Why was Andy Caddick a rubbish 1st innings bowler?

[Son Of Coco]

Weird thing is, for a long time they did. As I said, he went 3 years between the summer of 1994 and the first part of the winter of 1996/97 where he played a single Test. I often wonder what might have happened in that time had he played more.

You really think he placed more value on that than doing the best he could for himself and his team - something which would both be hugely enjoyable at the time and add to his legacy?

Yes I do, I don't think Caddick was a great team man.

 

[wpdavid]

I just want to add, though, that bowlers like him have their place especially if they're really talented. And, let's face it, there's far more bowlers who put in when they're really motivated because it's really hard to maintain the rage all the time (which is why there's so few bowlers who can). They just need to be managed right and I don't think Caddick was. Dropping him after Edgbaston in 1997 was baffling, even taking into account how well Dean Headley bowled in teh subsequent Tests.

iirc that's not quite what happened. Caddick played in the first 3 tests (Edgbaston, Lord's & Old Trafford) and then was dropped & brought back for The Oval. The guy who replaced him at Headingley was one of those one-cap wonders whose name escapes me. Headley, otoh, came in at Lord's, maybe to replace Devon Malcolm.

The rot started in 1993, though. The whole series he was being pigeonholed as a guy too quick to move the ball a lot but too slow to being an all-out express bowler. No-one, it seemed, knew what to think of him. He didnt bowl that badly and certainly he looked as if he had plenty of potential. The Aussie batting was just on song, really.

Yeah, we didn't have a clue where our attack was heading in 1993. Cads was one of about a million guys who was brought in and discarded simply because they didn't immediately run through a very good Aus batting lineup on what were, iirc, pretty decent wickets.

 

[Burgey]

Yes I do, I don't think Caddick was a great team man.

Like KP?

 

[Goughy]

I don't feel for a second that this applies to Caddick, however. I don't think he, either consciously or subconsciously, had a preference for bowling when the team were on the back-foot. There are enough examples of him playing his part in seizing the initiative to demonstrate that, for mine.

Raymond Illingworth was a notoriously poor man-manager, however, and Caddick is one of a few players to suffer for this.

Caddick definately upped his game when he could smell blood. There was a change in him, his mood, focus etc. He didnt try any harder but the game can just come easier for no reason apart from mentality. I can personally vouch for how this happens.

As for Illingworth, that may have played a roll. He was certainly the wrong man for the job when he had it given the personalities in the team.

 

[aussie]

Ha just saw this thread & well interesting stat on Caddick that i find a bit odd. Of my head right now i remember him taking 5 wicket hauls to start of both the 97 & 01 Ashes series plus taking a superb 7 for vs SA in the 99 boxing day test. So this seems like another one of those cases of the stats not telling the full truth.

Of course didn't see all of Caddick's career but between 97-01 really can't say that this stat is true based on what i saw of him.

 

[wpdavid]

Caddick definately upped his game when he could smell blood. There was a change in him, his mood, focus etc. He didnt try any harder but the game can just come easier for no reason apart from mentality. I can personally vouch for how this happens.

I suppose it's a question of degree. I know that very few quicks will run in like crazy 100% of the time, but the difference between AC when his tail was up and the rest of the time was far too much for my tastes.

As for Illingworth, that may have played a role. He was certainly the wrong man for the job when he had it given the personalities in the team.

I'm trying to remember exactly when Illy's reign was. I know it started after the 1994 tour of WI, but I'm struggling to recall when it ended: possibly after the 1995/6 SA tour? I'm tempted to agree that Illy wouldn't have been great for the gauche young Caddick in the mid1990's, but I reckon AC was unpopular with those who mattered even after Illy's time. Looking at the 1997 scorecards is quite revealing, especially when you get to the Old Trafford test, when Caddick was about the 5th bowler to be used in Aus 2nd innings. Even at the Oval, he was coming on after Peter Martin of all people, which suggest that Atherton just didn't rate him at all.

EDIT
I hadn't realised just how much Illy didn't rate him. Despite some encouraging performances in the 1994 WI tour - esp 2nd innings in Trinidad and Barbados - I don't think AC played a single game under Illy who took over immediately after that tour. tbf I've no idea what his county record was like from 1994 - 1995.

 

[Goughy]

Im sure Caddick was not the most popular player in the dressing room.

It brings the important question of balance.

If it is a personality clash and just not liking each other then the management have to find a way to make it work. You cant just work with people you like and get on with.

but

if a player is a genuine distraction to the team and a bad teammate then that has to be resolved and play a part in selection.

Its hard to know who fits into which category.

 

[wpdavid]

Im sure Caddick was not the most popular player in the dressing room.

It brings the important question of balance.

If it is a personality class and just not liking each other then the management have to find a way to make it work. You cant just work with people you like and get on with.

but

if a player is a genuine distraction to the team and a bad teammate then that has to be resolved and play a part in selection.

Its hard to know who fits into which category.

Yup. I suspect with AC it was the former, but obv I'm guessing to an extent.

I do sometimes wonder if Caddick & Gough were the most emotionally needy pair of opening bowlers in test cricket though.

 

[Richard]

His first bowling innings' averages would suggest otherwise.

Averages aren't everything. It's not like Caddick had zero in the way of first-innings performance.

I just want to add, though, that bowlers like him have their place especially if they're really talented. And, let's face it, there's far more bowlers who put in when they're really motivated because it's really hard to maintain the rage all the time (which is why there's so few bowlers who can). They just need to be managed right and I don't think Caddick was. Dropping him after Edgbaston in 1997 was baffling, even taking into account how well Dean Headley bowled in teh subsequent Tests.

I said this to you before. They didn't drop him, he played at Lord's (and took 4 for 70-odd). I forget which Test it was he missed that series off the top of my head and CBA to check. Whichever one it was it was poor selection though - he should have played the lot given fitness.

I do agree that he was handled poorly. So were God-knows-how-many players between the eras of Mike Brearley \ Kenny Barrington and Duncan Fletcher. Man-management has never been the biggest of strengths of a great many English cricket administrators \ managers.

The rot started in 1993, though. The whole series he was being pigeonholed as a guy too quick to move the ball a lot but too slow to being an all-out express bowler. No-one, it seemed, knew what to think of him. He didnt bowl that badly and certainly he looked as if he had plenty of potential. The Aussie batting was just on song, really.

Caddick was always pidgeonholed as not a swing-bowler. And it was always totally wrong. He was very rare in being as tall as him and a high-class swing-bowler, but that's certainly what he was. He could swing the ball from a shorter length than almost anyone managed.

Anyone who thinks someone's "too quick to swing the ball" obviously doesn't have a clue what they're on about.

 

[Richard]

Yes I do, I don't think Caddick was a great team man.

If that was true (and certainly there were times it was) that was more to do with people not making an effort to accomodate him than him not wanting to be a part.

Nasser Hussain, who knew him better than most, always said that Caddick was incredibly warm-hearted, always wanted to be loved and could make a friend out of anyone if they themselves made the effort. What Caddick wasn't good at was making the approach himself. I can identify enormously with that as it's basically the exact same thing that I consider myself to be.

 

[Richard]

Caddick definately upped his game when he could smell blood. There was a change in him, his mood, focus etc. He didnt try any harder but the game can just come easier for no reason apart from mentality. I can personally vouch for how this happens.

So can I, believe it or not. So, I'd imagine, can anyone who's ever bowled to any remotely serious level.

What some have accused him of is not trying. I don't feel this is fair at all. He was simply better when the mood caught him. It wasn't conscious on his part of "I can't be arsed trying now, but I'll give it a go later".

 

[Richard]

Yup. I suspect with AC it was the former, but obv I'm guessing to an extent.

I do sometimes wonder if Caddick & Gough were the most emotionally needy pair of opening bowlers in test cricket though.

They might well have been - which is why it was a good job they played all their Test cricket as opening partners under one of the best and most understanding, accomodating coach-captain pairings you'll ever see.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If that was true (and certainly there were times it was) that was more to do with people not making an effort to accomodate him than him not wanting to be a part.

Nasser Hussain, who knew him better than most, always said that Caddick was incredibly warm-hearted, always wanted to be loved and could make a friend out of anyone if they themselves made the effort. What Caddick wasn't good at was making the approach himself. I can identify enormously with that as it's basically the exact same thing that I consider myself to be.

It's the nature of being in a team though, it's not about everyone else accommodating you. Maybe he should have played golf. Unfortunately everyone else in the team has to make sure they're well prepared and ready to go, it can't be all about Andy. In every team though there're players (or at least a player) who marches to a bit of a different beat. They need to be a little proactive in managing their own needs though to survive I think. Stuart MacGill, for example, didn't seem to give a **** what anyone else thought but always made sure he was up for the challenge on the pitch.

Caddick may well have been a great bloke, but there were obviously things he need to address on the pitch.

 

[Richard]

I'm trying to remember exactly when Illy's reign was. I know it started after the 1994 tour of WI, but I'm struggling to recall when it ended: possibly after the 1995/6 SA tour? I'm tempted to agree that Illy wouldn't have been great for the gauche young Caddick in the mid1990's, but I reckon AC was unpopular with those who mattered even after Illy's time. Looking at the 1997 scorecards is quite revealing, especially when you get to the Old Trafford test, when Caddick was about the 5th bowler to be used in Aus 2nd innings. Even at the Oval, he was coming on after Peter Martin of all people, which suggest that Atherton just didn't rate him at all.

EDIT
I hadn't realised just how much Illy didn't rate him. Despite some encouraging performances in the 1994 WI tour - esp 2nd innings in Trinidad and Barbados - I don't think AC played a single game under Illy who took over immediately after that tour. tbf I've no idea what his county record was like from 1994 - 1995.

Caddick was far from the only person to suffer for Illingworth's blunt style. Graeme Hick did better than most, but was almost certainly damaged by it long-term; Devon Malcolm may or may not have had the skills, but would almost certainly have had a better chance had someone other than Illingworth been in charge. I'm sure there are others.

Illingworth had many merits as a selector, I'm fairly confident he was far better in that respect than David Graveney or Duncan Fletcher, but as "head" man he was awful compared to those two. Both were excellent at "how to treat a player". Illingworth simply wasn't. He just expected everyone to have a heart of stone and not take anything to heart.

BTW, IIRR, his reign as CoS was summers 1994 to 1996. His role as team supremo was 1995 and 1995/96.

 

[Richard]

It's the nature of being in a team though, it's not about everyone else accommodating you. Maybe he should have played golf. Unfortunately everyone else in the team has to make sure they're well prepared and ready to go, it can't be all about Andy. In every team though there're players (or at least a player) who marches to a bit of a different beat. They need to be a little proactive in managing their own needs though to survive I think. Stuart MacGill, for example, didn't seem to give a **** what anyone else thought but always made sure he was up for the challenge on the pitch.

Caddick may well have been a great bloke, but there were obviously things he need to address on the pitch.

TBH, though, I think if someone is seriously talented (which Caddick undeniably was IMO) then more effort needs to be made by others to accomodate him. If this isn't, everyone is a loser.

Caddick certainly didn't have the ideal temperament for a Test cricketer. But he wasn't a lost cause. Good man-managers could and did help him become a well-loved presence in the team.

 

[wpdavid]

Averages aren't everything. It's not like Caddick had zero in the way of first-innings performance.

I said this to you before. They didn't drop him, he played at Lord's (and took 4 for 70-odd). I forget which Test it was he missed that series off the top of my head and CBA to check. Whichever one it was it was poor selection though - he should have played the lot given fitness.

It was Headingley - Mike Smith replaced him, had Elliott (I think) dropped by Thorpe after England had taken 4 quick wickets but was then smashed all over Leeds and never played another test.

It was looks poor now, and probably was at the time. I suppose the selectors were hoping that Smith would do a Mallender. AC had had a decidedly thin time of it in the previous test and, as I mentioned earlier, seemed to have lost the confidence of his captain.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So can I, believe it or not. So, I'd imagine, can anyone who's ever bowled to any remotely serious level.

What some have accused him of is not trying. I don't feel this is fair at all. He was simply better when the mood caught him. It wasn't conscious on his part of "I can't be arsed trying now, but I'll give it a go later".

I think the difference between Caddick and some of the other bowlers is that he lacked consistency in those times when his tail wasn't up. Most good bowlers will bowl to a certain level regardless of what's happening for a majority of the time, however Caddick seemed to go a fair way in the opposite direction at certain times (and I'm not suggesting he's the only one to ever do this). Whether he had the ****s with team politics at stages or wasn't able to cope with spirited resistance from the opposition I don't know. He certainly seemed to disappear though.

 

[wpdavid]

Caddick was far from the only person to suffer for Illingworth's blunt style. Graeme Hick did better than most, but was almost certainly damaged by it long-term; Devon Malcolm may or may not have had the skills, but would almost certainly have had a better chance had someone other than Illingworth been in charge. I'm sure there are others.

BTW, IIRR, his reign as CoS was summers 1994 to 1996. His role as team supremo was 1995 and 1995/96.

The difference being that Hick & Malcolm got to play under Illingworth. Cadds, afaics, he just didn't fancy and didn't pick him, never mind handle him well or badly.

 

[Son Of Coco]

TBH, though, I think if someone is seriously talented (which Caddick undeniably was IMO) then more effort needs to be made by others to accomodate him. If this isn't, everyone is a loser.

Caddick certainly didn't have the ideal temperament for a Test cricketer. But he wasn't a lost cause. Good man-managers could and did help him become a well-loved presence in the team.

It disrupts team harmony if you do this though. Sure, give the guy a shot in the arm for his first few tests and help him out but you can't accommodate someone for their whole career. He wasn't 5 years old. I have no doubt good man managers helped, but part of being a good man manager is taking in the team's needs as a whole and adjusting both sides to fit accordingly. Mollycoddle Caddick and you'll have 1 friend and 10 people who are becoming increasingly annoyed. At some stage the player in question has to make an effort to meet close to the halfway point.

I also have no doubt sections of the English board and others involved with cricket were probably a pain to deal with, as they are everywhere.

 

[Richard]

It was Headingley - Mike Smith replaced him, had Elliott (I think) dropped by Thorpe after England had taken 4 quick wickets but was then smashed all over Leeds and never played another test.

It was looks poor now, and probably was at the time. I suppose the selectors were hoping that Smith would do a Mallender. AC had had a decidedly thin time of it in the previous test and, as I mentioned earlier, seemed to have lost the confidence of his captain.

Smith was treated ridiculously harshly too. Beggars belief that the likes of Joseph Benjamin, Martin McCague, Simon Brown and a few others played Test cricket ahead of him.

Caddick being dropped for him, unless it was after some shocking performances (which it wasn't) wasn't a good idea, nonetheless.