Hoggard At Number 11?
 

Was this purely because of his batting form. Or was there another reason.

had to be form, or personal preference or something, he looked unhindered when he was bowling.

It's because there's no Number 12.

Does anyone actually care? :huh:

I don't think even Hoggard cares anymore. :p

Now all they need to do is put the Seth African at four and it looks about right.

How about a grand average of 5.22 in his last 25 Tests (HS 16) :laugh:

Or even better, how about because his career average is 7.41, which is even lower then the Aussie # 11, Glenn McGrath (7.45)

The batting line up is totally unbalanced without Giles at 8.:)

England's keeper, no matter whoever it is, should bat 11.

Meh. Merely rearranging these:

http://blog.mediacatalyst.com/images...hairs_copy.jpg

on this

http://members.aol.com/WakkoW5/titanic.jpg

Classic.

I think it is quite stupid to be honest.

The likes of Harmison and Panesar are naturally going to have better averages than Hoggard because he doesn't play any shots, but if I was a batsman on 30 not out - I know who I'd rather see come at #9 and it's not Harmison. In fact, I'd actually bat Hoggard at #8 ahead of Mahmood. He has a much better chance of sticking around than Mahmood, Harmison or Panesar and he can play for the other batsman at the crease.

Which in this case was Pietersen. I'd have had him at 8 or 9.

Pieterson seems to always be stuck with the tail, he needs to be promoted to 4 so he can get the chance to bat with other batters instead of having to not take singles to retain the strike and play shots like the one he got out to warne with.

I agree with that but it has little to do with where Hoggard should bat.