Why was Andy Caddick a rubbish 1st innings bowler?

[Craig]

'Ave a look at his and then go down and see his averages in the 3rd and 4th innings he was at his most succesful, but in the 1st and 2nd innings he bowled, he averages 40.71 and 33.23, granted he took more of his wickets in the 1st and 2nd innings of a Test match. Anybody hazad a guess wha was the matter with him that made him so rubbish early on? I'm thinking pyschological, but the experts on fast bowling will probably know otherwise itbt.

And where does this leave him as a bowler when people think of his Test career? Solid, good, average or vastly over-rated?

 

[FRAZ]

He was good but certainly wasn't very good or very very good or an exceptional or an excellent or an extraordinary or an outstanding bowler !

 

[zaremba]

I've heard this said about Caddick before. I wonder how out of step these figures are with other fast bowlers (perhaps someone here can provide the stats?).

Overall I think that conditions in the first and second innings are likely to be less helpful to fast bowlers than those in the third and fourth when uneven bounce can start to play a part, particularly for a tall bowler such as Caddick. Of course, there is usually some life in the pitch on the first hour or so of the first morning of a match, but this is pretty much cancelled out by the fact that the best batsmen will be facing.

As you say, it's hard to avoid the feeling that, with Caddick, it's a mental thing. He always seemed psychologically fragile and was very inconsistent. He had (and has) great talent - pretty good pace, bounce, sometimes extravagant late swing and seam movement. So when he was good, he was very very good; but when he was bad, he was horrid.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm happy to call him a good test bowler. I'd stop short of very good, I think but over 200 wickets at under 30 is a fair return.

As for the first innings thing, I'm inclined to agree with zaremba about it being mainly in his head. He always struck one as a slightly gauche & diffident individual who needed careful management. It could be that he didn't respond amazingly well to the pressure of bowling in the first innings, which largely shapes how a game will pan out. When the tone was set he could step up, one thinks immediately of his performance in the final test of our 2002/3 Ashes series.

Another possible factor is that, like Harmy, he needed to get his rhythm going to be fully effective, so it might just be he was looser & more grooved as tests progressed.

 

[Craig]

If it is indeed a mental thing, then wouldn't it be the onus of the background staff and those who specialise in that sort of thing to help him address it?

 

[DaRick]

He was pretty good on the whole, but especially potent on wickets with uneven bounce. The fact that his first-half record is so poor is indicative of his reliance on pitches breaking up (and perhaps providing increasingly uneven bounce) as the game goes on.

Adam Gilchrist stated, in his book Walking to Victory, that "he was certainly the most accurate in landing the ball in...that zone of uncertainty where you're unsure whether it will pop up or keep low." This (perhaps) confirms my point.

 

[Richard]

Never believed the Caddick-first-innings thing to be a great deal more than coincidence. Of times there's a little of the uneven-bounce stuff creeping in, but equally there were plenty of times when this had nothing to do with it.

I know many love to pillory him for being mentally weak and all that crap, as we generally so love to do with those who have failed our expectations, but I've never really bought it.

For mine, Caddick simply happened to put in most of his best performances in the second-innings. That doesn't make any of them any less match-influencing either, as some love to generalise that it does.

As for his overall standing - only very briefly (July 1999 to May 2001) was he a Test bowler from the very top drawer. Between 1993 and 1998 he promised much and delivered a bit but nowhere near as much as we'd all hoped for, and from June 2001 to the end of his career he pretty much went back to that.

I'm perhaps a little prone to overrate Caddick a little, as his early iffy period came during a time I was only loosely aware of the game, and his short brilliant phase came just after I'd got properly into it. Have always wished he'd never got injured in 2003 though - he's never really been the same since. And being a Somerset player doesn't help, obviously. Not the best place to bowl.

 

[Richard]

FWIW, a few sets of figures:

Caddick was woeful in his debut series in 1993, with the exception of one second-innings spell at Trent Bridge (3-32 off 16) which almost won the game. In his second series in West Indies in 1994 he bowled OK in both innings' in the First Test, then had his classics in the Third and Fourth Tests - wicketless in both first-innings', big hauls in both second-innings'. Then poor (like everyone) in the Fifth Test at The ARG.

He played just 1 Test in the next 3 years (doing no more than OK), then came back in in the Second and Third Tests in New Zealand, bowling well and reasonably respectively.

He then had a pretty good Ashes series in 1997, just one out-and-out poor game out of five, and best performances in more first-innings than second-. Then another OK tour of West Indies - poor in the First Test, excellent (especially in the first-innings) in the Second, good as a backup performer in the Fourth, and poor again at The ARG in the Fifth.

Surprisingly, if you exclude his woeful debut series, he averaged 27.62 between 1994 and 1998. This is better than I'd always thought. The thing was, I suppose, we were all hoping he could be the sort of bowler who'd average 23-24.

This he did indeed do in his next phase. What was most marked was the improvement in his economy-rate - in said aforementioned phase he'd conceded 3.09-an-over - between the New Zealand series in 1999 and the First Test against Pakistan in 2001, he went for just 2.58-an-over. This was the time his first- and second-innings performances were so markedly different - 31.32 in the first-innings, 15.15 in the second-. Given how good his performances were, I think we can more than forgive the slightly less-than-ideal first-innings performances, as others were mostly doing the work there.

Then came the final phase, that disappointed me so. Again, the problem wasn't strike-rate - his economy-rate (3.65-an-over) was simply not good enough, for someone whose real strength in the previous phase had been accuracy. This continued after his return in 2004, when I'd have hoped that had he not picked-up that serious injury he'd have improved rather than worsened.

 

[Goughy]

Never believed the Caddick-first-innings thing to be a great deal more than coincidence. Of times there's a little of the uneven-bounce stuff creeping in, but equally there were plenty of times when this had nothing to do with it.

Is it possible it is just coincidence? Remotely.

However the pattern is too obvious to be written off in such a way

I think the variable bounce and Caddick being a length bowler has a fair bit to do with it.

Also the fact that a fired up and nasty Caddick was a different bowler to a relaxed one. As the game progressed he becase more in tune with proceedings, knew what the situation was and could focus and channel what he needed to do.

Caddick was one of the most dangerous bowlers Ive seen. Id probably take Gough overall but a pissed off and angry Caddick was near unplayable.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Is it possible it is just coincidence? Remotely.

However the pattern is too obvious to be written off in such a way

I think the variable bounce and Caddick being a length bowler has a fair bit to do with it.

Also the fact that a fired up and nasty Caddick was a different bowler to a relaxed one. As the game progressed he becase more in tune with proceedings, knew what the situation was and could focus and channel what he needed to do.

Caddick was one of the most dangerous bowlers Ive seen. Id probably take Gough overall but a pissed off and angry Caddick was near unplayable.

I looked at something similar a while back in a discussion with Richard where I'd branded Caddick as someone who often went missing in the first innings. I recall him averaging around 37 in his team's first innings in the field and 20 in the second (which marries with your stats). In comparison to some of the other bowlers around through that time up until now (McGrath, Gillespie, etc etc etc) that was a massive massive difference. To have churned out stats like that over a career is not simply a coincidence.

I only rate Caddick as adequate, as I don't believe someone who turns up to play only when they want to should be deemed very good (or even good). Even if he can pull something fantastic out of the bag if he gets a little shirty once in a while.

I'm probably a little biased though because I always thought he was a complete and utter tosser to go along with his inconsistency.

 

[Richard]

Indeed, manifests itself all too often TBH. Particularly irritating that anyone would think Caddick a tosser - I can't find so much as a single good reason to, myself.

No bowler worth his salt will do anything other than want to turn up all day every day. Caddick always tried his best, everyone who played with him has always said that, there's never been a single accusation of him not trying.

As I've said - his first\second-innings split can't really be entirely coincidence, but there's little evidence to suggest it's all that much other than.

 

[Goughy]

No bowler worth his salt will do anything other than want to turn up all day every day. Caddick always tried his best, everyone who played with him has always said that, there's never been a single accusation of him not trying.

Noone accused him of mailing it in.

Trying hard when out of sorts and trying hard when being 'in the zone' (eurgh) has massively different results.

Caddick was obviously more edgy and up for it in second innings. I dont think he tried harder but was just tuned into the the game better.


He was a 'daisy' and trying hard had little to do with the results compared to the mood.

 

[Richard]

Noone accused him of mailing it in.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "mailing it in" TBH. SOC said that Caddick only turned-up when he wanted to, which I refuted. I don't dispute for a second that Caddick required the mood to take him to make him dangerous, but this wasn't something which he had the choice about. It was simply inherant in him.

 

[SJS]

Take the scores of any side in the world over a longish stretch of time and you will find that the scores are maximum (per wkt lost) in the first innings and the least in the 4th innings, clearly the same applies to the batsmen's averages, they being the highest (as a general rule) for the first and the lowest for the 4th innings,

Why should be it any different for bowlers ?

 

[Goughy]

Take the scores of any side in the world over a longish stretch of time and you will find that the scores are maximum (per wkt lost) in the first innings and the least in the 4th innings, clearly the same applies to the batsmen's averages, they being the highest (as a general rule) for the first and the lowest for the 4th innings,

Why should be it any different for bowlers ?

Because quite simply the difference between the innings for Caddick is far greater than that of others.

Here are the first 2 I looked at a) Ambrose- Tall bowler benefiting from same conditions Caddick would and b) Gough- Who bowled in tandem with Caddick for many years.

Ambrose

Gough

 

[Son Of Coco]

Indeed, manifests itself all too often TBH. Particularly irritating that anyone would think Caddick a tosser - I can't find so much as a single good reason to, myself.

No bowler worth his salt will do anything other than want to turn up all day every day. Caddick always tried his best, everyone who played with him has always said that, there's never been a single accusation of him not trying.

As I've said - his first\second-innings split can't really be entirely coincidence, but there's little evidence to suggest it's all that much other than.

Watching him strut around the outfield all afternoon while doing nothing with the ball was enough for me, maybe I'm easily annoyed.

If you need evidence that's it's not coincidence why not look at the splits for most other decent bowlers.

I think Caddick bowled well when things came easily to him and he was able to pick it up and run with it. I don't think he was capable of struggling through and getting results if things weren't going his way. I haven't watched anything like all of his tests though, so it's quite possible there were occasions when he turned 0/50 into 5/70 etc

 

[Richard]

If you need evidence that's it's not coincidence why not look at the splits for most other decent bowlers.

I don't want to look at the splits for other bowlers - other bowlers aren't Caddick. I like to look at Caddick's case on its own merits, not those of others.

I think Caddick bowled well when things came easily to him and he was able to pick it up and run with it. I don't think he was capable of struggling through and getting results if things weren't going his way. I haven't watched anything like all of his tests though, so it's quite possible there were occasions when he turned 0/50 into 5/70 etc

He didn't, though. There's several occasions where a phenomenal Caddick second-innings performance turned a Test from a lost cause into something England could win (which they sometimes did and sometimes didn't). He was not simply someone who rammed home the advantage and nothing else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not entirely sure what you mean by "mailing it in" TBH. SOC said that Caddick only turned-up when he wanted to, which I refuted. I don't dispute for a second that Caddick required the mood to take him to make him dangerous, but this wasn't something which he had the choice about. It was simply inherant in him.

Of course you have a choice about whether you turn up in the mood to bowl or not. If you really need geeing up to get going you can pick almost anything to give you a bit of a kick along. Every single batsman can give you a reason to dislike them and thus want to either cause them physical harm or make their stay very uncomfortable if you really want to get yourself fired up.

If Caddick was indeed moody that's something he has every control over.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't want to look at the splits for other bowlers - other bowlers aren't Caddick. I like to look at Caddick's case on its own merits, not those of others.

He didn't, though. There's several occasions where a phenomenal Caddick second-innings performance turned a Test from a lost cause into something England could win (which they sometimes did and sometimes didn't). He was not simply someone who rammed home the advantage and nothing else.

Of course not, because then it'd become evident that there's not many bowlers at all who are so good in the second innings yet so poor in the first.

So when the pressure was off Caddick appeared and got them back into the game sometimes. That must have been reassuring.

 

[Richard]

Of course you have a choice about whether you turn up in the mood to bowl or not. If you really need geeing up to get going you can pick almost anything to give you a bit of a kick along. Every single batsman can give you a reason to dislike them and thus want to either cause them physical harm or make their stay very uncomfortable if you really want to get yourself fired up.

If Caddick was indeed moody that's something he has every control over.

Not everyone can play mind-games with themselves. Only a few have ever managed to, in fact.