*Official* England in South Africa

[aussie]

Hey aussie, seeing as we never got trounced in this series, does that prove that the Asheds wasn't a fluke after all?

It was still a fluke, we should have lost this series least 2-1. All i take from this series is that with ENGs limited quality resources, the fighting spirit that was displayed in the Ashes is a major plus point in the side. But we aren't on the up by any means..

 

[FBU]

Which team do Kallis and Smith play for again? How many Englishmen average over 50?

I was replying to

Originally Posted by Manee
Anderson is a bizarre one. He appears to have the basic tools of pace, a good bouncer, ability to swing the ball both ways, and yet he appears to underperform. One may posit that he is inaccurate and never will be accurate, but I feel a flaw must be more complex than that, to stop him becoming an expensive but prominant wicket taker - he appears to be neither, particularly expensive, nor potent with the ball.

As for Steyn he has bowled against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, who have batsmen who average over 50. He is lucky he doesn't have to bowl to Kallis and Smith in Tests.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Then you should be citing strike rates, 5-fers, 10-fers other destructive performances and the like.

 

[GIMH]

He was the only English seamer to take a 5fer in the series alas this led most to believe he should have been dropped

 

[BoyBrumby]

YEAR	GM	AV

2001  	4 	30.20   
2002  	12 	35.47  
2003  	5 	26.22 
2004  	13 	30.06  
2005  	13 	26.10  
2006  	14 	30.58   
2007  	4 	26.66 
2008  	1 	151.00

Not one bad year until 1 game in 2008.

FRT, I like both Harmison and Hoggard. Different class to what we have now, though Harmison has other issues unrelated to how he bowls a ball.

Puts a very misleading gloss on the decline he had over the last 18 months of his test career tho. In his last 5 series he played 13 tests & took 36 wickets @ 39.72. The notion it was just one bad game isn't true.

 

[aussie]

Not sure about Brumby. Hoggard definately only had that one bad game in NZ 2008 before he was dropped. In the 18 month period which you listed covers from PAK 06 to SRI 07/08 Hoggard wasn't in decline then at all.

In fact from IND 05/06 to SRI 07/08 was Hoggard's best period in an ENG shirt. Since it was during that period in which he learnt to reverse swing the ball.

 

[marc71178]

So ignore the long run of bad figures because he was reversing the ball?

 

[aussie]

So ignore the long run of bad figures because he was reversing the ball?

Yes because the stats dont tell the whole truth & i think Brumby was slightly off by targeting figures over a 18 moth period starting from PAK 06 to NZ 08 as one of decline.

Since as i remember it that in the middle was Hoggard's peak period from IND 05/06 to SRI 07/08 where he averaged 29.84. Where his spell in Nagpur & Adelaide where the best bowling of his career.

After that period he then had that horrible test in Hamilton 08 & suddenly he was banished for the 08 home with the selectors claiming he had lost his pace entirely. So AFAIC no one can really say with any degree of certaintly if Hoggard was finished, since he was dropped stupidly.

 

[GIMH]

I'll take the opinion of Michael Vaughan over you on this one, I think

 

[Uppercut]

Puts a very misleading gloss on the decline he had over the last 18 months of his test career tho. In his last 5 series he played 13 tests & took 36 wickets @ 39.72. The notion it was just one bad game isn't true.

Yeah, marc's used those figures before, but they're even more misleading than the "one bad game" theory.

His three series prior to the aforementioned match against New Zealand were:
-Away to Sri Lanka, where his 7 wickets @ 29 were the best returns of any England bowler.
-At home to the West Indies, where his only game yielded five wickets @ 23/
-Away to Australia, where his 13 wickets @ 37 were once again the best returns of any England bowler.

It really was quite out of the blue. The ship has sailed tho'. He's gone.

 

[GIMH]

It was me, not marc

He was cack against Pakistan in the series before the Ashes as well tbf. And being the best of a bad bunch isn't necessarily a good thing. He was AMAZING at Adelaide but indifferent the rest of that Ashes series. And the only member of that Ashes attack to survive the cull of early 08 was Anderson, who was basically a different bowler to the one of 18 months prior.

Obviously Flintoff got to play again as well

 

[Uppercut]

It wasn't just that Hoggy was the best of a bad bunch, those figures are genuinely not all that bad for an away series against THAT Australian team. It's hard to conceive of a more difficult scenario in which to bowl. James Anderson's three matches yielded five wickets @ 82. Andrew Flintoff took 11 @ 43, Steve Harmison 10 @ 61. On England's previous tour, their best performer was Caddick with 20 @ 34, ten of them in the whitewash-saving final test. World-class bowlers like Pollock and Donald have struggled to average 30 in Australia.

I don't mean to give Hoggard large amounts of credit for his performances there, because by and large he didn't get the job done (and you know how I feel about players who don't get the job done). But when you design a time period in which those games make up 5 of the 13 tests then use his overall average in that period to show how he really wasn't very good you're either being unduly harsh or hand-picking stats to suit your argument.

 

[GIMH]

It wasn't just that Hoggy was the best of a bad bunch, those figures are genuinely not all that bad for an away series against THAT Australian team. It's hard to conceive of a more difficult scenario in which to bowl. James Anderson's three matches yielded five wickets @ 82. Andrew Flintoff took 11 @ 43, Steve Harmison 10 @ 61. On England's previous tour, their best performer was Caddick with 20 @ 34, ten of them in the whitewash-saving final test. World-class bowlers like Pollock and Donald have struggled to average 30 in Australia.

I don't mean to give Hoggard large amounts of credit for his performances there, because by and large he didn't get the job done (and you know how I feel about players who don't get the job done). But when you design a time period in which those games make up 5 of the 13 tests then use his overall average in that period to show how he really wasn't very good you're either being unduly harsh or hand-picking stats to suit your argument.

The thing is, Anderson bowled like a turd, harmison was embarassing and Flintoff was unfit. Sure, the figures aren't disgraceful but I wouldn't say there were anything to be proud of.

It's not stats picking to pick the last five series though. Yes, the two series prior to that five he was good, and indeed for spells in the five series Brumby used. However, I'd hazard a guess that if you pulled his stats for any other five series spell from between around 2002/03 and then, he'd average better. Which shows he wasn't performing as well as he had been.

Those inside the camp generally agreed on Hoggard, notably his good mate Michael Vaughan, and in Vaughan we're talking about a guy who longed for his 2005 team back together.

 

[aussie]

I'll take the opinion of Michael Vaughan over you on this one, I think

What did Vaughan say?

 

[GIMH]

That Hoggard was no longer international class basically, he'd lost his nip

 

[aussie]

That Hoggard was no longer international class basically, he'd lost his nip

During or after which series?

 

[GIMH]

I'd have to re-read that bit of the book to tell you exactly what he said (which I'm not gonna do right now as it's downstairs and I'm lazy) but the implication was I think that in that match in NZ, fears he'd had for a while were finally confirmed

 

[aussie]

I'd have to re-read that bit of the book to tell you exactly what he said (which I'm not gonna do right now as it's downstairs and I'm lazy) but the implication was I think that in that match in NZ, fears he'd had for a while were finally confirmed

Oh yea i remember you had told me/mentioned that Vaughan biography before. Its quite odd i must say given that following Hoggard's career in depth between IND 06 to SRI 07 where clearly his best days in an ENG shirt.

Especially when you think than during this period Vaughan absent for a large portion of that period. But still very interesting..

 

[Jarquis]

Wasn't there something else you were meant to check the book for that Richard asked?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah but I forgot, sshhh