• 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.

Put these five players in order

shortpitched713

International Captain
Am I the only one who thinks that Harmison had the most potential of the lot as a bowler? For me, there had to be something mental with him, because you don't just fluke your way to the sort of record he had for his first 25-30 tests, before it all went pear shaped and he played himself out of the side.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well he went from Grievous Bodily Harmison to Harmlessone in no time. One of the all time great falls from grace to go from Ambrose type level to Sami in such a short time.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Harmison only really had one good year, didn't he. Either side of 2004 he was usually unthreatening. I'd like to say it's a shame that Scaly isn't still around to put me right on that one.

Caddick was an odd one; I always felt that he and Gough were the most needy pair of opening bowlers that I've ever seen. His big thing was the discrepancy between his first innings and second innings returns (the latter was way superior to the former) which he justified with some weird logic that the second innings was where matches were won and lost. You still come across people griping over the fact that he was never picked again after his 7-for in the final test of the 2002/03 Ashes, conveniently ignoring the fact that he'd been a nonentity in the previous four tests.

In answer to the original question, obviously Gough was the best by some distance.
 
Last edited:

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Caddick was a different animal if he got a wicket early in his opening spell and I suppose bowling in the 2nd innings the pitch would be more unpredictable and he could use his bounce to good effect. Some of his dismal efforts in a first innings were just pathetic at times and then the same match he charges in like a man possessed. Definitely a good test bowler but could have been so much more.

Gough was the best followed by Hoggard.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Yes he was, and I think so much of it came down to confidence. Or lack of.

The one time I had a letter published in WCM was after an early season interview with Caddick in 2004. Perhaps he had been injured for much of 2003? But anyway, he was arguing that he should be recalled to the England side at a time when it was obvious to everyone else that things had moved on. iirc the other point in my letter addressed a previous letter by the bloke who had previously written the infamously racist article that WCM saw fit to publish a few years earlier, and he was arguing that Simon Jones shouldn't be in the side as he was insufficiently English. Naturally I gave both of them fairly short shrift.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Yes he was, and I think so much of it came down to confidence. Or lack of.

The one time I had a letter published in WCM was after an early season interview with Caddick in 2004. Perhaps he had been injured for much of 2003? But anyway, he was arguing that he should be recalled to the England side at a time when it was obvious to everyone else that things had moved on. iirc the other point in my letter addressed a previous letter by the bloke who had previously written the infamously racist article that WCM saw fit to publish a few years earlier, and he was arguing that Simon Jones shouldn't be in the side as he was insufficiently English. Naturally I gave both of them fairly short shrift.
Wasn't he (the author of that article) briefly a member here?
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Wasn't he (the author of that article) briefly a member here?
Yes, very briefly indeed. I think Martin had written a piece about the article and the subsequent furore. Out of courtesy, he informed the guy, maybe to check the facts or to invite him to offer an up-to-date view. Cue the usual orgy of self-justification from the man himself, and I did wonder if he was going to clog up and ruin CW in the same way as he had with a previous chat group that I used to use. Thankfully not, but I don't know whether he just couldn't be bothered and left or if the mods suggested that he wasn't welcome here.

EDIT
Good grief, this happened 10 years ago. Frightening.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Yes, very briefly indeed. I think Martin had written a piece about the article and the subsequent furore. Out of courtesy, he informed the guy, maybe to check the facts or to invite him to offer an up-to-date view. Cue the usual orgy of self-justification from the man himself, and I did wonder if he was going to clog up and ruin CW in the same way as he had with a previous chat group that I used to use. Thankfully not, but I don't know whether he just couldn't be bothered and left or if the mods suggested that he wasn't welcome here.

EDIT
Good grief, this happened 10 years ago. Frightening.
Ruddy nora. Seems like yesterday. Tempus fugit and all that.
 

Top