The Hoggard factor

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

26 matches 32 wickets at 36.00 econ 5.29 s/r 40.81
How many matches does he need?

I too have seen those figures on Cric.info and so am aware of Hoggard's unflattering record in ODIs. But you have to consider the circumstances and distribution of those 26 matches. Also, compare the figures with those of McGrath & Pollock in their first 25 ODIs. Although a different type of bowler, Brett Lee goes for a few runs in ODIs but apart from enforced absences, has always been an integral member of the Oz ODI squad.

Another point is illustrated by one of Rachael's 'statistical' posts where it clearly shows that England tend to play far fewer ODIs in general compared with most other major teams. Taken in that context, it is not surprising that Hoggard did not have a chance to fine-tune his ODI skills.

[Rachael]

Surely the key point with the ODI side is the balance of the attack: Plunkett is clearly the future new-ball guy; Anderson can open the other end and bowl at the death; Flintoff is the guy for Allan Donald like partnership-breaking when the batsmen get on top; Dalrymple is there for the middle-overs; Panesar is available as another partnership-breaker and Collingwood looks to have the nous to become something of an a middle-overs and final-overs specialist.

That's a fine unit... with the one limitation: inexperience. Only Flintoff and Anderson have enough to really be termed anyhing other than novices... and Hoggard can't fix that as he's no meaningful ODI experience either!

The first short term fix is using all six of the above bowlers: that's a surfeit of bowling that allows the captain additional options at all times. The second quick fix is using Lewis whilst Plunkett learns the ropes (as the latter is not yet 20 years old)... but what this crew really need is to play, play and then play some more!

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hoggard can't fix that as he's no meaningful ODI experience either!

Thats a valid point. I cant see that we will gain anything by playing Hoggard now, he would only be depriving a young bowler of much needed experience.

What should have happend is that Hoggy should have been given more games a while ago to gain some experience.

I feel in the middle overs with a good keeper standing up - heck, Gilchrist even stood up to McGrath the other day!, an experienced Hoggard could have been hard to score off and he would have been a far better bowler than Lewis with the new ball.

[greg]

I am happy Hoggard is not a one day player as he is vital to the test side and him not playing pyjama cricket keeps him fresher for the tests.He is a better test bowler than Anderson will ever be and Anderson is a better one day bowler than Hoggard will ever be so it makes sense to have one in each side.

[pie_chucker]

Thats a good point greg, the last thing we would want is for Hoggy to get injured in the WC say, and miss the next year.

After all didnt Gough get injured playing a onedayer in NZ which ended his (test) career?

[darksideofthemoon]

The same could be said for Anderson who hasn't had a long run in Test cricket. He got back in because of an injury in India and did well. 6 wickets and a run out and also having a couple of dropped catches of his bowling. It doesn't really matter if he doesn't play Test cricket because he is vital for Lancs. He is a bowler that will take 60+ wickets a season. Knowing Fletcher wants runs from his bowlers I can't see them choosing him and Panesar and Hoggard in the same team. As long as he stays in the ODI team I'm happy.
Hoggard has his Test experience to fall back on and he should have been improving each year he played in ODIs. He wasn't brand new to international bowling in 2005 and 2006. Other bowlers who don't take wickets get dropped as they are trying to win games, some go without a wicket for 1 game and are dropped while someone like Wharf went 4 games without a wicket but because of his batting potential got a longer run.

Hoggard -
2001 - 4 games - 10 wickets at 13.90 - Zimbabwe
2002 -14 games - 19 wickets at 32.94
2003 - 2 games - 0 wickets
2005 - 4 games - 5 wickets at 36.40
2006 - 2 games - 0 wickets

Other ODI bowlers who haven't been given a run in ODIs -

Ali - 14 games - expensive
Johnson - 10 - injury prone
Kirtley - 11 - shortage of wickets
Sidebottom - 2 - went to Zimbabwe with Hoggard but Hoggard was chosen to join Caddick and Gough
Silverwood - 7
Tremlett - 5 - injury prone
Tudor - 3 - injury prone
Wharf - 13 - he couldn't give them the runs they wanted from a number 9.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

Ali - 14 games - expensive
Johnson - 10 - injury prone
Kirtley - 11 - shortage of wickets
Sidebottom - 2 - went to Zimbabwe with Hoggard but Hoggard was chosen to join Caddick and Gough
Silverwood - 7
Tremlett - 5 - injury prone
Tudor - 3 - injury prone
Wharf - 13 - he couldn't give them the runs they wanted from a number 9.

To be fair though none of the bowlers above deserved long term selection because they werent good enough.

Tremlett may be (good enough) but unfortunatly he's been over hyped so expectations are too high.