The averages may suggest that Sidebottom was atrocious, but really the amount of drops off his bowling over there, I'd say he has a case. Bowled more economically than Hoggard from memory, and got through more overs
Think your under the misconception that when a player struggles in his first 3 Tests, that he needs a major overhaul of his technique! This is rarely the case, at times only minor technical adjustments are needed, if indeed the problem is technical and not mental.
Hoggard's a workhorse for sure. You haven't forgotten his 7-for at Adelaide on the flattest of flat decks in bright sunshine? I thought the talk of him being an exclusively new-ball bowler ended with that. He hit line and length very well, difficult to score off and always a small threat even when the ball doesn't swing. Also performed very consistently, didn't have many bad games. Hard done by IMO.
Either that, or you'd want to hate them. Can't believe the number of people who still hate KP, TBH. Or the number of people who believe that crap about him not being a team player.
English people are strange about hating people who know they're good. KP is, by a country mile, the best batsman they have, but they'd prefer if he thought he was bollocks.
Thats a strange description.
TBF, we've been doing that pretty consistently before what will doubtlessly be called "Pattinson's Test" in a few years. I'm sure I remember reading that our six tests with the same XI was an all-time record. Can't honestly say it was a total success; we struggled past as ordinary an NZ team as I can recall more by happenstance than any sense of a team improving or growing towards something.
It was, yeah, but it was kinda like T*ttenham beating Middlesborough home & away and thinking it's next stop Champions League. The fact we were unbeaten was at least partly down the quality of the opposition (who in any case weren't flattered by the scorelines).
No-one, really. I'm not anti consistency, as I said, just pointing out it's not necessarily a good thing in & of itself. No-one's preformances seemed to improve because they had that security during the run. In fact, particularly with regards to our top order, the majority of them (KP excepted) have just been doing enough to get by.
His record opening and at number 3 is not very different. Hes been just as inconsistent at 3 as he has been at the top and I would not be surprised if his 160 odd against Australia and a couple of his other hundreds at 3 made up the vast majority of his average at 3 either. Personally, there isnt much doubt in my mind that Vaughan wasnt doing well enough to justify his place as a batsman. He was, for 5 years though, doing well enough to justify his place as a captain and batsman because the side was winning, but now, rightly or wrongly, there were always going to be question marks as to whether he should be part of the side.
Personally dont think Sidebottom bowled that well. You dont average 60 odd without bowling poorly IMO and I dont think his average would have changed significantly had those catches been taken either. Both bowlers bowled shockingly poor in Galle though, I remember Ravi Bopara coming in and bowling jaffas on a pitch where both Sidebottom and Hoggard took 1 wicket in about 30 overs.
There were a hell of a lot of drops, from Prior who had severe trouble keeping to the left hander, and from Bell who was shoehorned into a first slip in the absence of Strauss. As a result of the dropped catches, he had to carry on breaking his back on a flat, slow deck against a well-set Jayawardene and Sangakarra. I barely missed a minute of that series as i was bed-ridden with illness for almost the entire duration, and i have never seen a bowler's figures a more unfair reflection of his performances than those of Sidebottom's in Sri Lanka.
