Why doesnt Hoggard play ODIs?

[Richard]

I'll demonstrate one last time why I don't rate Gul in ODIs. Gul is the classic case of very promising Test bowler completely disguising utter ineptitude for the ODI game (along with the substandard-side thing). Nor do I see any particular reason to suspect Gul is immediately about to get any better. His accuracy has never been first-rate, his main skills (like Asif) are perfectly suited to the Test game but much, much less so to the ODIs.

5.31-an-over at 38.19 is a very poor record indeed, the trouble is most people don't see this record, too blinded by the fact I$C$C insist that Bangladesh, Ireland, Kenya, Scotland and Zimbabwe are equals of the ODI-class teams.

Perhaps these 7 matches also make some small amount of impact. But to choose him over Kyle Mills right now, when Mills has put in the performances time and again the last 2 years, is crazy, IMO. Mills is indeed a shocking death-bowler. So don't bowl him there. Bowl Mills at any stage other than the end, and he's been excellent. Gul's been poor at all stages of his career.

 

[Jono]

No idea how you can call Gul inaccurate when he's able to bowl 6 yorkers right up in the blockhole every over.

Gul's career has been hampered by injury, and there's no point including any of his games in 2003. He was just pushed into the team too quick because of Pakistan's crap 2003 World Cup. Judge him from his return in 2006.

 

[Richard]

Even since his return he's been wholly moderate (and we'll be charitable and exclude the first 3 games against India where he was truly woeful). I agree that the 2003 games aren't terribly significant and that he should never have been picked for 'em, but that's just the point, really.

Either way - Champions Trophy 2006\07 onwards. Economy-rate barely different, strike-rate everso slightly better. Still very poor.

And you'll forgive me - I've seen no ODIs of his apart from one back in 2003 over here. So I've had no chance to see these supposed instances of him bowling 6 pinpoint Yorkers per over, over after over (and let's not forget, it does need to be over after over - I've seen James Anderson bowl 1 over complete with perfect Yorkers). I do, however, find it a little inconceivable that he should be so expensive if he possesses such a capability.

 

[Prince EWS]

Kyle Mills is a good new ball bowler and a very ordinary death bowler as pollock and nel can both testify. The fact that he plays for NZ, however means that he has to bowl in the death.

And makes his figures look much, much worse than they otherwise would, it should be noted.

 

[Jono]

His figures are outstanding anyway.

None the less, a bowler who can do both excellently (and no Richard, I'm not saying Gul does) will always be a better bowler than someone who is less flexible.

Mills is still a very good ODI bowler. He should improve on his death bowling though, after all it'd be better for the team, and the excuse that he has to do it because he plays for NZ doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Prince EWS]

His figures are outstanding anyway.

Which makes you wonder just how good they'd be if he was used correctly...

None the less, a bowler who can do both excellently (and no Richard, I'm not saying Gul does) will always be a better bowler than someone who is less flexible.

Yes, obviously. I don't see how that contributes to your original comment regarding Gul and Mills, though, because as you hinted at, Gul does not do both excellently. They both actually perform the same role for their respective sides, even though the strengths of their bowling are basically opposites, and Mills does a better job of it than Gul. "Mills needs to improve his death bowling" doesn't really cut the mustard for me because Gul needs to improve his new-ball bowling - and they're both picked to bowl more overs up front that at the death anyway.

I've pointed out before that taking ODI bowling averages or economy rates over any period of time can be highly misleading as to how well a bowler has bowled depending on the role they played and what was needed when they came on, so in the pursuit of not being a hypocrite I should probably do what I've done before and examine each game on a game-by-game basis, but on figures alone there's no denying Mills is superior, and the roles they play can't really be brought into it much because they play the same roles.

All that said, if I was picking a team, I'd consider Gul over Mills, depending on the other bowlers. Death bowling is becoming a specialist art in itself that must be considered when selecting a team, so if my bowling attack consisted of Jon Lewis, Stuart Clark and Mohammad Asif, I'd pick Gul. Ordinarily though, I'd go with Mills.

Mills is still a very good ODI bowler. He should improve on his death bowling though, after all it'd be better for the team, and the excuse that he has to do it because he plays for NZ doesn't cut the mustard.

Well, it does in a way, because it shows that the role he plays front up is actually excellent, and if he came back and bowl his second spell in the middle overs instead of at the death, he'd be all the more effective. It'd be like picking Harbhajan to open the bowling and then bagging him when he got hammered.

Obviously Mills improving his death bowling would be in the best interests of both the team and his claims as an allrounder cricketer, but the fact that he can't do it shouldn't count against him that much because there are several bowlers in the world cricket who don't have to perform that role. It's not a pre-requisite to being an ODI bowler.

 

[pup11]

Hoggard is a crap ODI bowler, he's been picked on 3 or 4 different occasions and nothing's ever changed, despite people saying this same thing before every single recall. Simon Jones is injured and is highly unlikely ever to regain the required fitness.

Frankly speaking i myself don't rate Hoggard much as an Odi bowler, but England have been giving chances to far direr bowlers in Odi's, IMO Hoggard should have been given a fair run Odi's when they were ****ing around with the likes of Kabir Ali, James Kirtley, Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Tim Bresnan, etc, but now i don't see any need of bringing Hoggard into the Odi set-up as English fast-bowling attack in Odi's atm looks pretty settled.

 

[FBU]

Hoggard has said himself that his problem in ODIs is his mind. He gets angry with himself if he gets bashed rather than getting angry at the batsman.

At the end of Harmison's ODI career going for runs also affected him and his confidence in his Test bowling.
His last 5 games econ 5.50, 5.10, 9.70, 5.66, 9.31

Simon Jones
He has played 30 limited over games for Glamorgan in the 9 years he was there.
49.95 econ 5.22 s/r 57.30 and 0 20/20s. It will be interesting to see how he does at Worcs this season. Will they play him in 20/20s?
8 ODIs at 39.28 econ 4.74 s/r 49.70. Even if he was fit I don't see him as a one day bowler.

 

[Richard]

Frankly speaking i myself don't rate Hoggard much as an Odi bowler, but England have been giving chances to far direr bowlers in Odi's, IMO Hoggard should have been given a fair run Odi's when they were ****ing around with the likes of Kabir Ali, James Kirtley, Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Tim Bresnan, etc, but now i don't see any need of bringing Hoggard into the Odi set-up as English fast-bowling attack in Odi's atm looks pretty settled.

It is perhaps a little odd that those bowlers played, never mind played so many times, ahead of him.

However, I honestly can't say I'm neccessarily sorry they did. Had Hoggard been playing and being belted (as he likely would have) it might have jeopardised his Test performances. It seemed that they decided "let's let him get on with his Test career and not bother him with ODIs". And that's worked. The last thing I would've wanted would be to make a massive sacrifice (ie, Hoggard's more-than-respectible Test career) for a tiny gain (ie, Hoggard's mere poorness rather than Bresnan et al's abysmalness).

There are better bowlers than both Hoggard and Bresnan, in any case, who should have played.

 

[Richard]

None the less, a bowler who can do both excellently (and no Richard, I'm not saying Gul does) will always be a better bowler than someone who is less flexible.

Well... I'm not sure they will TBH. Depending on how well they perform their "well performed" role, a bowler excellent at the start and in the middle can be better than a bowler who bowls well at the start and end.

Take, for example, Shaun Pollock and Darren Gough (whose last 62 ODIs I've knocked off, as there was considerable deterioration in performance at all stages of the innings), outstanding ODI bowlers both. Pollock only exceptionally rarely bowled at the death (was Donald and Kallis early on, Langeveldt and Nel later). Gough so did near enough every game. And the difference in their records is really not that marked - 3.74 to 4.18. Yet I doubt anyone would claim Gough the superior bowler, despite the fact he did, for the first 2\3 of his career, the most difficult job in the ODI game with aplomb matched by few.

Bowling really well at the start, if you're really good at it, is a job which it borders on criminal damage for a captain to force you to do other than.

 

[DaRick]

Well... I'm not sure they will TBH. Depending on how well they perform their "well performed" role, a bowler excellent at the start and in the middle can be better than a bowler who bowls well at the start and end.

Take, for example, Shaun Pollock and Darren Gough (whose last 62 ODIs I've knocked off, as there was considerable deterioration in performance at all stages of the innings), outstanding ODI bowlers both. Pollock only exceptionally rarely bowled at the death (was Donald and Kallis early on, Langeveldt and Nel later). Gough so did near enough every game. And the difference in their records is really not that marked - 3.74 to 4.18. Yet I doubt anyone would claim Gough the superior bowler, despite the fact he did, for the first 2\3 of his career, the most difficult job in the ODI game with aplomb matched by few.

Bowling really well at the start, if you're really good at it, is a job which it borders on criminal damage for a captain to force you to do other than.

I suppose the main reason why Gough bowled at the death would've been because of his exceptional yorkers and very good slower balls. I also felt that Gough was more likely to mix up his deliveries than someone like Pollock or McGrath, for Gough's lack of height has probably forced him to experiment more, as his stock ball would not be as bouncy and therefore dangerous to the batsmen.

In contrast, Pollock was very tall, so he could develop a world-class stock ball (the one which nips away - or sometimes into the right-hander - from just outside off). However, he is a tad predictable...last time I saw him bowl at the death (World XI game) he was carted by Mike Hussey.

As for Hoggard, his fecklessness in ODI's comes from the fact that he can't go for big swingers like he can in Tests, due to wide calls. This makes it difficult for him to really get a game anywhere except maybe the subcontinent. Damien Fleming had this problem. Plus, he doesn't have many answers when the batsmen are going after him and he still isn't a great old-ball bowler (although not outright cannon fodder like he used to be).

 

[Richard]

I suppose the main reason why Gough bowled at the death would've been because of his exceptional yorkers and very good slower balls. I also felt that Gough was more likely to mix up his deliveries than someone like Pollock or McGrath, for Gough's lack of height has probably forced him to experiment more, as his stock ball would not be as bouncy and therefore dangerous to the batsmen.

In contrast, Pollock was very tall, so he could develop a world-class stock ball (the one which nips away - or sometimes into the right-hander - from just outside off). However, he is a tad predictable...last time I saw him bowl at the death (World XI game) he was carted by Mike Hussey.

Oh, yeah, absolutely, that's exactly the point I was making. Gough was (until 2001\02) an exceptional death-bowler, Pollock was a decidedly average one, for the precise reasons you mention. Jono, essentially, was saying that that makes Gough (at least, in the first 7 years of his career) a better ODI bowler than Pollock... well, I don't think so really TBH. I'd almost always have Pollock circa entire-career ahead of Gough circa 1994-2001 if I was picking myself a ODI side.

Obviously, as Rob said, it depends on what roles you need filling, though.