The reason I would play Hoggard is he hasn't got long left. We know Andesrson bowls well only under certain conditions. He like Hoggard is not exactly the future. The reason Anderson is picked has nothing to do with domestic form or Test form is partly to do with that he is the medias blue eyed boy.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Hoggard is 31. To my mind that at bowler's prime. He's a far better bowler than he was when he was 25, and should be in the mix for another 4-5 years.

I'd have picked him over Anderson for this Test, and I think he'd have dragged the standard of all the bowling up.

The reason I believe Hoggard is past his best is because of his recent form. He hasn't looked as good as he was. There are are no absolutes about when a bowler is at his best. Botham wasn't at his in his early 30's. Decline sets in at different stages.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

It's all academic becuase Harmison has broken Hoggard's thumb.

__________________
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Makes me laugh when i hear "Hoggard is past his best" + "It is a step back in their "future" plans".

1. Going back/negative? Why? Because we are picking someone who can win us matches?

He was injured for nearly a year at test level, on and off, so what? Everyone gets injured, look at friggin Flintoff, yet ya dont see people slagging him off.

Past his best? Poor comment, 31 like said be Rachael is his prime, look at McGrath etc, prime examples.

I dont care if our whole team was over 30, aslong as they won games, why constantly worry about the future in sport when you have to concede TODAY and the present, ridiculous.

As for Harmy breaking his thumb, all comes down to him being a jealous tosser!

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

navsites.co.uk <<< Join, post and have fun

No John - the reason he gets picked these days is simple, he gets wickets.

__________________
Ern

Well if his recent Test form is anything to go by, then New Zealand would still have been batting.

Without Anderson with Harmison out, and Flintoff injured - with Hoggard the attack would be one paced.

Anderson is without doubt the quickes of the England trio, mind you Hoggard would have been a better pick than Panesar on this wicket - and could not have fielded worse.

__________________
Ern

Sometimes. It's really a lottery with Anderson- you certainly wouldn't pick him for his consistency.

Saying that, he has bowled well this Test. No guarantees for the next one though.

It's not. Hoggard has taken more recent wickets against strong County opposition, and I'd say that a strong County lineup is on par with the current New Zealand lineup. And I certainly wouldn't go in without a specialist spinner under any circumstances.

What does Hoggard offer England more than the 3 trundlers who took 9 wickets between them in the New Zealand 1st innings ?

In my opinion not much except a 10-15 kph reduction on the radar gun, and a bit more comfort to the batsmen who see this cuddly panda bear figure coming on to toss down his fluffy balls.

Harmison in full flight is about as welcoming site to a batter as a viper in their helmet.

Unfortunately Harmy has been so wayward during recent times its been a bit more like watching the viper on a TV show, still looks dangerous but its nowhere within striking distance of you.

Impossible to measure

I could say that New South Wales is a stronger side than the England test team.

Does that mean I am saying that Hoggard would not make it at Australian domestic level ?

It doesn't , and neither does the point you are trying to make.