Why, oh why drop Hoggard?
We've already had a comment about England leaving out Hoggard and I have to agree! He's the sort of player who has the odd bad game, but it's unusual for him to have two bad games in a row - the strong chances were that he'd bounce back. He's also one of the characters in the dressing room and England desperately need some character - by all accounts Jimmy Anderson is very quiet and withdrawn.
But far more importantly Hoggard's a far more consistent bowler - yes, Anderson could come good in this Test, but he's unlikely to perform consistently to the level Hoggard does.
Hoggard must be wondering what he's done to warrant this sort of treatment, and he's no doubt ruing the fact that the game he's dropped the wicket is apparently a green top - ideal for him.
I would question the comment from Andrew Miller on Cricinfo that this is "bold and decisive" - it's plain stupid irrespective of how Anderson plays in the rest of the series.
Gutted.
2 comments:
I think this needs to be added to our 'wrong decisions' file
Couldn't agree more. Just done some stats for performances in 2006 and 2007 for selected bowlers (didn't even bother looking up Harmy's)
Hoggard took 63 wickets at 29.8, whereas Sidebottom took 29 at 32.3 over the same period, with Flintoff taking 34 at 34.4. Panesar tops the wickets list with 81 (he also played most games) but they cost 32.8. In terms of strike rate, Hoggard was also best (60.2) with Sidebottom worst at 69.7.
I know stats don't tell it all but with England struggling for bowling, ditching your best and more consistent bowler for the best 5 years seems idiotic. How many of the current team can you realistically see tearing in for 40-odd overs to take a 7-for in Adelaide?
Post a Comment