Selection errors tally thread

[GIMH]

Yes, I know this. But have you seen Hoggard bowl since he was dropped?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Yes, and I do think at the time the thinking was that they were going to go in with 2 swing bowlers and one bowler with bounce which is why Broad came in. Don't really think it was the right move though tbh.

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.

I haven't denied that he bowled well in that series, I watched it and I know that he did well to get anything out of those wickets. Which is why I was more or less in favor of his selection for the first test at Lords. However, the point that you brought up that his record has been hurt by playing on some of the flattest tracks in the land is somewhat misleading because he's been fortunate to have played 4 series in his career against NZ and WI which has helped him boost his average a little bit. Check out his record against SL, India and SA during his career. His stats more or less represent the way hes bowled throughout his career which is not very well with the exception of one tour.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Irrelevant because we are talking about the Ashes in England with Duke balls. Yes you are right the state of the ball is important for any swing, but the groundsman could assist by preparing a pitch like Old Trafford which would increase England's chances of getting reverse out of the ball.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, and I do think at the time the thinking was that they were going to go in with 2 swing bowlers and one bowler with bounce which is why Broad came in. Don't really think it was the right move though tbh.

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:



I haven't denied that he bowled well in that series, I watched it and I know that he did well to get anything out of those wickets. Which is why I was more or less in favor of his selection for the first test at Lords. However, the point that you brought up that his record has been hurt by playing on some of the flattest tracks in the land is somewhat misleading because he's been fortunate to have played 4 series in his career against NZ and WI which has helped him boost his average a little bit. Check out his record against SL, India and SA during his career. His stats more or less represent the way hes bowled throughout his career which is not very well with the exception of one tour.

I didn't say his stats were hurt by bowling on flat pitches, in fact what I was saying was that he bowled really well on flat decks and that was where he started to drag his average down.

He only played one Test V SL, and you won't find me arguing against him being poor last year against Saffa. Far from it. However he is a far superior bowler now to what he was then. He has brought his career average down in this current series, and when you consider how poorly he bowled in the first Test, well, he's done alright

 

[TT Boy]

Richard, did you know you have been referenced on Cricinfo?

 

[Richard]

Yes, I know this. But have you seen Hoggard bowl since he was dropped?

I haven't. And as I said to you a few weeks ago, I straight-up refuse to believe that a bowler who is bowling poorly will still be one of the best-performed in county cricket. Hoggard's county results in the last couple of seasons have been pretty much exactly what they were at the time when he was a decent Test bowler (2004-2007/08), so therefore it makes sense to me to suggest that even if the cosmetics are different now, the actual bowling hasn't changed that much.

 

[Richard]

Richard, did you know you have been referenced on Cricinfo?

No. Link me?

 

[GIMH]

Richard, did you know you have been referenced on Cricinfo?

tell us more...

I haven't. And as I said to you a few weeks ago, I straight-up refuse to believe that a bowler who is bowling poorly will still be one of the best-performed in county cricket. Hoggard's county results in the last couple of seasons have been pretty much exactly what they were at the time when he was a decent Test bowler (2004-2007/08), so therefore it makes sense to me to suggest that even if the cosmetics are different now, the actual bowling hasn't changed that much.

Well, I'm not going to make judgement without watching, you're prepared to, fair's fair. We can agree to disagree on this one.

 

[TT Boy]

No. Link me?

Cricinfo - Blogs - The Surfer

I saw it this afternoon. Thought they would have contacted you or the site...

 

[Richard]

Irrelevant because we are talking about the Ashes in England with Duke balls. Yes you are right the state of the ball is important for any swing, but the groundsman could assist by preparing a pitch like Old Trafford which would increase England's chances of getting reverse out of the ball.

By "look at Kookaburras" I'm simply making the point that a bad ball is a bad ball. A good Duke will swing, properly, with conventional and reverse (you'll get more of one type depending on what the outfield and pitch are like, but you'll get a small amount of both almost regardless). A bad Duke will not swing much, and the fact that it's been roughed-up into the apparently perfect condition to swing reverse won't make it reverse if it's steadfastly refused to swing conventionally when apparently in the perfect condition to (ie, brand-new).

And despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense at all, this does happen, and not irregularly either. Any bowler will tell you that from time to time you just get a ball that just doesn't swing.

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't say his stats were hurt by bowling on flat pitches, in fact what I was saying was that he bowled really well on flat decks and that was where he started to drag his average down.

He only played one Test V SL, and you won't find me arguing against him being poor last year against Saffa. Far from it. However he is a far superior bowler now to what he was then. He has brought his career average down in this current series, and when you consider how poorly he bowled in the first Test, well, he's done alright

I agree with you, and whilst his performance at Lords was well just atrocious, he's done enough for me to say that he should be a part of the side for the Oval. Honestly, given that they have invested 2 years in him now, there is little sense in dropping him as he has some potential and I think he could become a very good bowler in the future. I just think he was picked too early at a time when he wasn't really good enough to command a place in the side.

 

[GIMH]

I agree with you, and whilst his performance at Lords was well just atrocious, he's done enough for me to say that he should be a part of the side for the Oval. Honestly, given that they have invested 2 years in him now, there is little sense in dropping him as he has some potential and I think he could become a very good bowler in the future. I just think he was picked too early at a time when he wasn't really good enough to command a place in the side.

Yeah, I think he was picked too early although I don't know if we'd have seen the same progress had he not been. of course, Test cricket isn't really where you should be developing your youngsters, that being said, did Broad cost us many games in that time? I doubt we'd have beaten Saffa or India anyway tbh, though we of course will never know

 

[BoyBrumby]

If England end up preparing a green pitch, they might as well just put the Ashes on a platter and hand it back to Australia instead of bothering to show up. The only time this series the Australian bowlers have genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets was at Headingley when they had something in the pitch to work with.

Cardiff? 19 wickets and 10+ overs at ten and jack at least gives an impression of the ability to take twenty IMHO.

 

[Richard]

Harmison playing over Onions at The Oval is a ****ing joke and I don't care if he gets gifted 17-89 it's still a ****ing joke. Not that surprising, though, because the Harmison myth has outstripped the Harmison reality all career (no, not just since early-2004; it did so before then as well). The overwhelming likelihood is that he'll damage England's chances and they'll have to win the game despite him. Onions on the other hand could, possibly, have contributed to improving the chances of victory.

 

[Pratters]

Thought you might be having a stroke first time I heard the news.

 

[BoyBrumby]

*sigh*

He really is beyond parody.

Could people stop quoting him too, please. Defeats the object of the "ignore" function.

 

[Pratters]

Sorry Brumby. Removed the quote and will keep this in mind.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Cardiff? 19 wickets and 10+ overs at ten and jack at least gives an impression of the ability to take twenty IMHO.

Yeah agree with that. We were the only team that looked like taking 20 in Cardiff and we've improved since then.

 

[Richard]

Could people stop quoting him too, please. Defeats the object of the "ignore" function.

Newsflash: CricketWeb doesn't revolve around Dale Brumby.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah agree with that. We were the only team that looked like taking 20 in Cardiff and we've improved since then.

You were the only team that looked like taking 20 at Cardiff not because you bowled better (Hilfenhaus spared). You did so because half of England forgot how to bat, and the other half didn't know how to.