Selection Theory

[wpdavid]

There's a hell of a change in figures, sure - but I don't think that's based on his bowling altering, in the slightest. I just think he didn't very often get the things clicking into place for him that he needs in that time. Not like he was never effective - Adelaide, Kandy - but things just didn't happen so often.

I think you're actually overrating his bowling Mar04-May06 if you consider it differently to that which has come since, TBH.

There was a very clear difference between the Hoggard who turned-up in the Caribbean in 2004 and the Hoggard who'd appeared beforehand. I don't think you can say anything altered, at all, between the Edgbaston and Trent Bridge Sri Lanka Tests of 2006 (though it's true he did completely lose his rhythm early in said Trent Bridge game - he soon got that back though, as Adelaide and Kandy prove).

So in short - I agree with you that the figures tot-up best that way, but I don't think they're an accurate reflection of his bowling if you split what I consider part-two into what you consider part-two and part-three. I think you get the best impression if you use two parts.

Whereas I think you get a misleading picture of you don't split sections 2 & 3, even if 16 isn't a massive number of tests. Maybe it is as simple as what Fletcher has described as 'losing his nip' now that he's reached his 4th decade. He's still good enough to have very occasional good days, but most of the time he just doesn't pose a threat. And I totally take your point about him never being world class, but he used to be more potent than that.

Ultimately, all the talk about his good start to the season rests on one innings against Hampshire. Since then, he's failed to take single NZ top 6 wicket in the Lions game, and been outbowled by Onions in their head-to-head encounter. For a man fighting to prove that he hasn't lost it, that really doesn't seem enough. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Richard]

Whereas I think you get a misleading picture of you don't split sections 2 & 3, even if 16 isn't a massive number of tests. Maybe it is as simple as what Fletcher has described as 'losing his nip' now that he's reached his 4th decade. He's still good enough to have very occasional good days, but most of the time he just doesn't pose a threat. And I totally take your point about him never being world class, but he used to be more potent than that.

As I said - I don't think anything changed at the time the figures appear to change. Sure, he might have lost a few mph - but if so that's a development that's happened in the last month, or three months, or whatever. Not in June 2006. And as I said earlier - I'm not yet entirely happy about this, it seems to be a lot of rumour-mongering and so far very little actual solid evidence. Rather like was the case for years and years with Shaun Pollock.

Ultimately, all the talk about his good start to the season rests on one innings against Hampshire. Since then, he's failed to take single NZ top 6 wicket in the Lions game, and been outbowled by Onions in their head-to-head encounter. For a man fighting to prove that he hasn't lost it, that really doesn't seem enough. In my opinion, anyway.

Not sure what you mean by being outbowled by Onions in their head-to-head really TBH. Neither were exactly awesome in the England A game.

 

[wpdavid]

Not sure what you mean by being outbowled by Onions in their head-to-head really TBH. Neither were exactly awesome in the England A game.

Only that Onions returned much better figures bowling on the same wicket. Admittedly describing it as a "head-to-head" is overstating things. As for the 'A' game, at least onions claimed some top 6 scalps in the first innings, even if he was ineffective in the 2nd.

Now OK, I didn't see a single delivery in either game, and haven't read much about them either. It could be that Hoggard bowled beautifully and spent much of the games missing the edge and/orr having chances put down. None of which makes Onions a world beater, but it doesn't make an outstanding case for Hoggie either.

 

[Richard]

True. And TBH I'm not happy that he's had an "outstanding" start to the season at all. Decent, yes, but that's it. And despite the fact it infuriates me, there have been many worse decisions than picking Anderson instead of him for the ongoing Test, though I think he'd probably have done better than 3-40-odd or whatever it was Anderson had before Vettori took to him. For one, he might well have got McCullum early.

Either way, I still very firmly believe that he's one of the best seamers in the country. I don't think he currently has an irrefutable case for Test selection, at all, but I do think that with a fair wind he will have eventually. What he doesn't need is broken thumbs.

 

[Manee]

If Goughy's biomechanical scrutiny of Anderson's head position is the main cause of his problems (which I am not saying is impossible), then Onions will suffer similar inaccuracy as he also bends his head downwards fully (and beyond) into the action.

 

[Richard]

Judging purely by his figures and the handful of occasions I've seen him bowl in one-day cricket - he does!

What's more, his skill for bowling wicket-taking deliveries (and his luck with taking wickets with bad balls) doesn't seem to match Anderson's.

 

[Goughy]

If Goughy's biomechanical scrutiny of Anderson's head position is the main cause of his problems (which I am not saying is impossible), then Onions will suffer similar inaccuracy as he also bends his head downwards fully (and beyond) into the action.

Doesnt sound like you have too much faith in my breakdown.

EDITED

 

[Manee]

What do you mean?

 

[GIMH]

Ooooh fascinating

 

[Richard]

Yeah, ITSTL.