But he still finished with an awesome career and a very good test average (even though he has not retired so it way come down).It's not everyday you find a bowler taking 300 test wickets and he has to be appreciated.He defiently had more good series than bad.He is still today a very good bowler who has control of line and length,which not many fast bowlers have these days.
It must rank quite high though.
None of that automatically means he is consistent though. He is very inconsistent away from home and struggles to consistenty swing the ball.
Hoggard in 2002 and 2003 (and in 2000 and 2001 when he played 1 Test each season) was decidedly hopeless, aside from the odd spell (fourth day at Bangalore, first-innings at Christchurch, third morning at The SCG). He also had occasions (the middle of 2002) where he was grossly flattered by his figures. Then in 2004, he became a better bowler. But even so, he's still never been more than a middling performer in Test-cricket, for a variety of reasons.
No-one is saying he is a bad bowler. Just that he is inconsistent. Taking a lot of wickets and having a good average doesn't automatically attribute consistency to a bowler.
You missed the ly on the end, which makes a huge difference. I challenge you to find a bowler who can do as I said earlier, and go from 15 wickets at 15 to 2 at 100 in the space of a series?
As I say.
So you still don't rate him now?.Unbelivable given he's such a consistent bowler for England and is 5th in the world.And what are the reasons according to you that he has been a "middling performer in Test-cricket"
I take my comment back.It might have been a touch harsh and unwanted seeing as I haven't been a member for long.Am I forgiven?
I never said anything of the sort. He's a pretty good bowler. But no more than that.
I ain't one to hold grudges. Especially on here.
So what where you trying to say?
That Hoggard, the since-2004 version, has had his good days and his bad. He's a vital cog in our attack, but he is also patently no superman, and is undoubtedly limited - despite producing the odd sensational performance such as Adelaide 2006\07 and Nagpur 2005\06.
I think he used to be a limited bowler with everyone saying he could only bowl in swinging conditions,that myth has been has now I think been dispelled as he now bowls alot of cutters on unresponsive pitches and that's how he gets alot of wickets on fthese pitches.He's a very clever bowler who has improved out of sight.He may not grab headlines with his 2-3 wicket hauls but he is someone you can always rely on.And he'll keep bowling and bowling and troubling the best batsmen.Another very underrated bowler IMO but most certainly not by his teammates.
I thought that was one of Hoggard's qualities.I get the feeling your not really a fan of his and the work he puts in each game for England.As I repeat Hoggard along with Flintoff has been the most consistent bowler and does do a job "game after game".How often do you see Hoggard nowadays go through a test match without taking a wicket?.Very rarely and he usually gets 3,4 or 5 wickets in most tests he plays.And by the way what other England bowler will do a job "game after game" apart from Flintoff.No one so I think you appreciate him and be lucky to have a bowler like Hoggard who is whole hearted and and tris his guts out whenever the ball is in his hand.You don't get to number 5 in the world without being a consistent bowler and you will have to perform "game after game" to get recognised as being one of the best fast bowlers in the world bar Asif,Ntini,Flintoff and probably Clark.
I think Shahid has got enough praise already....all the praise he's getting from you makes me feel
