-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Andy Caddick - still the best bowler in England?
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Salamuddin
International Debutant
Had a look at Caddick's stats....they're not bad at all. He never really impressed whenever I saw him against Australia but surely. England won't go back to him now.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Counting out Flintoff due to injury, I presume, although he must be close to being fit now. Given that, he seriously doesn't have that much competition. The best England XI contains Harmison, Panesar, Sidebottom and Hoggard. Caddick in his prime would be better than that lot, IMO, with Hoggard somewhat debatable. Exactly how close his current bowling is to that of his prime is something we don't really know though, other than the fact that he's been performing well in first class cricket this season.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The Caddick situation is such a tricky one IMO. While there's little doubt he's better than the Mahmoods and Harmisons of this World, he's still not the force he once was, and in 2004, 2005 and 2006 one thing was notable above all others: lack of economy. Regularly, he'd go for 3.5-, even 4-, an-over, and virtually never for less than 3-an-over through the course of an entire innings. The Caddick of old's most viable trait was his accuracy. Even between June 2001 and January 2003, when he wasn't, anywhere near, as accurate or as consistent as he was between 1999 and May 2001, he was still better than he has been of late. He still tends to take wickets, and still possesses the stamina to bowl seemingly forever. And, obviously, having Taunton as your home ground doesn't help a bowler bowl economically. But he always used to make a pretty reasonable job of it.
It's this that disappoints me, and hence it doesn't really matter to me whether he comes back to Tests or not. He's lost what I treasured most about him. Not his fault, obviously, and I presume he's as frustrated about it as I am. Because if, in the last 3 seasons, he'd been bowling economically, taking wickets at 23 or 24, and making it clear he was very much still available, he'd have been back in the Test setup, no two ways about that. Probably even in 2004, indeed, as neither Jones nor Anderson exactly impressed that summer.
I don't believe he's still the best bowler in England, not at all. In fact, I don't really mind. As I say, the thing that strikes me about him, and casts most else into shadow, is that he's not what he once was. Nothing else really matters.
It's this that disappoints me, and hence it doesn't really matter to me whether he comes back to Tests or not. He's lost what I treasured most about him. Not his fault, obviously, and I presume he's as frustrated about it as I am. Because if, in the last 3 seasons, he'd been bowling economically, taking wickets at 23 or 24, and making it clear he was very much still available, he'd have been back in the Test setup, no two ways about that. Probably even in 2004, indeed, as neither Jones nor Anderson exactly impressed that summer.
I don't believe he's still the best bowler in England, not at all. In fact, I don't really mind. As I say, the thing that strikes me about him, and casts most else into shadow, is that he's not what he once was. Nothing else really matters.