Brad Hogg

[deeps]

So, after a long long discussion over whether or not he should play or not, he eventually did play. The first discussion was whehter it should be him, or another spinner..and then him or Tait..eventually he got his chance. ..What are everyone's thoughts?

I thought he bowled ok in the first innings, and looked dangerous in the second. The indians didn't have much idea about what he was bowling, and he managed to produce quite a number of edges and missed shots etc. Considering the indians' deliberately targetted him, I think he came out pretty well, picked up some handy wickets (probably needed one or two more to be a really good performance, but not bad at all), wasn't too expensive considering the treatment, and on top of that, I thought he batted well too.

35* and 17 odd are both handy scores on a pitch that's hard to bat on, and his fielding as always was spritely.

I don't think he bowled at his best either tbh, he seemed nervous and his bowling showed that, but as the match progressed, his control improved.

 

[sideshowtim]

Yeah, I think he did well. Better than I expected him too anyway. The pitch did favour spinners but he still bowled nicely. Apart from his bowling, I believe he adds a lot to the team that you can't measure with stats. He's great mates with everyone in the team and really lifts everyone. Much like Symo I suppose. He deserves a spot for a few more Tests...although the selectors will be facing a bit of a dilemma in Perth.

His batting is very handy too, yeah. Averages 35 in FC cricket so he's handy in that aspect.

 

[deeps]

I wouldn't say the pitch favoured the spinners for India's first innings. The second innings, it was probably more the variable bounce more than anything... Still not an ideal spinners wicket though

 

[Pratters]

Glad that Hogg is doing well.

Here's my post supporting him ahead of MacGill and fourth seamer from a month and a half back:

How do you know Hogg will be slaughtered by the Indians. He has been bowling very well really. Why do you say he is a very average FC bowler? Is it because you look at his career average of 38?

Hogg in the last few seasons (FC):

2004-05 (Australia) 711 18 341 16 6-44 21.31 1 0
2006-07 (Australia) 650 18 308 15 6-69 20.53 2 0
2007-08 (Australia) 189 6 83 8 5-62 10.37 1 0

MacGill in the last few seasons (FC):

2006-07 (Australia) 2504 63 1382 39 6-118 35.43 2 0
2007-08 (Pakistan) 348 16 175 4 3-81 43.75 0 0
2007-08 (Australia) 330 2 280 4 3-183 70.00 0 0

The Australian selectors selected him in the squad for Sri Lanka and I doubt whether they would have done it if they didn't believe that he had a genuine possibility of being a success in tests. Early in his career, Hogg was average, yes. However, he is an improved bowler now. Plus, he adds some thing with the bat which doesn't hurt, particularly with Shane Warne now out of the side (I am not saying he should be selected for his batting, just that it adds to the whole Hogg package).

I wouldn't mind or be surprised if Hogg was selected ahead of MacGill in the next test v Lanka. In fact, I would like it to happen from an Australian point of view. Though obviously some people might feel it is doing away with MacGill without giving him a longer run, it would be the right move where I am concerned. It may not hurt that much to replace MacGill with a Hogg for a test v Lanka (if Hogg doesn't deliver - MacGill got just 2 wickets v Lanka in the first test and yet Australia won comfortably). Plus, it gives a very good view of where Hogg stands in test match situations ahead of the tests v India.

The other point raised is playing 4 fast bowlers. That is not a preferable option for mine despite Symonds and Clarke being in the team for the simple reason that a spinner can ball a fair bit more than a fast bowler without being tired. That gives the other three fast bowlers enough time to rest and bowl full steam when the time does come for them to bowl. Else, it might be a problem when teams start making bigger scores.

 

[Nate]

Was for his inclusion, but unsure of how well he'd go. So happy he bowled extremely well.

 

[sideshowtim]

The only problem with Hogg is that he's almost 37...He has one year left in him at the most I'd say.

 

[Richard]

Hogg and McGain for The SCG now appears a remote likelihood.

 

[Nate]

The only problem with Hogg is that he's almost 37...He has one year left in him at the most I'd say.

But how fit is the bloke? He's older than MacGill isn't he? And yet they're not on the same page in terms of match fitness.

 

[Perm]

I wasn't in favour of his selection, but he did bowl well. Would've preferred Australia to go into the Test with 4 seamers, especially as Symonds can bowl useful off-spin for containment.

 

[Perm]

Hogg and McGain for The SCG now appears a remote likelihood.

Aaron Heal, surely?

 

[Richard]

No way on Earth would Heal currently be ahead of McGain in the pecking-order at the current time.

 

[TheLad]

Hogg and McGain for The SCG now appears a remote likelihood.

McGain is going no where near the SCG on the 2nd of Jan unless he is paying to get in the ground.

Hoggy bowled Ok but there was still plenty of loose stuff, I would have been more interested to see how he would have handled it if the Indian batsman where on the attack. It happend for a short time with Ganguly and Tendulkar and at that time he was battling a little bit. A decent rebound means he warrants another crack but the jury has still not seen all the evidence.

 

[Perm]

No way on Earth would Heal currently be ahead of McGain in the pecking-order at the current time.

On the basis of what?

 

[Richard]

The fact that Heal's taken something like 4 or 5 wickets at 70 or something this season, and has performed really well in about 1 match so far in his career.

McGain on the other hand in an even shorter career has performed well several times. AND this season, what's more.

 

[sideshowtim]

No way on Earth would Heal currently be ahead of McGain in the pecking-order at the current time.

That's a fair call. And the selectors themselves (Merv Hughes anyway) said McGain was higher on the list than people would've expected. I don't think he'd be a terrible idea and has certainly impressed me in a few of the OD games I've seen him bowl in.

 

[sideshowtim]

But how fit is the bloke? He's older than MacGill isn't he? And yet they're not on the same page in terms of match fitness.

That's a fair point. He certainly doesn't look his age, and maybe he could play for a few more years? I dunno.

Seems to me like he's destined to go down the Funky Miller route. Be a handy spinner in his twilight and retire with a decent but short Test career under his belt.

 

[Perm]

The fact that Heal's taken something like 4 or 5 wickets at 70 or something this season, and has performed really well in about 1 match so far in his career.

I didn't realise how poor he'd been this season, last time I checked he was going quite well.

 

[Nate]

Will admit Heal's stats have been pretty average. Doesn't mean he's been bowling crap mind you. But accepted, McGain deserves to be ahead of him at present.

 

[Richard]

Bowling crap he may not have been, ineffective (hugely so) he unarguably has been.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But how fit is the bloke? He's older than MacGill isn't he? And yet they're not on the same page in terms of match fitness.

He is, but there's like 3 weeks in it. Both born in Feb 71.

Like Hogg a lot as a player. Always seems to contribute with bat and in the field (which you'd struggle to say about MacGill). Over-the-wrist lefty spin must be about the hardest thing to bowl and he manages it with a fair degree of control. Chucks in the odd full toss, obv, but doesn't seem to let it faze him. His wrong 'un seems one of the hardest to pick around judging by the way it's played.