Who is the Best Test Bowler out of These 4?

[Goughy]

The problem with Broad is that he isnt very good. At the moment he doesnt offer anything.

He bowls medium-medium/quick with decent shape and ordinary accuracy from a good height.

He isnt remotely penetrative nor can he control the run rate.

He hasnt done anything at any level of note and hasnt shown anything during his time in Test cricket.

Now he may progress into something good. I hope he does. However, Ill judge him on what he is rather than what he maybe at some unknown time in the future.

ATM he is a bargain basement version of Martin Bicknell.

As much as Anderson annoys me and frustrates me, at least he can bowl a killer ball and has a bit more edge to him.

 

[Laurrz]

Matthew Hoggard

knows all the tricks of swing bowling and has a great brain...madddd swift action... love it

 

[open365]

Pretty vague question ITBT. If it was people who should be playing for England atm, then I'd say my list was correct. Not having seen Harmison bowl this summer, but I still wouldn't want to see him playing for England again.

I intentionaly worded it not to ask 'who should be playing for England atm?' because I think selecting the bowling attack is pretty difficult currently. I don't really think the question is vague at all, who is the best test match bowler? They are all pace bowlers, and pretty comparable given the amount they've played so far.

The problem with Broad is that he isnt very good. At the moment he doesnt offer anything.

He bowls medium-medium/quick with decent shape and ordinary accuracy from a good height.

He isnt remotely penetrative nor can he control the run rate.

He hasnt done anything at any level of note and hasnt shown anything during his time in Test cricket.

Now he may progress into something good. I hope he does. However, Ill judge him on what he is rather than what he maybe at some unknown time in the future.

ATM he is a bargain basement version of Martin Bicknell.

As much as Anderson annoys me and frustrates me, at least he can bowl a killer ball and has a bit more edge to him.

I agree completely, Broad's bowling at this stage is massively over rated because he's 22, looks like a 12 year old and can bat. If Harmison has performed like Broad has so far, everyone would be on his back and wondering why he's bowling so badly, but with Broad everyone just says 'Wow what a guy has a lot of potential' and imagines the Broad we're seeing atm is somehow directly related performance wise to what he could be in the future.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I agree completely, Broad's bowling at this stage is massively over rated because he's 22, looks like a 12 year old and can bat. If Harmison has performed like Broad has so far, everyone would be on his back and wondering why he's bowling so badly, but with Broad everyone just says 'Wow what a guy has a lot of potential' and imagines the Broad we're seeing atm is somehow directly related performance wise to what he could be in the future.

People get on Harmison's back because he comes across as a bit of a ****, in all honesty, whereas Broad comes across as someone who is willing to learn and get better.

 

[wpdavid]

Looks to me like Hoggard's performances from the summer 2006 have been airbrushed out of history. Or at least from people's memories. All this tosh I've read about him being dropped after 'one bad performance' seems to have been widely taken on board, irrespective of the facts of the matter.

That being said, the question is a tough one. Two years ago, the answer would have been Hoggard and there'd have been no disussion. Once a year or so, the answer is Harmison. Agreed with earlier comments about Broad. Which makes the current answer, probably, and I can't believe I'm saying this, James Anderson.

 

[open365]

People get on Harmison's back because he comes across as a bit of a ****, in all honesty, whereas Broad comes across as someone who is willing to learn and get better.

Yeh that's a fair point, and one that I agree with a bit (that whenever Harmison leaves the country he really doesn't seem to give a f), but I don't think people make the distinction between intangible factors about what someone's attitude appears to be to them, and what their acctual performance is.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What I'm saying is that people might be more likely to see past Broad performing not as well, because they can see he is willing to learn, where as the fact that Harmison is by all means a poor bowler is magnified by the fact that he comes across as a bit of a ****.

 

[Goughy]

People get on Harmison's back because he comes across as a bit of a ****, in all honesty, whereas Broad comes across as someone who is willing to learn and get better.

Fair points but you shouldnt get Test caps for being a nice lad and having a famous dad.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If the question is "who has had the most meaningful test career thus far" it'd be Hoggard, but as cricket isn't played in a vacuum currently I'd take Anderson as the most likely to perform.

Hoggy didn't quite scale the heights like Harmison did (although he got pretty bloody close on occasions) but equally he didn't plumb the depths either. Suspect Harmison the more likely to be recalled now in all honesty as, from what I've read, the perception is that Hoggard has lost a bit of nip.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Fair points but you shouldnt get Test caps for being a nice lad and having a famous dad.

Where did I say you should? I certainly didn't mean to imply it. I think Broad should be given another season in CC to lean his trade a bit more, so to speak, and then hopefully he can return to Test Cricket a better and more complete bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem with Broad is that he isnt very good. At the moment he doesnt offer anything.

He bowls medium-medium/quick with decent shape and ordinary accuracy from a good height.

He isnt remotely penetrative nor can he control the run rate.

He hasnt done anything at any level of note and hasnt shown anything during his time in Test cricket.

Now he may progress into something good. I hope he does. However, Ill judge him on what he is rather than what he maybe at some unknown time in the future.

ATM he is a bargain basement version of Martin Bicknell.

As much as Anderson annoys me and frustrates me, at least he can bowl a killer ball and has a bit more edge to him.

AWTA. Really shocked to see so many people rate Broad ahead of Anderson.

 

[zaremba]

Hoggard over time has been the best, no question, and he gets my vote on that basis. In helpful conditions he could be lethal, in difficult conditions he was frequently England's only reliable performer. Big heart, and a lot of skill.

In 2004 Harmison (until the SA tour) was the best of this lot but his star burned out pretty quickly.

Broad isn't the best of this lot on any count.

So I think I may have to echo WPDavid: "the current answer, probably, and I can't believe I'm saying this, is James Anderson."

 

[Richard]

People get on Harmison's back because he comes across as a bit of a ****, in all honesty, whereas Broad comes across as someone who is willing to learn and get better.

Think Harmison actually comes accross as being an incredibly likeable guy - and that's certainly contributed, for mine, to him getting as many caps as he has. Nice guys generally tend to get given more chances than ****s. EG - Chris Schofield was described by Nasser Hussain as "not a very pleasant lad" (which is damning indeed as Hussain barely says a bad word about a single England cricketer, short- or long-term, of his time) and he was supposedly as potentially-remarkable as Harmison was.

Certainly Harmison is someone I've always liked as a person, seems to have his head totally in the right place. I've never thought his bowling, even in early 2004, was anywhere near as good as most have, however, and always find the "Harmison at his best" comments utterly silly, as you could say that about so many bowlers.

Anderson at his best is actually, for mine, a far more deadly bowler than Harmison at his best. Harmison has still to bowl a Test match spell which has involved him getting a stack of wickets by actually getting batsmen out rather than them getting out to him. Anderson has, despite his utter woefulness (every bit as bad as Harmison's) most of the time.

Anyway, as to the original question, Hoggard is clearly a mile above Harmison as a Test bowler of those whose careers are apparently over; Anderson I feel is likely to remain a mediocre performer long-term; and Broad, as has been mentioned several times this thread already, currently offers virtually nothing that recommends a Test bowler. He might be good in future, but he shouldn't ever have played a Test as of this post if merit selection were applied.

Currently: Hoggard; Harmison; Anderson; Broad. Potentially, in 10 years' time: Broad; Hoggard; Harmison; Anderson (or maybe Harmison and Anderson swapped around).

However, we've seen potential not fulfilled before now and it's nowhere near the set-in-stone certainty that Broad will one day be a Test-class bowler that so many seem certain it is.

Harmison should never play for England again; it'll take a near-miracle for Hoggard to play for England again; Anderson currently merits a place but that will change with just a couple of bad games; Broad currently should not be in the side and the side will be stronger if he should be left-out at the current time. That's my summing-up.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

it'll take a near-miracle for Hoggard to play for England again;

Why?

 

[Richard]

Because it's pretty obvious that he's been ruled-out by someoneorother because he's "lost nip". Sometimes someone just gets a bee in their bonnet about a certain player and it's almost impossible for them to convince such people otherwise. History is littered with examples of players who have labels - fairly or unfairly - stuck on them by selectors and as a result never play again.

In any case, say Jones, Flintoff and Sidebottom are available for the next 3 years - are you seriously expecting Hoggard to force his way past any of them?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In any case, say Jones, Flintoff and Sidebottom are available for the next 3 years - are you seriously expecting Hoggard to force his way past any of them?

Two are those are semi-cripples and it would be a bigger miracle if they remained fit for three years. Hoggard might not currently be first choice in Vaughan's eyes but to place his chances of playing again as needing a miracle is way over the top.

 

[zaremba]

always find the "Harmison at his best" comments utterly silly, as you could say that about so many bowlers.

I don't follow you. The point about "Harmison at his best" is that for much of 2004 (unlike for much of the period since then) he really was a genuine force. As is always trotted out, he was ranked no 1 in the world (albeit that McGrath wasn't playing at the time). This did not happen by accident - it was a reflection of his impact at that time and the stacks of cheap wickets, not on the odd day but over a period of months. Yes you can talk about Jimmy Anderson "at his best", but he's never been close to number 1 in the world, however lethal he may be on the odd good day.

 

[Richard]

Two are those are semi-cripples and it would be a bigger miracle if they remained fit for three years. Hoggard might not currently be first choice in Vaughan's eyes but to place his chances of playing again as needing a miracle is way over the top.

Jones and Flintoff have been semi-cripples in the past - doesn't neccessarily mean they will be so again. Though with Flintoff the problems which have caused his lack of fitness are as I understand still very much in existance.

Should Flintoff and Jones soon return to the side, they'll force Hoggard further down the pecking-order and Anderson, Broad, Tremlett (presumably) and maybe even others will then be given more time to remain in the frame, as their performances (which we presume will be poor) will be more infrequent so more readily forgiven.

And I reckon it'll take a couple of years at best before Hoggard is completely written-off for a Test return.

 

[Richard]

I don't follow you. The point about "Harmison at his best" is that for much of 2004 (unlike for much of the period since then) he really was a genuine force. As is always trotted out, he was ranked no 1 in the world (albeit that McGrath wasn't playing at the time). This did not happen by accident - it was a reflection of his impact at that time and the stacks of cheap wickets, not on the odd day but over a period of months. Yes you can talk about Jimmy Anderson "at his best", but he's never been close to number 1 in the world, however lethal he may be on the odd good day.

Harmison was in fact ranked at #1 after he'd ceased to be the threat - it was the #2 ranking that came after his 7 good Tests - ie, in the Caribbean and at home to NZ. The #1 ranking happened for 1 Test at the end of 2004, after West Indies had mostly conquered him with little trouble in the home series.

The rankings, however, are purely a reflection of bowling figures - they do not take account of how these figures were achieved. Harmison, as I said, did not actually do all that much in the way of getting batsmen out in those two series in question - mostly it was wickets being gifted. This was never likely to continue for long (nor was Harmison's accuracy in those two series') and so it hasn't.

I'd much prefer actually watch Harmison bowl than say "he was #2 in the rankings so he must've been brilliant".

 

[zaremba]

As for how they take wickets, yes Anderson's look more classically appealing. He bowls a fuller length and takes wickets with swing - lots of catches by the keeper or in the slips and the occasional "Hollywood" ball pitching middle and hitting off.

Harmison is inherently a much much uglier bowler - digs it in, makes life uncomfortable for the batsman, gets them caught at 3rd man or gully, panics them in to a rash shot etc. But the fact is that he got batsmen out, and in that purple patch got a lot of them out. Batsmen found him very unpleasant to play and his figures were a reflection of that.

By saying this I'm not trying to do Anderson down btw. I agree with you entirely that he has a great capacity for bowling beautiful wicket-taking deliveries. He has a rare talent for this and on his day he is a seriously high-class bowler. Which is why he drives us all so nuts with his inconsistency.