Brad Hogg

[Richard]

Is it? I was using IMO on the old CricInfo forums. Didn't start using TBH until, what, 2004, 2005 or so on CW. IIRR that is.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Stop overusing the bold tags you ****ing ****.

 

[vic_orthdox]

IMO is without doubt the most commonly-used acronym on CW. Though TBH TBH does come close.

Either way, it still irritates me to see people using non-CAPitalised acronyms for some and CAPitalised for others. Why not just do one thing or t'other?

And if there's anyone who TBH has become a word in itself to, it's me. Do I de-CAPitalise it? No.

I can't stand trivialists at the best of times, and this any-fuss-is-too-much-fuss-ism is one of the worst traits of CW.

.

 

[Dizzy #4]

Why the hell is Brett Lee considered a better batsman then Hogg? I'd have Hogg rated the same as Clarke and Symmonds basically...

 

[sledger]

tbh I've never understood why so many aussie fans dislike hogg so much, he's always struck me as a fairly competent player who can do a decent job when asked, the kind of guy that most other sides in the world would be glad to have.

 

[Richard]

.

IMO is without doubt the most commonly-used acronym on CW. Though TBH TBH does come close.

Either way, it still irritates me to see people using non-CAPitalised acronyms for some and CAPitalised for others. Why not just do one thing or t'other?

And if there's anyone who TBH has become a word in itself to, it's me. Do I de-CAPitalise it? No.

I can't stand trivialists at the best of times, and this any-fuss-is-too-much-fuss-ism is one of the worst traits of CW

While I understand it's not the biggest issue in The World, it would still irritate me if people make "FFS, does it matter, it's only a forum?" posts, yes.

 

[Richard]

Stop overusing the bold tags you ****ing ****.

Stop overusing the asterisk-utilising you ing .

 

[Laurrz]

isnt it awesome how he smiles at everything... when he is almost out (playing and missing etc.) ..he just smiles to the bowler.. must piss the hell out of em lol..

 

[Richard]

Murali's little different TBH.

Other than being about 50 times better of course.

 

[silentstriker]

His flipper wasn't picked by the Indians. But he sucks without it - and they'll figure out that delivery soon enough.

He was the worst of the bowlers - Aussies really need to get a 4th seamer instead. You need to play your best four bowlers. I can't see Tait being as bad as Hogg was.

SS - didn't watch the Test?

Nah, you didn't watch the Test.

In this case, the stats don't really tell the story. He was very easily played. But we'll see after the end of the series - at that point, the stats will reflect his performance.

Anyone want to bet he ends up with a bowling average of greater than 40 for the series? Avatar for a week.

Done and done.

Current average: 51.50.

Told you he isn't going to be particularly effective.

1. 2/82
2. 2/51
3. 2/121
4. 0/55

He may improve it, but I don't see it going below 40, or him having a major influence on any game.

 

[Richard]

There's almost no way he'll play at The WACA, surely? If not, he'll (probably) have just Adelaide Oval to get that average down, and given how flat that pitch tends to be I doubt it.

' played ss.

 

[NUFAN]

There's almost no way he'll play at The WACA, surely? If not, he'll (probably) have just Adelaide Oval to get that average down, and given how flat that pitch tends to be I doubt it.

' played ss.

Play Hogg at home and pick Tait for Johnson is the go I feel.

Hogg's 79 would have helped his case for sure.

 

[Mister Wright]

Shouldn't play again imo. If Hauritz is going to be bagged for not taking 6/9, then Hogg should be bagged for not taking wickets when Symonds and Clarke can get wickets and he can't.

 

[Mister Wright]

Play Hogg at home and pick Tait for Johnson is the go I feel.

Hogg's 79 would have helped his case for sure.

He's in the side for his bowling, not his batting, scoring runs is a bonus not his role.

Also, one of the radio commentators made a good point that Hogg really doesn't have the ability to run through sides like MacGill can.

 

[silentstriker]

Play Hogg at home and pick Tait for Johnson is the go I feel.

Hogg's 79 would have helped his case for sure.

I'm sure it did, but unless you want to play him as an all rounder (in place of Symonds, which isn't going to happen), I don't see how you can pick him as a bowler. Johnson wasn't overly impressive, but I'd still peg him to take wickets over Hogg. I'd bring in Tait for Hogg.

 

[silentstriker]

He's in the side for his bowling, not his batting, scoring runs is a bonus not his role.

Also, one of the radio commentators made a good point that Hogg really doesn't have the ability to run through sides like MacGill can.

MacGill (as was Warne) is also ineffective against India - Australia is just better off playing four pace bowlers. But yes, I'd still peg MacGill over Hogg when he is healthy, against most other sides.

 

[NUFAN]

He's in the side for his bowling, not his batting, scoring runs is a bonus not his role.

Also, one of the radio commentators made a good point that Hogg really doesn't have the ability to run through sides like MacGill can.

Yeah mate, I pretty much should have written that's how the selectors will be thinking IMO.

I do find it harsh on bowlers. It's like saying Michael Clarke should be dropped, for making 1 & 0 despite taking 3 wickets, because he's a batsmen and his job is to score runs.

Hogg's 79 was crucial given the circumstances. I can't see him getting dropped at all.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yeah mate, I pretty much should have written that's how the selectors will be thinking IMO.

I do find it harsh on bowlers. It's like saying Michael Clarke should be dropped, for making 1 & 0 despite taking 3 wickets, because he's a batsmen and his job is to score runs.

Hogg's 79 was crucial given the circumstances. I can't see him getting dropped at all.

Clarke's not going to be dropped any time soon, but he's certainly not batting as well as he was this time last year. Surprising he's having so much trouble against spin.

 

[Richard]

I do find it harsh on bowlers. It's like saying Michael Clarke should be dropped, for making 1 & 0 despite taking 3 wickets, because he's a batsmen and his job is to score runs.

If Clarke hadn't been scoring runs of late, that'd be a perfectly fair call.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm sure it did, but unless you want to play him as an all rounder (in place of Symonds, which isn't going to happen), I don't see how you can pick him as a bowler. Johnson wasn't overly impressive, but I'd still peg him to take wickets over Johnson. I'd bring in Tait, but for Hogg.

I think they'd end up with just about the same figures, Johnson and Johnson..