Selection errors tally thread

[Uppercut]

Yorkshire aren't even giving him the new ball now.

 

[tooextracool]

He's just taken the new ball in the ongoing game against Lancashire so I'm not sure what you are on about.

 

[GIMH]

Someone by the name of Matthew Hoggard surely?

I refuse to discount the opinions of those who say he's lost it without seeing him bowl myself. I also refuse to judge him on the fact that his domestic figures are still good, because, well, Harmison's are even better, and look how that goes. I like Hoggy, I really do, but if he was still a better bowler than Stuart Broad then the selectors (who, all things aside, watch these players a lot more than we do) would not have excluded him from their plans.

On top of that Broad's good for about 20-25 runs more per innings with the bat, which is so important.

Oh, and Broad averages much closer to 30 than 40 in 2009

 

[tooextracool]

I refuse to discount the opinions of those who say he's lost it without seeing him bowl myself. I also refuse to judge him on the fact that his domestic figures are still good, because, well, Harmison's are even better, and look how that goes. I like Hoggy, I really do, but if he was still a better bowler than Stuart Broad then the selectors (who, all things aside, watch these players a lot more than we do) would not have excluded him from their plans.

On top of that Broad's good for about 20-25 runs more per innings with the bat, which is so important.

Oh, and Broad averages much closer to 30 than 40 in 2009

The point which Richard raised was that Broad should never have been selected ITFP, which is one that I'm inclined to agree upon. Not at any point in the last 2 years has he been ready to play test cricket and if there was an inkling of common sense amongst the selectors he would have only been selected at some point after the Ashes whilst obviously still being given a run in the ODI side.

AFAIC, looking back to the NZ series in 08 when Broad was selected over Hoggard, there was no reason to drop Hoggard. Despite what some forum members will have you believe, Hoggard had done reasonably well in Sri Lanka (better than anyone else in the England side) and he had one poor game in NZ and was axed, permanently.

 

[Uppercut]

The point which Richard raised was that Broad should never have been selected ITFP, which is one that I'm inclined to agree upon. Not at any point in the last 2 years has he been ready to play test cricket and if there was an inkling of common sense amongst the selectors he would have only been selected at some point after the Ashes whilst obviously still being given a run in the ODI side.

AFAIC, looking back to the NZ series in 08 when Broad was selected over Hoggard, there was no reason to drop Hoggard. Despite what some forum members will have you believe, Hoggard had done reasonably well in Sri Lanka (better than anyone else in the England side) and he had one poor game in NZ and was axed, permanently.

The worst thing to come out of Hoggy's moderately unfair treatment was the fact that no one has shut up about it since. Get over it IMO. You're playing Australia at the Oval tomorrow, not New Zealand at Wellington. We're debating the team that should be picked now, not the team that should have been picked for an inconsequential tie against a mediocre side 18 months ago.

 

[GIMH]

The point which Richard raised was that Broad should never have been selected ITFP, which is one that I'm inclined to agree upon. Not at any point in the last 2 years has he been ready to play test cricket and if there was an inkling of common sense amongst the selectors he would have only been selected at some point after the Ashes whilst obviously still being given a run in the ODI side.

AFAIC, looking back to the NZ series in 08 when Broad was selected over Hoggard, there was no reason to drop Hoggard. Despite what some forum members will have you believe, Hoggard had done reasonably well in Sri Lanka (better than anyone else in the England side) and he had one poor game in NZ and was axed, permanently.

His selection was too early, no doubt about it, however the previous six months have shown that he is now ready and he is worth his place in the side. So to say he never should have been called up is far too drastic, and I doubt he'd have made the progress he has done if he'd been playing in the championship, though that's another debate for another day.

Hoggard was indeed good in Sri Lanka, however if you look at the 18 months prior to his dropping as a whole and it becomes clear he was no longer the bowler he once was.

People talk of Broad averaging 40, here:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[tooextracool]

The worst thing to come out of Hoggy's moderately unfair treatment was the fact that no one has shut up about it since. Get over it IMO. You're playing Australia at the Oval tomorrow, not New Zealand at Wellington. We're debating the team that should be picked now, not the team that should have been picked for an inconsequential tie against a mediocre side 18 months ago.

You are probably right, but the point that I am discussing at the moment is this comment by Richard:

'Either way, the point I'm making is that at no point in his career so far has Broad really merited any call-up (not neccessarily retention) that he's been given.'

Whether you like it or not, past English selections have been brought up in this thread and Broad for Hoggard was one such rubbish selection at the time, one which we are still seeing the consequences off today.

 

[Uppercut]

His selection was too early, no doubt about it, however the previous six months have shown that he is now ready and he is worth his place in the side. So to say he never should have been called up is far too drastic, and I doubt he'd have made the progress he has done if he'd been playing in the championship, though that's another debate for another day.

Hoggard was indeed good in Sri Lanka, however if you look at the 18 months prior to his dropping as a whole and it becomes clear he was no longer the bowler he once was.

People talk of Broad averaging 40, here:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

That's a fallacious argument on Hoggy IMO. Why choose to include his figures against Pakistan when he bowled poorly but not the excellent ones from the games against Sri Lanka the very same summer? What does his average of 37 against Australia really mean in context, considering it was better than every other player in the side?

The guy was England's best player in Sri Lanka just before the NZ tour. He was excellent against the West Indies before getting injured, he was easily England's best bowler in Australia, he was poor against Pakistan but again England's best bowler against Sri Lanka that summer. For consistency and wicket-taking ability, Hoggy was comfortably England's best seamer for a period of two years leading up to his dropping. That doesn't necessarily mean letting him go was the wrong decision, but it was indeed largely on the back of that one game.

 

[GIMH]

That's a fallacious argument on Hoggy IMO. Why choose to include his figures against Pakistan when he bowled poorly but not the excellent ones from the games against Sri Lanka the very same summer? What does his average of 37 against Australia really mean in context, considering it was better than every other player in the side?

The guy was England's best player in Sri Lanka just before the NZ tour. He was excellent against the West Indies before getting injured, he was easily England's best bowler in Australia, he was poor against Pakistan but again England's best bowler against Sri Lanka that summer. For consistency and wicket-taking ability, Hoggy was comfortably England's best seamer for a period of two years leading up to his dropping. That doesn't necessarily mean letting him go was the wrong decision, but it was indeed largely on the back of that one game.

Yeah, I'd agree in that the only time I thought he was 'poor' was against Pakistan, though I think his performances in Australia get overrated on the back of one (blindingly good) performance in Adelaide. The truth is that in the latter two years of his Test career he would throw in a blinding spell in a series and be pretty quiet a lot of the time (a bit like Freddie in this series, you might say). So I don't quite think he was the bowler he once was, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

My point about the average is more one of consistency. Broad's average is used in arguments against him all the time, so why should Hoggard be any different? How about the fact that Broad's average includes the flattest pitches eeeeeevvvveerrrrr yet he still came out credibly? I know you agree with this much.

I'm not a big fan of bowling averages, all things considered, but if they are going to be used against a player I am arguing for then I'll be damned if I don't use them for the player I'm arguing against.

And, lest we forget, the batting matters, it really does. Hoggard went so far backwards with the bat in 2006 and beyond that it wasn't even funny.

 

[GIMH]

I've revised the filter to include the Sri Lanka series.
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[tooextracool]

Hoggard was indeed good in Sri Lanka, however if you look at the 18 months prior to his dropping as a whole and it becomes clear he was no longer the bowler he once was.

People talk of Broad averaging 40, here:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Let me get this straight then. Hoggard was no longer the force in 2008, because of his performances in the home series against Pakistan in 2006? Because the way I see it, those 4 tests from 2006, seriously distort those stats. AFAIC, he bowled well in India in the winter of 2006/07, bowled well again against Sl in the summer of 2007 (notice how those statistics conveniently disregard this series and include the Pakistan series that same summer), bowled poorly against Pakistan, bowled decently in the Ashes (and lets face it, he was the pick of the England bowlers again), bowled well against the WI in 2007 summer, bowled well against SL in the winter of 2007/08 and then had one bad test that winter and was discarded.

I find it very ironic that you talk about the progress that Broad has made by using his performance over the last 6 months, and then disregard that same criteria when evaluating Hoggard's performances before his eventual dropping. In his last 2 series before that one game against NZ, Hoggard had 12 wickets from 4 games at 26 odd. Its a far cry from someone who is apparently finished.

 

[GIMH]

Look up, I've revised the stats

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, I'd agree in that the only time I thought he was 'poor' was against Pakistan, though I think his performances in Australia get overrated on the back of one (blindingly good) performance in Adelaide. The truth is that in the latter two years of his Test career he would throw in a blinding spell in a series and be pretty quiet a lot of the time (a bit like Freddie in this series, you might say). So I don't quite think he was the bowler he once was, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

That is the story of Hoggard for his entire career though. Unless the ball was swinging, he was never anything brilliant. In fact no one would say that Hoggard was anything other than an average test match bowler, which is why he averages 30 in test match cricket. However, that still doesn't really explain the logic behind dropping him after 1 bad test, nor does it mean that he got worse.

My point about the average is more one of consistency. Broad's average is used in arguments against him all the time, so why should Hoggard be any different? How about the fact that Broad's average includes the flattest pitches eeeeeevvvveerrrrr yet he still came out credibly? I know you agree with this much.

How about the fact that his figures are boosted by playing considerably against 2 of the worst test teams going around (NZ and WI) as well? The only time he came out with any credit at any point in his career was during the Windies tour. I like Broad and he's definitely one for the future, but I think that they picked him when he wasn't test class and stuck with him despite his mediocrity until he went from rubbish to ordinary. Point is had they picked him when he was ordinary (somewhere around about now) and stuck with him, it would have cost them less test matches and a bowler names Matt Hoggard.

 

[GIMH]

That is the story of Hoggard for his entire career though. Unless the ball was swinging, he was never anything brilliant. In fact no one would say that Hoggard was anything other than an average test match bowler, which is why he averages 30 in test match cricket. However, that still doesn't really explain the logic behind dropping him after 1 bad test, nor does it mean that he got worse.

Going away from the topic slightly, but you make a good point, and it reminds me that I don't believe Hoggard was dropped for Broad...Anderson was in many way's the man they brought in to replace Hoggard. I don't believe Hoggard would have bowled as well as Anderson in the time since then, of course there is no way of knowing that. And I acknowledge that that isn't what we are discussing, just something that came to mind when I read your post.

How about the fact that his figures are boosted by playing considerably against 2 of the worst test teams going around (NZ and WI) as well? The only time he came out with any credit at any point in his career was during the Windies tour. I like Broad and he's definitely one for the future, but I think that they picked him when he wasn't test class and stuck with him despite his mediocrity until he went from rubbish to ordinary. Point is had they picked him when he was ordinary (somewhere around about now) and stuck with him, it would have cost them less test matches and a bowler names Matt Hoggard.

Ah the old "Broad was only any good against the Windies" argument. I've rolled this one out a few times of late, I will just say it again:

1. Check out the wickets he took in the six full Tests against the West Indies
2. Check out the innings scores in the Windies, then check Broad's figures
3. Check out how his bowling compared with his more esteemed colleagues Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson and Sidebottom. Flintoff, okay, he was injured. The rest? Anderson bowled well, but Broad outbowled him.

That series over there would have been tough for a bowler if the Eastham Under 7s were the batsmen, arguing that he only did well against the West Indies is far too simplistic, especially when you throw in the fact that we lost the series and Broad was one of the only players who could hold his head up high at the end of the series.

And yeah, when they came over here in May the Windies were rubbish, but again, check out his victims.

 

[Richard]

That may well be the case but it has largely to do with some completely inept batting in both innings from England at Cardiff than anything else. Australia, with the exception of Hilfenhaus and possibly Hauritz in the 2nd dig bowled pathetically that game and were very fortunate to even come close to taking 20 wickets. It is a shame they even got 10.

Don't disagree. Nonetheless, they came damn close to taking 'em, for whatever the reasons.

 

[Richard]

Not necessarily. You'd have to make the distinction here between conventional and reverse swing. Whilst conventional swing is almost entirely down to the conditions and the ball, the amount of reverse swing is affected by certain attributes of the pitch and the outfield.

A poor-quality ball still won't reverse-swing much either. Look at Kookaburras - they're just not swing-friendly balls, in conventional or reverse terms. By-and-large, balls that don't swing conventionally very well don't swing reverse very well either.

 

[Richard]

I refuse to discount the opinions of those who say he's lost it without seeing him bowl myself. I also refuse to judge him on the fact that his domestic figures are still good, because, well, Harmison's are even better, and look how that goes. I like Hoggy, I really do, but if he was still a better bowler than Stuart Broad then the selectors (who, all things aside, watch these players a lot more than we do) would not have excluded him from their plans.

I refuse to take seriously the opinions of those who've seen him bowl of late because such ideas (the "he's lost his nip" sort of thing) are so regularly bandied-about and I pretty much always disagree when they are.

Fact is Hoggard is still one of the best bowlers in the country. Anyone who denies that is, quite simply, wrong, as far as I'm concerned. He's a much, much better bowler than Stuart Broad. Whether Broad's batting counts for enough to reverse this is a fair question, even if I don't think the answer is yes, but the idea that Broad or several others who've been picked for England (and England A) recently (Khan and Pattinson being the worst examples) are better than Hoggard is plain nonsensical, and as I say I refuse to take seriously anyone who suggests it.

I've said it many times, but the only viable explanation for Hoggard's exclusion is that he's upset someone. It's not anywhere near so inconceivable as it may sound. Andy Caddick was excluded constantly between 1994 and 1998/99, and his performances when he was picked were far better than Hoggard's have been of late. It was an acknowledged reason that he wasn't being picked because of his personality, and the belief that it didn't fit in. Yet in a later regime it fitted-in perfectly. Hoggard's fitted-in perfectly in an earlier regime, but appears not to do so in this one. In both cases, the result is England sacrifice something that would be an asset.

 

[GIMH]

I refuse to take seriously the opinions of those who've seen him bowl of late because such ideas (the "he's lost his nip" sort of thing) are so regularly bandied-about and I pretty much always disagree when they are.

Fact is Hoggard is still one of the best bowlers in the country. Anyone who denies that is, quite simply, wrong, as far as I'm concerned. He's a much, much better bowler than Stuart Broad. Whether Broad's batting counts for enough to reverse this is a fair question, even if I don't think the answer is yes, but the idea that Broad or several others who've been picked for England (and England A) recently (Khan and Pattinson being the worst examples) are better than Hoggard is plain nonsensical, and as I say I refuse to take seriously anyone who suggests it.

I've said it many times, but the only viable explanation for Hoggard's exclusion is that he's upset someone. It's not anywhere near so inconceivable as it may sound. Andy Caddick was excluded constantly between 1994 and 1998/99, and his performances when he was picked were far better than Hoggard's have been of late. It was an acknowledged reason that he wasn't being picked because of his personality, and the belief that it didn't fit in. Yet in a later regime it fitted-in perfectly. Hoggard's fitted-in perfectly in an earlier regime, but appears not to do so in this one. In both cases, the result is England sacrifice something that would be an asset.

Richard, I would happily take on board the fact that you still consider him to be one of the best bowlers in the country/better than Broad, but you yourself said you haven't seen him bowl in the last couple of seasons. So what the hell can you possibly base it on, unless you think Steve Harmison is the second best bowler in the country? (after Onions)

 

[Richard]

The worst thing to come out of Hoggy's moderately unfair treatment was the fact that no one has shut up about it since. Get over it IMO.

Dunno about you, but I don't easily get over the fact that my team is shooting itself in the foot for reasons that, as far as I know (if I later find-out Hoggard slept with Strauss, Swann and Pietersen's wives then I'll say fair enough), are plain stupid. Hoggard was one of the best bowlers in England in February 2008 and he's the same now. England's side would be stronger with him in it than out. That's why I won't easily shut-up about it - no other reason.

Think how you'd feel if Ireland deliberately didn't pick Boyd Rankin, ever again. Albeit Rankin actually genuinely does appear to have lost it completely, unlike Hoggard. Granted, he's picked the wrong county to join - he'd have a much better chance at Headingley than Edgbaston.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I would happily take on board the fact that you still consider him to be one of the best bowlers in the country/better than Broad, but you yourself said you haven't seen him bowl in the last couple of seasons. So what the hell can you possibly base it on, unless you think Steve Harmison is the second best bowler in the country? (after Onions)

I've seen Harmison bowl, and I've seen Hoggard bowl. Countless times, in the case of both. I know how Hoggard bowls, and I know why it's decently effective at Test level. I know how Harmison bowls, and I know why it's never remotely effective at Test level. I can only presume that Harmison bowls moderately similarly at domestic level and this proves enough for success there. I can make the very safe indeed presumption that Hoggard bowls the same at domestic level as he does at international level, and that the results are impressive is no surprise at all.

One season's set of figures doesn't equal who's the best bowler in the country.