Caddick Praises Hoggard

[Ernest]

GW,Harmison did not shine in Austraia, and Hoggard has not always been as good as this year, his averages are much the same as Anderson, only he has played more matches.

Selectors have the right, to choose who they wish, what I am objecting to, is the fact they kept Anderson for over 12 months and only allowed him to bowl 210 overs prior to the 4th Test in this series.

Lancshire were relegated, they might have clung on, had Anderson been available, and he would have beem in mush better nick for cover, than he is at the moment.

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But can you imagine chuking in Harrison, against Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn et al. It could do more harm than good

Yep. Fair point there. However, it would depend on whether Johnson was fit in my opinion - he'd be the first choice out of this lot in the high pressure Ashes situation as he didn't seem to have any nerves at all on his debuts, has the experience and as you say - would not come out damaged by a poor performance. However, I'd still rather play some of the young'uns ahead of Saggers; and lets not forget that Kabir Ali has had some international experience and shouldn't be so out of his depth. You're right about Harrison though, it could do more harm than good and we wouldn't want to ruin such decent prospects. However, he could always prove us wrong and come out storming, a la Strauss!

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

I agree FF. If it is a one-off situation where someone needs to come in at short notice to cover an injury, I don't see a problem with using an experienced player like Caddick. It is not a long term selection decision so I don't really think it would be a retrograde step.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Ernest

GW,Harmison did not shine in Austraia, and Hoggard has not always been as good as this year, his averages are much the same as Anderson, only he has played more matches.

They have, however, been successful at Test level. I might be wrong but at the start of his career Hoggy was in the top 10 in the PWC rankings (no. 6 perhaps?) and was one of the quickest Englishmen to reach 100 wickets. Other than a 5-for against Zimbabwe in his first match Anderson has not as yet lived up to his potential. Harmison was perhaps granted a longer indulgence than most before he started performing because there aren't that many extremely tall bowlers who can bowl at 90mph plus in county cricket.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

I agree FF. If it is a one-off situation where someone needs to come in at short notice to cover an injury, I don't see a problem with using an experienced player like Caddick. It is not a long term selection decision so I don't really think it would be a retrograde step.

Is the very thought of picking Gough (I'm sure if they ask him he would play regardless of him being retired) for a one-off cover match out of the question???? He appears to be a lot fitter than he was in the South Africa 2003 series, and might be a better option to Caddick and the others.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

I don't see any problem with that either Milo (I would have been happy had he been selected for tomorrow's match if that had been necessary given the various injuries).

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

I might be wrong but at the start of his career Hoggy was in the top 10 in the PWC rankings (no. 6 perhaps?) and was one of the quickest Englishmen to reach 100 wickets. .

I think Hoggy was the quickest England bowler to get 50 wickets, and certainly did get into the PWC top ten. He is in the Top10 now and he has not yet reached his heighest rating (and that was before his 100 wickets and full rating).

I think Hoggy is much under-rated, and that is why I am so glad he has shone here.

As for Harmison, he has been picked on potential, very similar to Flintoff. This potential has been obvious for years. Lets hope he finds his line and length again soon, as the potential is still there.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

As for Harmison, he has been picked on potential, very similar to Flintoff. This potential has been obvious for years. Lets hope he finds his line and length again soon, as the potential is still there.

Also in Australia we didn't have much of a bowling attack anyway, so we were pretty much forced to have Harmison in the team. Where as now we don't have to have Anderson in the team, Jones has been the third best bowler after Hoggard and Flintoff and should rightly be put back into the team if his injury has cleared.

[Ernest]

yes we were forced to have harmison in the attack in Australia, as we were Anderson, but of the 2,Anderson was the one that showed the most potential.
Anderson got all the rave reviews for his wickets, and his Hat Trick, and Anderson got the sack.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

yes we were forced to have harmison in the attack in Australia, as we were Anderson, but of the 2,Anderson was the one that showed the most potential.
Anderson got all the rave reviews for his wickets, and his Hat Trick, and Anderson got the sack.

He went down hill after the Natwest One Day Series in 2003. Why should we keep him in the team if he's not performing?