-
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.
Why doesnt Hoggard play ODIs?
- Thread starter bond21
- Start date
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
If I recall this was asked back in 2004 just before his return to ODIs, and he got pounded.
He predominantly bowls a full length, and when the ball isn't swinging he is often cannon fodder.
That being said he has added variety to his test bowling since his last few ODIs, so maybe he could come back with cutters, changes of pace etc. like Pathan and Bracken bowl when the ball stops swinging.
Its unlikely they'll bother though. May as well continue their investment in youth.
He predominantly bowls a full length, and when the ball isn't swinging he is often cannon fodder.
That being said he has added variety to his test bowling since his last few ODIs, so maybe he could come back with cutters, changes of pace etc. like Pathan and Bracken bowl when the ball stops swinging.
Its unlikely they'll bother though. May as well continue their investment in youth.
Same sort of reason Stuart Clark isnt a great ODI exponent, although he's more likely to do well in one dayers than Hoggard.
Predictable, no great pace or variations of pace, flat and very hittable trajectory, and when the ball isnt moving he has nothing to fall back ie cutting the ball off the wicket.
Atleast Clark has his height and can roll his fingers over the seam a little, whereas Hoggard really has no defence when batsman try get after him, unless the ball swings sideways.
Predictable, no great pace or variations of pace, flat and very hittable trajectory, and when the ball isnt moving he has nothing to fall back ie cutting the ball off the wicket.
Atleast Clark has his height and can roll his fingers over the seam a little, whereas Hoggard really has no defence when batsman try get after him, unless the ball swings sideways.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
The thing about Hoggard is that he did play a fair number of them and did well enough in the early part of his career. The turning point was a game against SL at Leeds in 2002 when Jayasuria went absolutely ballistic and Hoggie's 4 overs went for over 50 runs. Although he played in the next game (presumably there weren't any viable alternatives in the squad) we didn't see much of him thereafter. A couple of games at the end of the 2002/03 ashes, when he'd had an absolute mare in the tests anyway, and a handful of games in SA and India when England's whole side were doing their usual impression of a village XI in an overseas oneday sries.
I couldn't argue with the reasons stated above why he's struggled on those few occasions when he's played in the last 5 years, but you'd have to figure that he'd have worked the 50 over game out if he'd played regularly. And you'd also have to figure that he'd have ended up a whole lot better than some of the dross we've seen opening the bowling in these games.
I couldn't argue with the reasons stated above why he's struggled on those few occasions when he's played in the last 5 years, but you'd have to figure that he'd have worked the 50 over game out if he'd played regularly. And you'd also have to figure that he'd have ended up a whole lot better than some of the dross we've seen opening the bowling in these games.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's a common myth about him it seems. His first ODI series was excellent, sure, but in his next 10 games, after the Zimbabwe series, before said reduced-overs SL Headingley game, he was very poor indeed.
The truth is Hoggard was never, ever any good at ODIs, apart from that first series where Zimbabwe were pretty awful really anyway. There's a reason he's never played regularly - he's been absolutely belted whenever he has, including the rare time when he was picked for a few games consecutively. It doesn't matter if the rest of the side were doing crap anyway - mostly the reason they were doing so was the same as the reason he was, they simply weren't good enough and shouldn't have been picked. If he was good enough, like Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff, he'd still have done well despite the paucity of his team-mates.
The truth is Hoggard was never, ever any good at ODIs, apart from that first series where Zimbabwe were pretty awful really anyway. There's a reason he's never played regularly - he's been absolutely belted whenever he has, including the rare time when he was picked for a few games consecutively. It doesn't matter if the rest of the side were doing crap anyway - mostly the reason they were doing so was the same as the reason he was, they simply weren't good enough and shouldn't have been picked. If he was good enough, like Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff, he'd still have done well despite the paucity of his team-mates.
Last edited:
steds
Hall of Fame Member
slowfinger
International Debutant
Totally right there mate, I can't even see why he plays at all
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
"Holy crip he's a crapple."
bond21
Banned
NZ dont exactly have an army of superb bowlers lined up and ready to go.
Martin and Mills take the new ball, tell me which other country would give them the new ball, if they were even in the team to begin with.
Other than Bangladesh, Ireland, Kenya and all the minnows I cant think of a team who would pick them, let alone open the bowling with them.
Martin and Mills take the new ball, tell me which other country would give them the new ball, if they were even in the team to begin with.
Other than Bangladesh, Ireland, Kenya and all the minnows I cant think of a team who would pick them, let alone open the bowling with them.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
He would walk in to nearly all the sides, actually, as I can think of at least one bowler in every side that he is better than. Australia is arguable, but Mills>Clark in ODI's, though Clark has been dropped. He's obviously a better bowler than Hopes, but their role is different.
Basically he's better than the following current bowlers for their respective sides:
England - Broad, Anderson.
India - Pathan, Sreesanth (too early to call on Sharma)
Pakistan - all bar Akhtar
South Africa - Langveldt, Nel, Steyn
West Indies - Rampaul, Sammy, Powell
Sri Lanka - Kulesekara
Ignored the spinners, obviously...
tooextracool
International Coach
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.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I'd personally take Gul over Kyle Mills in ODIs.
What?!
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
We've had this discussion before. Your views on Gul differ to mine, and for some reason (which I have no doubt you'll reply telling me 
) you don't rate him in ODIs. I think he's quite good.
Mills is a better new ball bowler than Gul, but Gul is brilliant at the death whereas Mills is horrible. This gives Gul more variety which is required in ODIs.
) you don't rate him in ODIs. I think he's quite good.Mills is a better new ball bowler than Gul, but Gul is brilliant at the death whereas Mills is horrible. This gives Gul more variety which is required in ODIs.