• 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.

Dominic Cork vs Matthew Hoggard - TEST match BOWLING

Who do you think was the better Test bowler?


  • Total voters
    23

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
In the first test, all the England bowlers got hit around the park and although Hoggard got hit about worse than the others, that is, as you say, because of the type of bowler he is.

However, in the second test, he bowled quite well, especially in the second innings. His figures of 5-92 summed up his bowling nicely IMO, a pitch up swing the ball bowler who will get hit for runs but will also take wickets. Incidently, of his 5 wickets, 3 were bowled and 1 LBW.
The fact that there was such a high percentage of bowled\lbw tells you a lot. He wasn't swinging it. Otherwise they'd be caught behind or in the cordon. Hoggard only got a tiny little bit of swing in that match. Caddick got far more, bowled far better and had no justice at all in the two's figures. That was the one game in 2002 where there was the chance for a swing-bowler to prevail, and Hoggard, in truth, didn't. His figures were good, but this was because of poor batting and not good swing-bowling.
In the third test, he bowled perfectly well as well, and in some ways, I think his figures were a little harsh actually
I don't know whether you watched that Test, but Hoggard bowled shockingly in it IMO. Hardly swung a ball, never looked like he knew where his front foot was landing (bowled loads of no-balls and pulled-out of his run-up many more times) and only got wickets with poor strokes.
whilst in the first test against India, he was by a distance the pick of the bowlers.
He may have been, but he was the pick of a bad bunch. And his figures flattered him. He barely swung one delivery and merely profited from the Indian batsmen (bar Dravid) not yet having found their touch on that tour.
He didn't bowl that badly in the second test either really, or at least in the first innings. It was after this when his bowling (and his figures) started to take a tumble. I'm not going to argue that his performance in the last two tests was dire.
Yeah, as I say, he actually bowled damn well in the first-innings of the Second Test.
 

ozone

First Class Debutant
The fact that there was such a high percentage of bowled\lbw tells you a lot. He wasn't swinging it. Otherwise they'd be caught behind or in the cordon. Hoggard only got a tiny little bit of swing in that match. Caddick got far more, bowled far better and had no justice at all in the two's figures. That was the one game in 2002 where there was the chance for a swing-bowler to prevail, and Hoggard, in truth, didn't. His figures were good, but this was because of poor batting and not good swing-bowling.

I don't know whether you watched that Test, but Hoggard bowled shockingly in it IMO. Hardly swung a ball, never looked like he knew where his front foot was landing (bowled loads of no-balls and pulled-out of his run-up many more times) and only got wickets with poor strokes.
Fair enough to put an innings, or even two down to lacklustre batting, but what you're suggesting is that for four innings in a row, the Sri Lanka batsmen played poor shots to him (despite having played him well in the first innings of the series). As I recall, Caddick was unlucky in the second test, but that doesn't mean that Hoggard's wickets weren't deserved. And in the third test, I think he had problems with his run-up in the first innings, but I seem to remember that series there were an abnormally high number of no-balls throughout the series anyway.

He may have been, but he was the pick of a bad bunch. And his figures flattered him. He barely swung one delivery and merely profited from the Indian batsmen (bar Dravid) not yet having found their touch on that tour.
Pick of a bad bunch? Bowling a side out for very little in the first innings and then almost doing so again in the second (if it hadn't been for the WORST test hundred ever scored, would probably been about 300) doesn't strike me as a bad bunch? Unless it was all bad shots again. :blink:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Fair enough to put an innings, or even two down to lacklustre batting, but what you're suggesting is that for four innings in a row, the Sri Lanka batsmen played poor shots to him (despite having played him well in the first innings of the series). As I recall, Caddick was unlucky in the second test, but that doesn't mean that Hoggard's wickets weren't deserved. And in the third test, I think he had problems with his run-up in the first innings, but I seem to remember that series there were an abnormally high number of no-balls throughout the series anyway.
No-balling was pandemic for all sorts of bowlers for a good few years around that time. Hoggard, however, was certainly worse than the norm for a time.

And yes, there were enough bad strokes played to make poor bowling get good figures four innings' in a row. Have you really never seen that before? I've seen it many times. Happens quite often when I play every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, actually.
Pick of a bad bunch? Bowling a side out for very little in the first innings and then almost doing so again in the second (if it hadn't been for the WORST test hundred ever scored, would probably been about 300) doesn't strike me as a bad bunch? Unless it was all bad shots again. :blink:
Believe it or not, it was. India weren't up to speed (Jaffer was just rubbish anyway, so was Ratra, and a tail of Agarkar, Kumble, Zaheer Khan and Nehra is hardly strong) and they batted poorly that Test.

Instead of saying "it couldn't be happening all those times" why not actually go back and look? It could, and did. If I had highlights of that summer I'd replay them here and now and demonstrate. Sadly, I don't. The best I can do is suggest you read the CricInfo commentary descriptions of the dismissals. Most of them involved missing or edging deliveries that did absolutely nothing. You can't even credit Hoggard with "building pressure" by bowling economically, because he wasn't.

Bad bowling isn't always punished. Eventually it was, but it took a while in the summer of 2002.
 

ozone

First Class Debutant
No-balling was pandemic for all sorts of bowlers for a good few years around that time. Hoggard, however, was certainly worse than the norm for a time.

And yes, there were enough bad strokes played to make poor bowling get good figures four innings' in a row. Have you really never seen that before? I've seen it many times. Happens quite often when I play every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, actually.
Haha, yea me to, but I would guess its a tiiiiny bit more common in the leagues we play in than in test cricket.

Believe it or not, it was. India weren't up to speed (Jaffer was just rubbish anyway, so was Ratra, and a tail of Agarkar, Kumble, Zaheer Khan and Nehra is hardly strong) and they batted poorly that Test.

Instead of saying "it couldn't be happening all those times" why not actually go back and look? It could, and did. If I had highlights of that summer I'd replay them here and now and demonstrate. Sadly, I don't. The best I can do is suggest you read the CricInfo commentary descriptions of the dismissals. Most of them involved missing or edging deliveries that did absolutely nothing. You can't even credit Hoggard with "building pressure" by bowling economically, because he wasn't.
Believe me, if I could find highlights anywhere on the net, I would have watched them by now.

Took your suggestion and looked at the first India Test, in which he took 7 wickets, one of whom was a genuine tailender (Zaheer), and another was Kumble who wasn't as good a batsman as he was at the end of his career. Of his other 5 wickets, he got Dravid twice (as you have already pointed out, the only batsman who was seemingly in form), Ganguly LBW first ball in the second innings and Jaffer and Ratra (poor batsmen). Unfortunately, couldn't get commentary of each wicket individually so can't recap each dismissal, but I would guess the Ganguly delivery swung, and I seriously doubt he got an in form Dravid out twice without doing something with the ball. And forgetting all the scorecards and other stats, I remember thinking Hoggard was bowling well, although it being 7 years ago I obviously can't remember it ball-by-ball.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Hoggard's economy-rate is considerably higher than Cork's
I remember in the early days of his career reading that Cork's economy rate was worse than Devon Malcolm's. However you're quite right, much to my surprise, Cork's is better than Hoggy's so I suppose he must have improved. (Not that economy rates were are particularly valid reason for me to object to Cork, at least as a Test bowler, in the first place!)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, yea me to, but I would guess its a tiiiiny bit more common in the leagues we play in than in test cricket.
It's less common in Test cricket, but it's far from unheard-of.
Believe me, if I could find highlights anywhere on the net, I would have watched them by now.

Took your suggestion and looked at the first India Test, in which he took 7 wickets, one of whom was a genuine tailender (Zaheer), and another was Kumble who wasn't as good a batsman as he was at the end of his career. Of his other 5 wickets, he got Dravid twice (as you have already pointed out, the only batsman who was seemingly in form), Ganguly LBW first ball in the second innings and Jaffer and Ratra (poor batsmen). Unfortunately, couldn't get commentary of each wicket individually so can't recap each dismissal, but I would guess the Ganguly delivery swung, and I seriously doubt he got an in form Dravid out twice without doing something with the ball. And forgetting all the scorecards and other stats, I remember thinking Hoggard was bowling well, although it being 7 years ago I obviously can't remember it ball-by-ball.
He only got Dravid once - Dravid dragged Giles on in the second-innings. Jaffer in the first-innings missed a ball that did nothing, was heading down leg then hit his pads and deflected onto the stumps. Tendulkar did the same in the second-innings. No bowler can ever be credited for a wicket with a ball that was missing leg-stump on the leg-side IMO. Ganguly's lbw was a ball that did nothing and a shockingly poor decision - the ball pitched outside leg-stump, by a fair bit. Dravid in the first-innings was out to a delivery he had no real chance of playing, but that was down to the pitch, not the bowler - it spat off a good length. I'm struggling to remember Ratra's dismissal but it never took that much to get him out, he was nowhere near good enough to play Test cricket.

As I say, it is possible to get wickets, even against a very powerful batting unit, without bowling well and Hoggard certainly did so that Test.
 

ozone

First Class Debutant
As I say, it is possible to get wickets, even against a very powerful batting unit, without bowling well and Hoggard certainly did so that Test.
Oh certainly it is, but I disagree that Hoggard took wickets bowling badly. I think its a certain type of bowler who will take wickets even when bowling badly and I dont think Hoggard was someone who ever did so on a regular basis.

To get back to that first test, Hoggard deserved the wickets he took in the context that he was the best bowler in the game. He can't help it if one of the best batsmen in the world gets himself no more than he can help it if an umpire makes a shocking decision. In the same way Hoggard bowled hundreds of deliveries that could and should have taken wickets over the course of his career, he also bowled the odd bad ball tht took a wicket, but no more than any other bowler.

On a more general note, mistakes by batsmen that go unpunished (ala First Chance Average) or bad balls by bowlers that take wickets are a part of cricket and always have been. Over the course of a career (or even sometimes over the course of a match) they generally even themselves out. Obviously some players will end up more lucky than others, but honestly, does, or did, Hoggard ever strike you as a particularly lucky bowler in the same way Trescothick or Hayden were lucky batsmen?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I've never agreed that things even themselves out, and certainly in the short-term they don't neccessarily do so. Hoggard, over his career as a whole, has certainly never struck me as a particularly lucky bowler in terms of bowling uninspiringly and still getting good figures, but there's no doubt in my mind that in the short-term period that was the summer of 2002, he was.

As I say - I don't feel he bowled well in more than one innings that summer (and in said innings he took good figures), yet his figures in the second, third and fourth Tests out of seven were very good despite him, in my view, bowling poorly.

Had Hoggard's figures been poor in every innings of the summer (not that he'd have been remotely likely to last the course if that'd been the case, obviously) it'd have been no injustice, is the point I'm making. I just don't feel anyone can correctly claim he bowled remotely well that summer. If you do, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

None of it (even though it is interesting) is relevant to the fact that, between 2004 and 2007, Hoggard probably bowled better than Cork ever did, of course.
 

FBU

International Debutant
Wasn't Cork a Lords specialist? He bowled more overs there than anywhere else.

11 Tests 37 wickets at 31.08 econ 3.13 s/r 59.40 - Hoggard
8 Tests 36 wickets at 23.58 econ 3.01 s/r 47.00 - Cork
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Cork certainly enjoyed Lord's tremendously, but it wasn't the only ground he did well at.
 

Top