as Hoggard, may well have been taking the plaudits this winter.

Not that long since Hoggy had more knockers than not, i wish him well, but he has to do it, on grounds were there is no swing to be had.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

How do you know that ff, Anderson if he had been given the same chances as Hoggard, may well have been taking the plaudits this winter.

Ern,

Don't really want to go through the Anderson debate at the moment, the fact is there are three places for specialist bowlers in the Team. Of those three - two are now firmly decided and one still remains outstanding.

Anderson still has that fall away in his bolwing action, where his front-foot goes all-over the place. He also has a problem, and SKY mentioned it on Monday, that he does not feel he repeats his action.

This means that the spell he has on Saturday will happen until he gets a comfortable repeating action, where his head position is still. The problem is that the good batsmen at Test cricket thrive on this inconsitency, but he still has enough talent to pick up a lot of wickets at County level.

I would say that the England management are desperate for either Jones or Anderson to become good test match performers, and they have both had chances. The difference is that Hoggard and Harmison have taken the chances they have been given, wheras Jones and Anderson, have not.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The difference is that Hoggard and Harmison have taken the chances they have been given, wheras Jones and Anderson, have not.

Anderson has never had a good action, but has been made worse with coaching.
I would with respect disagree with you over Jones and Anderson, Jones was doing ok until his injury, Anderson did take his chance in Australia when called to Englands rescue due to jones and Flintoffs injury.

We all know the Anderson thing was political, this being the case, why did they not send him back to play with Lanc's.

I wonder what attitudes will be, if Anderson is selected on Friday, and he takes a couple of 5 fors.

Sorry to be sceptical, but not long ago, Anderson was the toast of the England team, and Hoggard was lucky to get a game.

I am happy for Hoggard, but more happy England won the game, but the nature of the beast is, let Hoggy have a few bad games, and the knives will be out.

[Zainub]

Hoggard's column for BBC was a refresshing read, he really is a down to earth bloke, not many of his type around these days. Good to see.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Anderson has never had a good action, but has been made worse with coaching.

Don't think that is really the case. It would be good to compare videos of him when he first started and what he looks like now. What I do know is that it would be hard to imagine he has been coached to splay his foot and drop his head away

Originally Posted by Ernest

I wonder what attitudes will be, if Anderson is selected on Friday, and he takes a couple of 5 fors.

Well I would be very happy. I like the guy, I think he is a serious prospect. I just feel that until those problems with his action are sorted out, he will contiune to bowl too many bad balls.

I am happy for Hoggard, but more happy England won the game, but the nature of the beast is, let Hoggy have a few bad games, and the knives will be out.

Not from this corner, I have been a fan of Hoogy for years and won't be knocking him after a few bad games, in the same way that I refuse to knock the form of Harmisons, Freddie or Jones's Batting and earlier in the series when idiots were calling for Trescothick to be dropped, and question Vaughan's place as a Captain and Batsmen, I was not in that group.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

We all know the Anderson thing was political, this being the case, why did they not send him back to play with Lanc's.

Ask Lancs.. Nass brought up this discussion during the last test match on Sky. He went to see the England camp about it and said that England said they'd only taken Anderson out of one county game.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Pete

Ask Lancs.. Nass brought up this discussion during the last test match on Sky. He went to see the England camp about it and said that England said they'd only taken Anderson out of one county game.

Well the fact of the matter is that Anderson has played no cricket except for 210 overs before this 4th Test, but he has been in the squad all that time.

Why was Anderson dropped in the first place, his action is not great, but he took wickets, just like Murali in a sence.

Why did he play so crap in the 4th Test, he was very rusty, I cringed when he was selected, I knew what was coming.

ff They did not coach him to drop his head away, but it is a known fact he has got worse since he was coached, he got bye with his action, coaching pace bowlers is always a dodgy undertaking.
Confidence would help him, but playing cricket would help him more, and that would help him gain some confidence.

I am not saying he should replace Hoggy, but he needs to be match fit, in case of injury to Hoggy, in fact he should be pushing to regain his place in the England team.

The Anderson affair reminds me a little of the Devon Malcolm affair, a victim of politics.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The Anderson affair reminds me a little of the Devon Malcolm affair, a victim of politics.

Originally Posted by Ernest

We all know the Anderson thing was political, this being the case, why did they not send him back to play with Lanc's.

Where are you getting this 'political' impression from Ern? I don't follow you. I don't think Anderson has been mistreated by the England selectors.