Richard Johnson

[luckyeddie]

Caddick is amazingly hot and cold, and with Hoggard taking up the senior new ball bowler's role with accuracy and not a little success, Caddick's pretty much out of the frame. [/B]

Absolutely spot-on. Caddick's test stats (average, strike rate, economy etc) are uncannily like those of Cork - whom very few on these boards rate - yet there is almost universal acclaim for Caddick and plenty of "I wonder if he will get back when fit".

I guess his PR must be better.

 

[Rik]

Absolutely spot-on. Caddick's test stats (average, strike rate, economy etc) are uncannily like those of Cork - whom very few on these boards rate - yet there is almost universal acclaim for Caddick and plenty of "I wonder if he will get back when fit".

I guess his PR must be better.

It's his ears that are bigger, I'm sure it's that. Or it might be his partnership with Gough or his outstanding record for Somerset

 

[luckyeddie]

It's his ears that are bigger, I'm sure it's that. Or it might be his partnership with Gough or his outstanding record for Somerset

Yes, but Corky's got a bigger gob (and a song)

 

[marc71178]

Harmison took 9 in his last match. Jones showed a lot of spirit and was hindered by an injury in the 2nd innings of his debut against India. He was preferred to Harmison for the 1st Test in Australia, blasted out Langer and then did his knee in. After how he worked over Sachin on his debut, hitting him several times, the way he belted the ball around for his 46 and his bowling in Australia where he took a 5for in a warm-up game and got Langer with a beuty whilst Harmison sprayed the wides around (11 in the 1st warm-up match remember), everyone has been waiting for more. The England selectors want a fast bowler in the team and Harmison has been picked ever since Jones' injury for exactly that reason. Who says Jones won't continue where he left off and push Harmison out of the team when he finally gets his chance? Around the counties he's much more highly rated than Harmison due to his attitude, which is aggressive and extreamly determined, whilst Harmison has mostly been viewed as a player with a hell of a lot of potential but who has never knuckled down and actually performed at county level. So that is why Jones is rated so.[/B]

I have to say I do agree with everything here, and when Jones is fit (assuming he returns to his previous levels), I think that there'll only be one of those 2 playing - as for which one, well that'll be down to the selectors (and I won't say what I think until I see Jones return)

That said though, I think the 11 wides have to mitigated in that it was under one day rules, so anything outside leg was being called.

 

[Rik]

That said though, I think the 11 wides have to mitigated in that it was under one day rules, so anything outside leg was being called.

True, but I'm quite sure Jones was playing in that match and out-bowled him, don't trust my memory though. Before his injury Jones was being touted as an addition to the ODI squad, which then went to Harmison who struggled badly and was lucky to be picked for the World Cup. I'm not sure about Jones as a OD bowlers because he's a real strike bowler in Tests, will go for a few but will bowl a beuty every few overs, but can be quite wayward. The difference between Harmison and Jones for me is that Jones tends to really work over a batsman then bowl a beuty to rip him out whilst Harmison just bangs it in and waits for the misjudgement, 2 very different approaches but I think Jones' is the more likely to succeed and also is the approach England need, we have too many bowlers who will bowl the ball in the same area and wait for a mistake, Pollock and McGrath not only bowl it in the right area but also cut the ball to make the batsman totally unsure of weather he can safely leave the ball so therefor being forced to play at every ball, whilst with England we have Hoggard who will bowl on off stump and swing it away nearly every ball, Flintoff and Harmison who will hit the deck and wait for the mistake. Jones goes looking for wickets, which I think is the main thing the England attack is missing, pure aggression and a really positive attitude.

 

[Top_Cat]

True, but I'm quite sure Jones was playing in that match and out-bowled him, don't trust my memory though.

I didn't.

http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_...SCORECARDS/ENG_ACB-CHAIRMAN-XI_22OCT2002.html

He certainly did out-bowl him initially but at the end, all the bowlers took some hammer from Kade Harvey (Kade WHO?!?!?).

Jones goes looking for wickets, which I think is the main thing the England attack is missing, pure aggression and a really positive attitude.

I agree but I think Harmison should be groomed for a similarly aggressive role.

I think the best of all possible English bowling attacks has Hoggard and Harmison opening up the bowling with Jones in at first-change to rip a few batsmen out. Depending upon the situation, Jones could rip out a few quick wickets as an opening bowler too. Either way, Hoggard should get some indication that he's the leader of the attack because when he does, I think he'll flourish. He should be opening the bowling the majority of the time too.

 

[Rik]

Really the reason I do not rate Harmison very highly is due to his attitude, it's very defensive for a bowler of his pace, he bowls it short and is often afraid of trying anything else in case he gets hit around. When he was bowling to Graeme Smith this summer he got wacked all over the place bowling short and carried it on till he was taken off, he didn't appear to have a backup plan and tried to beat Smith in a bouncer war. In this situation I think Jones would more likely than not throw a yorker in or try something different rather than try and wait for the mistake. Jones also has a lot more confidence and it's a real boost to a team who are hardly what you could call an in-your-face team like Australia. I badly do want England to have a quality fast bowler and Jones may or may not be the answer, Harmison might even turn out to be it, but I don't want someone being picked purely because they bowl fast, if they are not going to make England a better team. It's the same reason I don't think we need to pick Giles all the time because if a spinner is taking a wicket every 95 balls and for 42 runs a wicket, when a seamer could do is cheaper, then why pick the spinner for the hell of it? It's not likely to give you any advantage, yes the attack will seem bland but if the spinner isn't doing anything why pick him, he's not adding anything to the attack, he's weakening it.

Anyway that's enough from me, I'm off to bed.

 

[Rik]

Kade Harvey (Kade WHO?!?!?).

I've played ICC2, he keeps playing for Australia even though he's totally crap and averages 40+ in Tests, played over 40 Tests though

He averages 50 in ODIs too

 

[Rik]

I think the best of all possible English bowling attacks has Hoggard and Harmison opening up the bowling with Jones in at first-change to rip a few batsmen out. Depending upon the situation, Jones could rip out a few quick wickets as an opening bowler too. Either way, Hoggard should get some indication that he's the leader of the attack because when he does, I think he'll flourish. He should be opening the bowling the majority of the time too.

Hoggard opened the bowling against Zimbabwe and took up the stock-bowler role and was superbly economical. In India he looked a fine leader of a make-shift attack. He's got all the right qualities to become England's new ball senior bowler, especially as he swings the ball so far and with the new ball he should get the swing he needs as he tends to not be very effective without swing (see tour of Australia). As 1st change to Gough and Caddick he did a good job but with the swing he gets with the new ball and the fact that he can now swing it both ways, new ball is his best role for both himself and for England in the long run. He's not that old and he's got the right attitude and really has only had one poor series (yup that damn tour of Australia again).

 

[Rik]

I've played ICC2, he keeps playing for Australia even though he's totally crap and averages 40+ in Tests, played over 40 Tests though

He averages 50 in ODIs too

(With the ball)

 

[Kimbo]

Hoggard bowleld brilliantly a couple of years ago here in NZ.

 

[Rik]

Hoggard bowleld brilliantly a couple of years ago here in NZ.

He bowled superbly in India even when it didn't swing, but he's at his best when the balll swings and in NZ even McGrath managed to swing the ball!

Bad tour of Australia which is a bit of a blot in the record, considering how well he bowled in India on dead pitches with no swing, but I'm sure he will come good when he's installed as England's leader of the attack.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bad tour of Australia which is a bit of a blot in the record, considering how well he bowled in India on dead pitches with no swing, but I'm sure he will come good when he's installed as England's leader of the attack.

Actually, you've hit upon the very issue which explains his poor tour; that he didn't bowl very well. To me, he looked down on pace and down on accuracy, NOT down on swing. Sure he didn't get much swing but hey, as you said, India ain't exactly known for it's swing/seam minefields either, yet he bowled superbly well.

Maybe he was carrying an injury or just down on confidence but I don't think the fact that the ball wasn't swinging much is an adequate explanation for his poor tour.

 

[Craig]

I said over on Cricinfo, that Hogard had lost his ryhtem, and as a result, he got dropped. I would of had him in Perth as it would of suited him, and with a bowling line-up of Tudor, White, Silverwood, Harmison, and Dawson doesnt strike fear into any good batting line-up.

 

[Rik]

I think Duncan Fletcher has finally lost his rocker, he goes on record on Teletext claiming Rikki Clarke has the ability to play in the same side as Flintoff despite both being very much batting all-rounders. Wow I never knew good performances against weak opposition really ment that much, well they don't to Richard Johnson...

But the craziest bit of all is he claims "Hoggard is still not a First Choice England Test Bowler" despite his 9 wicket haul in the series, his man of the series award, the fact that he's looked ever since India and New Zealand (ignoring Australia and the 2nd Test against Zimbabwe and the whole SA Test series he was injured) that he's the new leader of England's attack. To really question his sanity he puts forward that if fit, Steve Harmison, James Anderson and Andy Flintoff would be the main members of the attack. Presumably with his mate Giles in the squad and Batty banished for out-bowling him. I said earlier that Hoggard would really respond well to encouraging messages that he was to lead the attack, but no, despite all he's done he's still rated behind an all-rounder who averages over 50 as a bowler...and Fletcher is talking about his bowling!

Duncan, I hope you didn't say that just for your sake, as it's right up there with all the crap Illy said when he was in charge.

 

[marc71178]

Before his injury Jones was being touted as an addition to the ODI squad, which then went to Harmison who struggled badly and was lucky to be picked for the World Cup. I'm not sure about Jones as a OD bowlers because he's a real strike bowler in Tests, will go for a few but will bowl a beuty every few overs, but can be quite wayward.

Interesting this, but it got me thinking - goes for a few and then bowls a real beauty reminds me of another England bowler in ODI's who maybe not here had Jones stayed fit...

 

[PY]

Harmison? :saint:

Is Anderson being called up for the rest of the tour? or just the Tests or ODIs?

If so, I still don't think he's had enough of a break. Would like to see him rested until the W.I. tour where he won't be expected to bowl long spells without reward as he is likely to on the sub-continent.

 

[marc71178]

Harmison? :saint:

I was talking about Anderson actually. In One Day Cricket, Harmison is yet to perform to any real degree of success (but that said, now he has confidence from being an integral part of the side, maybe he'll be worth another chance at some point?)

 

[Richard]

Harmison took 9 in his last match. Jones showed a lot of spirit and was hindered by an injury in the 2nd innings of his debut against India. He was preferred to Harmison for the 1st Test in Australia, blasted out Langer and then did his knee in. After how he worked over Sachin on his debut, hitting him several times, the way he belted the ball around for his 46 and his bowling in Australia where he took a 5for in a warm-up game and got Langer with a beuty whilst Harmison sprayed the wides around (11 in the 1st warm-up match remember), everyone has been waiting for more. The England selectors want a fast bowler in the team and Harmison has been picked ever since Jones' injury for exactly that reason. Who says Jones won't continue where he left off and push Harmison out of the team when he finally gets his chance? Around the counties he's much more highly rated than Harmison due to his attitude, which is aggressive and extreamly determined, whilst Harmison has mostly been viewed as a player with a hell of a lot of potential but who has never knuckled down and actually performed at county level. So that is why Jones is rated so.[/B]

Jones hasn't performed at county level, either.
Yet people still go on about "what a prospect that is - Harmison and Jones opening the bowling". I had to laugh when someone (without a hint of a Sri Lankan accent I emphasise) phoned into some cricket phone-in and said "if I was Marvan Atapattu and Sanath Jayasuriya there's one thing I'd do at that prospect - lick my lips".
Don't get me wrong, Harmison has played and failed far more than Jones - whatever excuses anyone may make - but Jones, despite an undeniably good attitude (just like Flintoff) has not demonstrated to me that he has what it takes to succeed at Test level, principally because he's not been much of a county success. Someone (think it might have been Adrian Dale, but it could just as easily have been Keith Newell) once told me he could reverse-swing the ball - I'm waiting for my next sight of him to see.

 

[Richard]

It's his ears that are bigger, I'm sure it's that. Or it might be his partnership with Gough or his outstanding record for Somerset

But Cork's record for Derbys is, while not as good as Caddick's for Somerset and on generally much friendlier home wickets, still better than most county bowlers.
Cork also backed-up Gough and Caddick very well in their finest hours.