Andy Caddick to retire

[Richard]

And isn't it just the slightest bit ironic that his dip in form coincides to the pill with the time period which you frequently have mentioned had seen a decline in the amount of swing in England? Sums up Caddick's career pretty well IMO, could be great when the ball was swinging or there was a bit of uneven bounce, and very poor otherwise.

Almost certainly a strong connection indeed. Though I also think he was even lesser still after returning from his injury in 2004.

What always disappointed me most about Caddick was how he was often unhittable at the same time as being unplayable (generally when his strike-rate was up his economy-rate was down) but he often went around the park when he wasn't taking wickets. The best bowlers who are possessed of his assets of height, stamina and accuracy tend to go the other way - on a flat deck, unhittable; on a spicy one, unplayable and unhittable.

 

[Richard]

Personally of the batsmen in the side I'd say he's the most likely to dig in.

If only the likes of Bell had the same attitude as Collingwood in terms of making himself the best possible cricketer from what he's got, they'd be greats.

Been said a few times but Collingwood has actually severely limited himself with the technique he uses and has made a decidedly above-average inherant talent with eye and hand-eye co-ordination into a middle-of-the-road batsman. With a more orthodox technique Collingwood could conceivably be head-and-shoulders above the likes of Bell, who may yet turn-out to be nothing more than an average talent (rather than the "talented soft ****" nonsense preferred by most).

 

[Richard]

Vaughan, Flintoff and Caddick all announcing retirements of some form during the summer. Three great unfulfilled talents.

And with Mark Butcher gone as well you can conclusively add a fourth.

 

[sledger]

I think I know what you mean. For me, if he comes to the crease and it's 26-3, I'd back him to score runs. If comes in and it's say, 150-3, don't really expect much from him.

Guess, we'll see how he does today then.

 

[sledger]

Guess, we'll see how he does today then.

Nice one Colly. Oh Mr Thorpe how we long for thee.

 

[morgieb]

Sad news, but it kinda makes sense. Playing on till 40 is a pretty ****ing epic effort whichever way you look at it, especially for a specialist quick.

 

[Craig]

Seriously, what does this MIA stand for? And Caddick's first-innings failures are more than a little exaggerated, it's not like he never bowled well in one, nor that the fact that he bowled well in more second-innings' than first-innings' is really all that important.

M - Missing I - In A - Action

 

[Noble One]

Always enjoyed watching Andy Caddick bowl.

Such a vast difference between his best and worst when bowling. But justified his place for just how good he could be when his confidence and fitness was up.

I remember watching Caddick for the first time during the 1993 Ashes tour, was toothless for much of it, but it was clear to see here was a cricketer with some talent. Tall quicks who nip the ball about as much as Caddick could are a rare commodity in the modern game.

 

[Richard]

1993 Ashes summed-up how Caddick was generally pretty harmless with nothing in the pitch. But once there was something in it, he was deadly - and contrary to some assertions, he was every bit as deadly on a spicy deck whether the batsmen tried to block him or go after him.