-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Brad Hogg
- Thread starter masterblaster
- Start date
shakti_raj
Cricket Spectator
I reckon Bradd Hogg will be the next great allrounder, his bowling is awesome, he can bat as good as a top order batsman, he can field, he is better than symond and harvey in my opinion.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think you're over-hyping him just a touch.shakti_raj said:
shakti_raj
Cricket Spectator
Maybe, but I just think that if you can bowl chinaman that good and bat that good then your going to be pretty good. not many bowlers bowl chinaman so it will be harder to pick.
FrontierPsychiartrist
U19 Debutant
Brad Hogg will be the next great all-rounder. He comes from WA
shakti_raj
Cricket Spectator
Age deosnt seem to be a barrier, look at Alex Stuart.marc71178 said:
Thomas Aquinas
Cricket Spectator
hogg has played a test match already in about 96 or 97
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1996-97/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T_10-13OCT1996.html
Brad Hoggś one and only Test.
Brad Hoggś one and only Test.
PY
International Coach
wow it sounds like he could get in any team, in any position from that post...........wait a second he's not even a regular!!:rolleyes: his highest score bar his 71* is 14* in ODIs and from all his A-list games he has 3 x 50's from 64 innings and no 5-wicket hauls with an economy of 4.92.....not awesome bowling by anyones standards. looking through rose tinted glasses mefinksshakti_raj said:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Geez, he's 21; he'll get over it. Plus he's got 10 years on Hogg so he WILL get his chance. He'll just have to be as patient as Matthew Hayden, Damien Martyn and Justin Langer had to be when they were waiting their turn.
Besides, spinners don't reach their peak until they hit 30 anyway. He's got PLENTY of time. If he doesn't recognise that, and that he IS probably the next in line for a Test spot, well that's his problem.
The stats don't tell the full story. Brad Hogg has been theonly spinner to be in the WA side for any length of time because those stats reflect the fact that the WACA is an extremely difficult wicket for a spinner to bowl on. Considering he's a left-arm wrist-spinner and that heplays half of his games per year on that deck, he's actually done reasonably well.
And you can't really use the 'highest score' argument as a basis for judgement of his ability with the bat. He's not batted higher than number 7 for Australia (and generally bats at 7 for WA) in one-dayers and considering the form of the top-order this summer, he's been lucky to get a bat at all. When he got a chance to have a reasonably long bat for once, he hit that 71*. So it's unfair in the extreme to try to extrapolate his batting ability back from his stats so far without considering his opportunities thusfar, which have been VERY limited.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Probably only a couple of rungs below a 'great' allrounder in terms of pure ability. I mean, no-one saw Colin Miller coming, did they? Next thing you know, the guy who'ḋ bowled medium-pace exclusively for three state sides until he was around 34 was in the Test side as the first-choice off-spinner? You just never know.
That said, I donṫ think Brad Hogg will be a world-beater in the Tests but he'll hardly disgrace himself. If anything, I think he'll do quite well, in fact.
As a professional statistician, I can tell you with certainty that you can never use stats to prove anything in the sense that they donṫ lie but nor do they entirely tell the truth. You have to take them for what they are and that is, a tool to help prove a case but (but not to directly prove anything) and like any tool, they can be misused. Take Rikś comment:
Well what if a guy DID play and miss 50 times in a run-a-ball hundred? Would that tell you anything about how well or how badly he played? Would that tell you, for example, that the REASON he played and missed a lot was due to an atrocious pitch?
To use an English example, how about Ian Bothams hundred in 1981 and Headingly; he scored at almost a run-a-ball but a high percentage of his boundaries were slogs or plain egdes. Trust me, Ive seen the footage and read the match reports, yet he hit a lot of boundaries and scored at a VERY quick rate.
And then there was his century a couple of weeks later. People STILL talk about the quality of that one and how he didnṫ play a false shot yet he scored slower. So which one was the better innings? The judgment of that obviously goes beyond statistics.
Craig McDermott said his best Test bowling figures (8-fer) was some of worst ever bowling.
Manoj Prabarkar bowled what I consider the two best spells of bowling Ive ever seen BAR NONE in the 1992 WC in getting only 2/22 off 10 overs in a losing cause. His figures say nothing about how well HE bowled, believe me.
As I said, in extreme cases you can use statistics to infer stuff but they donṫ tell the entire story and should never be used in such a way.
So yeah, stats donṫ lie (descriptive stats, anyway; if you want to get into multi-variate analysis, well thatś a different kettle of fish.....) in the purest sense but in terms of describing a real and tangible event, well they can be USED to lie for sure.
Last edited: