I don't think the above are "excuses". The simple fact was he was born at the wrong era in wrong country. Brad's chinaman would have been less potent in AUS/ENG conditions, but on spinning sub-continent tracks they were venom spitting cobras. His era was the era of a surge of left handed batsmen - of majority he had no chance to bowl against - which would have made him deadly dangerous. Afterall his bowling career was pretty short and never got to learn how to bowl on bad tracks. And FTR, Warne averages 36 against Shield opponets, which is barely 5 runs less than that of Hogg. That would give a very good understanding of how responsive was Australian pitches to spin.His WACA average (40.72) was actually extremely similar to his overall FC average (40.51).
It would be interesting to hear what Migara had to say about the fact that Hogg averaged 53 with the ball in county cricket, particularly given his long-held stance than county and even English Test batsmen are completely incompetent when it comes to playing wrist spin bowling.
Lots of excuses are made about why Hogg's First Class bowling record was what it was, but once you examine them closely none of those excuses really hold water. The easiest explanation is that he just wasn't anywhere near as good a bowler with the red ball, with the field up and with the batsmen able to sit on him if need be. He was an amazing, attacking, wicket-taking one day bowler in lots of different situations but while that usually translates into First Class and Test success, sometimes it doesn't, and Hogg is an example of that.
England would have him. In fact we would pick him now.Brad Hogg was barely good enough for fc cricket let alone tests. Trash call picking him as best ever.
Great short former though.
Basically what you are saying is that he'd be a marvel bowling in Sri Lanka against batsmen who hadn't seen him before. That makes him a flat track bully not a champion.I don't think the above are "excuses". The simple fact was he was born at the wrong era in wrong country. Brad's chinaman would have been less potent in AUS/ENG conditions, but on spinning sub-continent tracks they were venom spitting cobras. His era was the era of a surge of left handed batsmen - of majority he had no chance to bowl against - which would have made him deadly dangerous. Afterall his bowling career was pretty short and never got to learn how to bowl on bad tracks. And FTR, Warne averages 36 against Shield opponets, which is barely 5 runs less than that of Hogg. That would give a very good understanding of how responsive was Australian pitches to spin.
More an indictment of Eng than a recommendation for Brad. But I can see the reasoning. I still think he'd go alright for us in odis and t20s. But the fact that we weren't actively begging him to play tests again even when we were stuck a while on the X man shows you how little he's regarded as a fc let alone test cricketer.England would have him. In fact we would pick him now.
A usual miles off the target.Basically what you are saying is that he'd be a marvel bowling in Sri Lanka against batsmen who hadn't seen him before. That makes him a flat track bully not a champion.
This is what I feel watching Hogg, and just based on the gut instincts. We see spinners left, right and center and could get a fairly accurate idea the way they perform and SWOT with a very short time.What an absurd yardstick you use. Hogg got as much "quality time" as his talent deserved. 99 games is more than enough time to prove your quality and an average of 40 per wicket proves he rather lacked it. Neither did he come to the game any later than Warne or Murali. My word you make stuff up just to save yourself from admitting you are wrong don't you? Then you end your post with a meaningless stereotype. SL's batting against spin is no better or worse than any other country can muster. They are no better than anyone else for being Sri Lankans. And my word don't you exaggerate. Hogg's record against them was not exceptional when compared to his overall odi average.