Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hoggard's lines and lengths in the Second and Third Tests were hardly outstanding either, he was conceding more than the rest of the bowlers in addition to not being threatening.Or could it be that the conditions were not conducive to his type of bowling? Does it not surprise you that he bowled considerably less at Old Trafford when the ball was reverse swinging as early as 15 overs into the new ball? Or in the first innings at TB when Hoggard was swinging it both ways? Fact is that Harmison has never been particularly adept at swinging the ball in any manner, and with Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones (the latter two of which were so dangerous because they were threatening in ALL conditions) being more capable in certain conditions there was no need for him to be given a bowl. Such is the benefit of a 5 man attack. Similarly, Hoggard bowled near to nothing at Edgbaston and OT, not because he bowled the wrong lines and lengths, but simply because he lacked penetration in the conditions.
Harmison not merely looked more innocuous than the rest of the attack but also more often than not conceded more than them.
Of course they do, but I don't seem to be getting across what I'm trying to say - Gayle's dismissals in the West Indies vs England series in 2004 didn't have much to do with the pitches not being flat. They were simply strokes to the wrong ball or ill-executed strokes, which would have been the wrong ball or ill-executed regardless of the surface. Gayle may not often play terribly well, but he has certainly played far better of times than he did in that series.I find it hard to conceive how anyone who has watched Gayle bat can suggest that Gayle plays any innings without poor strokes. No the problem is that on flat tracks his poor strokes are made to look like good ones. As i have said before, slogs are celebrated when they go over the rope, but when they knock your middle peg back they make you look like a clown.