Matthew Hoggard

[Rebecca]

So, at the age of only 31, has his test career finished?
Is there any chance that he'll play against the Windies?
Your views please.

 

[Richard]

I think it was decided a long time ago - possibly the match after which he was dropped - that Hoggard was never going to play for England again. Why this is, who knows, but it seems odd to me. I never rated Hoggard as anything more than a decent Test bowler but there's no doubt he was and is far better than some of the nonsense that's been picked ahead of him of late. I hope it's because there's more to it than meets the eye - maybe half the team had fallen-out with him (I myself think he's always had a very dodgy relationship with Monty Panesar, though I've yet to find anyone else who does - his autobiography might be interesting for that in a few years' time).

I'd now stake my house, if I had one, on Hoggard not playing for England again. And as I say, ever since last summer when Anderson was preferred to him despite being utter rubbish in his Test career to date I've been at eat-my-computer stage.

A strange, strange case. At 31, loss of pace or no loss of pace, the rest of the bowling available isn't good enough to discard Hoggard even if he does no more than OK-ish for the rest of his career. I can't believe there isn't more to it than on-field stuff.

 

[pup11]

AFAIC he was replaced by Sidebottom who has made most of the chance he got and cemented his place in this side at the price of Hoggard, but the way Hoggard has went off the radar of the English selectors is truly surprising, so much so that they prefer Pattinson over him, so that pretty much goes onto show his international career is all but over, but as Richard said its definitely not good decision on the part of English selectors as there are far worst bowlers as compared to Hoggard who are in the reckoning or currently in the team.

 

[Evermind]

I hope it's because there's more to it than meets the eye - maybe half the team had fallen-out with him (I myself think he's always had a very dodgy relationship with Monty Panesar,

That's obviously not gonna affect his chances for selection. This isn't primary school man.

 

[Redbacks]

What use was he when England toured Australia, he only bowled with the new ball for 7 overs then put his feet up for 70 overs.
From what I have seen, he only bowls well in favourable conditions, Although Aus is a graveyard for swing it would seem.

 

[Richard]

That's obviously not gonna affect his chances for selection. This isn't primary school man.

Believe it or not, not everything that comes out of primary-school disappears as life goes on. You still need to get-on with team-mates, and if you don't, there's no future for you in the team. I'm not saying for a second that this neccessarily is the case, merely something I don't think you should rule-out, because Hoggard's non-selection (with preference given to Pattinsons, Khans and Mahmoods to pick merely the most outrageous examples) purely on on-field merits makes precisely zero sense at all.

 

[Richard]

What use was he when England toured Australia, he only bowled with the new ball for 7 overs then put his feet up for 70 overs.
From what I have seen, he only bowls well in favourable conditions, Although Aus is a graveyard for swing it would seem.

Except at Adelaide of course.

Either way, yes, of course for the most part (Adelaide 2006/07 and also Nagpur 2005/06 being glorious exceptions) Hoggard is a limited bowler, but apart from Flintoff and Sidebottom, every other bowler available in the country is even worse, sometimes considerably worse. Hoggard can bowl OK-ish with an old ball, he just wasn't required to do it very often later in his career, because he was much best used in the manner you state and with Flintoffs, Joneses and the like in the team you could just keep them bowling until you took the second new-ball.

 

[fredfertang]

Given his relative youth and the vicissitudes of the selectors I doubt we've seen the last of the Hogster - it will be up to him to grasp any chance he gets

Mind you when a bloke christens his son and heir "Ernie" you've got to ask questions about what's going on between his ears

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He's still the best fast/medium bowler available to England along side Flintoff. Admittedly the competition is weak but he should still be there.

 

[aussie]

Hoggard was no doubt dropped foolishly in NZ & probably would have still been playing now. But Anderson has obviously shown he can cover Hoggard's role as the swing specialist at a much faster pace than too.

So ATM once Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff & Harmison are fit Hoggard can't play. Simple.

But i would say given his experience with Sidebottom out he should have been called up for India since he would definately have been effective.

 

[Richard]

Pigeonholes such as "the swing specialist" just make no sense. All bowlers should be competant at swing, if possible, and the more you have that are the better your attack will be.

Harmison may not be a "swing specialist" but Hoggard quite clearly offers far more than he does.

 

[GIMH]

Pietersen has told him he still has a future, not that that necessarily means anything but

 

[BoyBrumby]

From what I've read (mainly from the redoubtable pens of Messers Selvey & Marks) Hoggy is perceived to have lost a bit of "nip". Nothing that shows up on a speed gun, more the way his deliveries come on to the bat. The fabled "heavy ball" is now missing from his armoury, one supposes.

 

[Richard]

Pietersen has told him he still has a future, not that that necessarily means anything but

See that's just odd TSTL. Either he's in the side now, or he's gone for good. The former makes perfect sense, the latter makes little sense to me based on what I currently know, but there could conceivably be some sort of explanation for it.

It makes absolutely zero sense - there can be no sensible explanation - for him to simply be still in contention but not being picked now, as there are inferior bowlers to him being picked now and there've beens several who've been such over the last 8 months.

 

[Richard]

From what I've read (mainly from the redoubtable pens of Messers Selvey & Marks) Hoggy is perceived to have lost a bit of "nip". Nothing that shows up on a speed gun, more the way his deliveries come on to the bat. The fabled "heavy ball" is now missing from his armoury, one supposes.

Not really fabled. "Bowling a heavy ball" is basically a euphemism for not losing all that much pace off the pitch.

Hoggard's speed out of the hand (that measured by the speedgun) hasn't changed at all in recent times, but it's perfectly possible that, for whatever reason, he's coming off the pitch slower now than he once was. It would actually be possible to examine the truth of that, as the speed of the ball is now tracked all the way down, but it'd be a time-consuming exercise and only a Simon Hughes type would have access to the data needed.

 

[aussie]

Pigeonholes such as "the swing specialist" just make no sense. All bowlers should be competant at swing, if possible, and the more you have that are the better your attack will be.

Harmison may not be a "swing specialist" but Hoggard quite clearly offers far more than he does.

Well the rejuvented Harmison is still just two test old & well he was never likely to be that effective in India anyway.

If the Harmison of the Oval is anything to go by in upcoming series againts WI & AUS. Harmo will be more dangerous & Hoggard's only chance of playing is if Anderson gets smashed, because Sidebottom has his spot secured once fit.

 

[Richard]

Harmison is not rejuvenated. Harmison is the same now as he's been at almost any point since 2003 - liable to be accurate but unthreatening from time to time (mostly short time) but mostly wayward and offering no threat.

The only time Harmison has ever really wavered from this was at times in summer 2007, when he was so hopelessly wayward as to be an embarrassment - the way he sometimes was up to 2002/03. Even Devon Malcolm never tested the edges of the pitch as much as he (and Plunkett) did in that middle session at Old Trafford.

Harmison can bowl as he did at The Oval in 2008 constantly and he'll not have any great success, same way he didn't there. Bowling like that just doesn't work against good Test batsmen.

 

[aussie]

All true, but he is rejuvented given how he was bowling when was dropped in NZ. Clearly his stint with Durham brought top performance @ the Oval & some very encouraging ODI performances.

 

[Richard]

Did it? Harmison bowled as ever in the ODIs he's played since retirement-reversal - the odd decent spell and a lot of nonsense.

And as I've said several times now, he's done well whenever he's played for Durham since 2003 now, having done poorly for them beforehand (and thus never merited his Test call-up). What happened in 2008 was nothing new and it's no surprise that he bowled as he did in the Oval Test. How he bowled there was precious little different to how he's bowled most of the time since summer 2003. Yes, he was woeful in the 1 Test he played in NZ but the 2 before that, in SL, saw him bowl exactly as he normally does, in fact probably a bit better - hit good areas and bowled with a good economy-rate but just didn't do enough with the ball to threaten to take wickets.

 

[zaremba]

Mind you when a bloke christens his son and heir "Ernie" you've got to ask questions about what's going on between his ears

Michael Parkinson's brother is called Athelston. It's a Northern thing I think