• 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.

**Official** England in New Zealand

BoyBrumby

Englishman
The England selection panel pretending to be ruthless here, and Hoggard pays the price. Real ruthlessness would have meant dropping Vaughan for lacking sizeable scores with the bat, inspiration and the ability to marshall his current troops.

Interesting observation by Angus Fraser in the Independent that it's always the batsmen who survive a cull in these situations.
Tbf, Fraser was a bowler.

Jumping on the bandwagon regardless: dropping Hoggard is insane.
Ha, yeah, Mike Selvey (another ex-member of the seamers' union) in The Guardian made the same observation: the batsmen are skittled for 110 & a bowler is dropped as a result.

Does seem a bit of "baby with the bathwater" about Hoggard's dropping to my way of thinking. He's been our best bowler since 2005 & one slightly ropey performance (off the back of injury too) and he's gone. Contrast that with the patience shown to the chronic underperformance/reversion to the mean (delete according to taste) of Harmison.
 
Last edited:

Steulen

International Regular
Tbf, Fraser was a bowler.

Jumping on the bandwagon regardless: dropping Hoggard is insane.
As acknowledged by Fraser himself in the piece too...

His conspiracy theory about batsmen making the decisions and looking after their own may be a bit far-fetched but the basic observation stands.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The England selection panel pretending to be ruthless here, and Hoggard pays the price. Real ruthlessness would have meant dropping Vaughan for lacking sizeable scores with the bat, inspiration and the ability to marshall his current troops.
Umm... Vaughan dropped before Strauss? :blink:

Anyway, at risk of making CW sound like a broken record, Hoggard's dropping is pure insanity. Can't remember a worse decision from the England management, regarding Test-matches (have been plenty for ODIs), probably in the entire time I've been watching. Considerably worse than leaving-out MSP for Anderson and Giles last winter, and I hope there's as much of an outcry now as there was then.

I mean, surely there must be more to it than simply two bad Tests (let's not forget he was poor at Galle in his previous outing before this tour), surely? I can only hope. Hoggard has been England's best bowler for pretty much the entirity of the last 2 years now. No-one, no matter how stupid, can possibly make this decision, surely?

I really am struggling to comprehend this. Will there be one single voice of assent? I hope not.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
IIRC half the English posters don't really rate Anderson and Broad in tests am I right?
Don't think more than 2 or 3 posters on here rate Anderson in Tests TBH, and Broad has played 1 Test and little more than 2 domestic First-Class seasons. So really, it's not possible to make-up an accurate mind on him.
 

JHutch

Cricket Spectator
In batsmen's defence, if they make one mistake or receive a really good ball then it doesnt really matter what form they are in as they are out. If they are on 2 not out at the time then this is the only official score that they have. A bowler may get an edge that flies through the slips, top-edged hook that lands in front of deep square, etc and not get a batsman out. However, they have the rest of the innings to then get other wickets and show what form they are in. Not sure that this necessarily applies to everyone in this case though.
 

Steulen

International Regular
Umm... Vaughan dropped before Strauss? :blink:
No, I'm not advocating the dropping of Vaughan as the first option. It's just that the only sense I can make (and as it appears, CricInfo and Jonathan Agnew appear to agree here) of the axing of Hoggard is that the selction panel wants to show how ruthless it can be. Well, if that is the case: drop the captain, I say.
 

Steulen

International Regular
In batsmen's defence, if they make one mistake or receive a really good ball then it doesnt really matter what form they are in as they are out. If they are on 2 not out at the time then this is the only official score that they have. A bowler may get an edge that flies through the slips, top-edged hook that lands in front of deep square, etc and not get a batsman out. However, they have the rest of the innings to then get other wickets and show what form they are in. Not sure that this necessarily applies to everyone in this case though.
in essence a good point, but the England batsmen have been consistently underachieving for some time now. More than can be justified from 'bad luck' alone
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Don't think more than 2 or 3 posters on here rate Anderson in Tests TBH, and Broad has played 1 Test and little more than 2 domestic First-Class seasons. So really, it's not possible to make-up an accurate mind on him.
Yeah, Id agree with that.

Anderson has been around for a while and isnt half the bowler he was 4 years ago. He has all sorts of issues with action and accuracy.

With Broad its a case of the unknowns. He hasnt deserved his place and seems to lack a yard of pace and he has funny things with his left arm in action (like Harmison) but its more a case of we will have to wait and see.

Id have prefered it if he had earned his place but Im hoping he uses that big body well.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I'm not advocating the dropping of Vaughan as the first option. It's just that the only sense I can make (and as it appears, CricInfo and Jonathan Agnew appear to agree here) of the axing of Hoggard is that the selction panel wants to show how ruthless it can be. Well, if that is the case: drop the captain, I say.
Even that makes no sense. Showing how ruthless you can be is utterly pointless. If you want to do that, you might as well drop Sidebottom - heck, drop the entire team and send another squad of 16 out there. It's an utterly pointless exercise.

The selection panel's job is to pick the best team, not show themselves to be ruthless. If that is what they're trying to do 1) they're insane and 2) they're going to be making a lot more awful decisions, worse even than normal, in the next few months\years.
 

JHutch

Cricket Spectator
in essence a good point, but the England batsmen have been consistently underachieving for some time now. More than can be justified from 'bad luck' alone
Five of the top 6 averaged over 40 last year, although bell with 40.26 and collingwood with 40.89 only just made it. The other strauss, had poor form and only averaged 28.8 - since then he is apparently rested and should play better. The games before the last test were encouraging.

Admittedly some of thee averages were boosted by the west indies series. Aghainst sri lanka

cook 46.33
bell 43.50
vaughan 35.83
collingwood 33.00
pietersen 25.20

Pietersen's decline has been the most disappointing. In the past he has played attackingly and got out. People then criticise him for playing attackingly. Some of the dismissals have been over-attacking but i think that attacking is what he does best so he should carry on with it. Collingwood has also played less well recently and seems to get overly negative at times. However, given the poor state of england's bowling the few overs he can put in are becoming increasingly useful.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
As has been pointed out, none of the 2005 Ashes winners (bowling attack) are playing in this game.

Over 450 Test wickets at 30 have been dropped in Hoggard and Harmison.

This is the top 10 best bowling since 2004

Code:
Player 		Overs 	Mdns 	Runs 	Wkts 	Econ  Opposition 			Date 
SJ Harmison 	12.3 	8 	12 	7 	0.96  v West Indies Kingston 		11 Mar 2004  
MJ Hoggard 	18.3 	5 	61 	7 	3.29  v South Africa Johannesburg 	13 Jan 2005   
MJ Hoggard 	42.0 	6 	109 	7 	2.59  v Australia Adelaide 		1 Dec 2006   
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	7 	19 	6 	1.46  v Pakistan Manchester 		27 Jul 2006  
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	1 	46 	6 	3.53  v West Indies The Oval 		19 Aug 2004  
RJ Sidebottom 	17.0 	4 	49 	6 	2.88  v New Zealand Hamilton 		5 Mar 2008 
SP Jones 	17.5 	6 	53 	6 	2.97  v Australia Manchester 		11 Aug 2005  
MJ Hoggard 	30.5 	13 	57 	6 	1.84  v India Nagpur 			1 Mar 2006 
SJ Harmison 	20.1 	5 	61 	6 	3.02  v West Indies Port of Spain 	19 Mar 2004
MS Panesar 	36.1 	3 	129 	6 	3.56  v West Indies Lord's 		17 May 2007
Harmison is pillioried for averaging 38 in the past 12 months yet that is lower that Andersons career average over 5 years :blink:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Five of the top 6 averaged over 40 last year, although bell with 40.26 and collingwood with 40.89 only just made it. The other strauss, had poor form and only averaged 28.8 - since then he is apparently rested and should play better. The games before the last test were encouraging.

Admittedly some of thee averages were boosted by the west indies series. Aghainst sri lanka

cook 46.33
bell 43.50
vaughan 35.83
collingwood 33.00
pietersen 25.20

Pietersen's decline has been the most disappointing. In the past he has played attackingly and got out. People then criticise him for playing attackingly. Some of the dismissals have been over-attacking but i think that attacking is what he does best so he should carry on with it. Collingwood has also played less well recently and seems to get overly negative at times. However, given the poor state of england's bowling the few overs he can put in are becoming increasingly useful.
There cannot be any serious suggestion that any of the batsmen should be dropped. Then again, there cannot be any serious suggestion that Hoggard should be dropped either, so perhaps that's not terribly important.

But anyway... Pietersen remains by a comfortable distance the only batsman available to England who has the ability to play multiple dimensional innings. Yes, he hasn't done it for a little while, but when you can play knocks like his 142 at Edgbaston in 2006, and score consistently against as menacing an attack as Australia's in 2006\07, you do not get dropped if the selectors are possessed of sanity.

Cook is clearly England's best opener for quite a while (possibly since Boycott) and should be in the team for the next 13 or 14 years at least.

Bell, apart from The Ashes 2005 and to a lesser extent India 2005\06 (where he batted just 4 times outside the opener's slot), has pretty much never failed to score in a Test series. That he has often had "pressure off" runs is not his fault, and it's not like he's totally disappeared when the pump has been on, either. He's performed less well, but frankly so will almost every single batsman in history.

Collingwood's summer 2007 was probably his best Test season of his career.

Vaughan should not be opening but his 2007 was easily his best Test season of his career. Just get him back to three FFS!

Strauss should not be batting three, and probably should not be playing. But surprise surprise, he is.

Ambrose has only played 1 Test, and batted well in the first-innings and received a RUD in the second-.

So really, no changes can be justified here.
 

Steulen

International Regular
As has been pointed out, none of the 2005 Ashes winners (bowling attack) are playing in this game.

Over 450 Test wickets at 30 have been dropped in Hoggard and Harmison.

This is the top 10 best bowling since 2004

Code:
Player 		Overs 	Mdns 	Runs 	Wkts 	Econ  Opposition 			Date 
SJ Harmison 	12.3 	8 	12 	7 	0.96  v West Indies Kingston 		11 Mar 2004  
MJ Hoggard 	18.3 	5 	61 	7 	3.29  v South Africa Johannesburg 	13 Jan 2005   
MJ Hoggard 	42.0 	6 	109 	7 	2.59  v Australia Adelaide 		1 Dec 2006   
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	7 	19 	6 	1.46  v Pakistan Manchester 		27 Jul 2006  
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	1 	46 	6 	3.53  v West Indies The Oval 		19 Aug 2004  
RJ Sidebottom 	17.0 	4 	49 	6 	2.88  v New Zealand Hamilton 		5 Mar 2008 
SP Jones 	17.5 	6 	53 	6 	2.97  v Australia Manchester 		11 Aug 2005  
MJ Hoggard 	30.5 	13 	57 	6 	1.84  v India Nagpur 			1 Mar 2006 
SJ Harmison 	20.1 	5 	61 	6 	3.02  v West Indies Port of Spain 	19 Mar 2004
MS Panesar 	36.1 	3 	129 	6 	3.56  v West Indies Lord's 		17 May 2007
Harmison is pillioried for averaging 38 in the past 12 months yet that is lower that Andersons career average over 5 years :blink:
Oh, it's impossible to make sense of including Anderson in the team. Had an awful domestic match last week as well.

The sad thing about Anderson is that he has been in decline ever since WC2003 when he was brilliant against Australia and Pakistan (admittedly in very helpful conditions).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As has been pointed out, none of the 2005 Ashes winners (bowling attack) are playing in this game.

Over 450 Test wickets at 30 have been dropped in Hoggard and Harmison.

This is the top 10 best bowling since 2004

Code:
Player 		Overs 	Mdns 	Runs 	Wkts 	Econ  Opposition 			Date 
SJ Harmison 	12.3 	8 	12 	7 	0.96  v West Indies Kingston 		11 Mar 2004  
MJ Hoggard 	18.3 	5 	61 	7 	3.29  v South Africa Johannesburg 	13 Jan 2005   
MJ Hoggard 	42.0 	6 	109 	7 	2.59  v Australia Adelaide 		1 Dec 2006   
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	7 	19 	6 	1.46  v Pakistan Manchester 		27 Jul 2006  
SJ Harmison 	13.0 	1 	46 	6 	3.53  v West Indies The Oval 		19 Aug 2004  
RJ Sidebottom 	17.0 	4 	49 	6 	2.88  v New Zealand Hamilton 		5 Mar 2008 
SP Jones 	17.5 	6 	53 	6 	2.97  v Australia Manchester 		11 Aug 2005  
MJ Hoggard 	30.5 	13 	57 	6 	1.84  v India Nagpur 			1 Mar 2006 
SJ Harmison 	20.1 	5 	61 	6 	3.02  v West Indies Port of Spain 	19 Mar 2004
MS Panesar 	36.1 	3 	129 	6 	3.56  v West Indies Lord's 		17 May 2007
Harmison is pillioried for averaging 38 in the past 12 months yet that is lower that Andersons career average over 5 years :blink:
The reason for this, of course, is that Harmison has played so much more than Anderson. I don't feel, myself, that Anderson is much more likely to offer a threat in Test-matches than Harmison, but there's no doubt that being very poor a lot is more memorable than being abysmal every now and then.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The sad thing about Anderson is that he has been in decline ever since WC2003 when he was brilliant against Australia and Pakistan (admittedly in very helpful conditions).
Think you're mixing-up tourneys in the 2002\03 season. :p Anderson's game in WC2003 against Australia produced figures of 9-66-0. It was in the preceding VB Series in which he turned-out the remarkable 10-12-1.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, to have him ahead of Gooch or Atherton now is madness. But I feel he could go on to be better than both, given a fair wind.
 

Top