Hoggy England's Best Ever?

[rich1uk]

I think its easy to forget just how good botham was early in his career as a bowler before he started having back problems and had to reduce his pace

we tend to remember the medium pace trundler he ended up as, who probably played on for a bit longer than he should have

[Arthur Crabtree]

I do think of him as a great bowler for about four years. Unfortunately for his reputation, these covered a lot of the Packer years, and he never had a good time against the WI. As few did. He appeared a good bowler until about 1980, possibly 81, though.

I've posted many times that Flintoff had back problems and lost weight and his best years followed. Whereas Botham got overweight and lost his whippy outswinger. Probably fair enough, though it maybe facilely wraps everything too much into a succinct narrative.

[braveneutral]

Bowling is important.

[sussexpob]

I think history will look at Swann more fondly then he deserved. I dont really remember him being a person that dismissed great batsman all the time, more someone who dominated poor ones. And he got noticeable worse as time wore on and people got used to him.

Just as an indication..... some of the better players he faced and wickets he took.

Ponting....2 dismissals in two Ashes series
Kallis... once in 6 tests
Laxman.... once in 6 tests
Clarke....4 times in 18 tests
Steve Smith...3 times in 12 tests
Graeme Smith and Amla.... twice in 6
Tendulkar and Hussey... four times in 12 tests each

On the flipside.... players he got out the most

Gambhir.... 7 times in 8 tests, though Gahmbir was way past his use by date
Sehwag.... 6 times in 7, see above (when Sehwag was at his prime, he destroyed Swann in 2008)
Haddin, Khawaja, Devon Smith and Marcus North all coped him a lot, but three of these clearly werent test class, and Haddin wasnt a full time bat.
Raina

The noticeable names he had success against is Sangakarra

[Arthur Crabtree]

He got a lot of lefties, like Sanga.

I think he got injured as time went on. Rather than people getting used to him.

He finished high up in that BBC thing. Which was all about taking the wickets of those with high averages.

[Arthur Crabtree]

But yes, no Monty Panesar.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There were quite a few games where Swann didn't get a bowl because in helpful conditions, the seamers took the wickets. Yet in the overs he got, Swann struck quickly. The home series to Pakistan in 2010 was like that.

[sussexpob]

There were quite a few games where Swann didn't get a bowl because in helpful conditions, the seamers took the wickets. Yet in the overs he got, Swann struck quickly. The home series to Pakistan in 2010 was like that.

Is this the Pakistan team that were bowled out for under a 100 three times in the series? That had failed to make a 100 or much past it twice vs Sri Lanka before in a test at Galle, who were bowled out in back to back series against South Africa and England after this for under 100, and who not long before had been bowled out twice in a test in Sharjah for under 60 by Australia? Id hazard a guess that in the 3 years either side of this series, the Pakistan batting line up averaged the worst complete innings totals of any side in the history of the game till the 1930's when pitches got better for batters, or would certainly be competitive. I could name you quite a few very low totals they scored.

In fairness, save for a couple of bowlers who kept them competitive, the issues with losing tests at home and the whole Khan/Yousuf captaincy sackings in Australia a few months before the series mentioned had robbed Pakistan of a batting line up that was test standard. The pitches were helpful to seam after a damp summer, and they were fish in barrels. Most FC teams around the world would have put up more resistance.

That's before you mention the fact that three players are known to have been purposefully underplaying..... with their most successful batsman in the series coming out and saying he knew it was going on and commenting he rejected match fixing money.

In all seriousness, that series should be scrubbed from the record book.

[sussexpob]

That aside, not sure you could count it much of a positive for him that he was like that. He took 16 wickets in 11 matches bowling first at home, at an average of 40. The truth is, he hardly bowled in first innings when pitches were least responsive, had he been part of a team that didn't have a pace attack doing the work, his record would appropriately downgraded.

Warne for instance took 2-3 wickets per first innings at home, but averaged nearly 9-10 runs more per wicket. Had he been so protected, his career average would have been even better.

[braveneutral]

Hoggard 'surprised':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32105864

[Arthur Crabtree]

Pretty good record that for a spinner, bowling first in England, particularly with the early season games giving him little opportunity. That average is typical of most English spinner overall, but in the least propitious circumstances.

He averages 32 in first innings in England with three 5-fers. His effort against Aus at Lord's in 2013 was match winning. He has the fourth best first innings strike rate of any Test spinner in UK (min. 25 wickets). He's ahead of Murali in that respect. And going at three runs an over, he didn't buy his wickets.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

[Albondiga]

I have a healhy respect fo Hoggard but England's best ???? No chance.

A healthy career average says a lot about any bowler especially those who have bowled many of their overs on covered wickets to batsmen with all the advantages ---- ie half a tree for a bat, much improved protective gear which is not only better but much lighter.

Getting major players out is important but "" cleaning up the tail " can be equally important as can accuracy.

If we're going to have two spinners then it has to be Verity and Laker with Underwood and Swann as replacements I think that Jim Laker was probably the finest finger spinner the world has seen

Ther is more to choose friom amo,gst the faster bowlers given that there are swing bowlers and seam bowler and some who bould consistently bowl both

I would include S F Barnes Harold Larwood F S Trueman Brian Statham Ian Botham Bob Willis Jimmy Anderson Alec Bedser Les Jackson

If Botham was selected we might have room for an extra fast bowler but sticking to five would plump for Barnes Trueman and Statham Laker and Verity

In some conditions I could see Bedser Barnes Anderson and Jackson as my faster bowlers with Underwood my lone spinner;

[KipperJohn]

You can produce all sorts of stats to support an argument, but in the end it's surely a question of our own judgement of a player from those we've been able to see and follow to some significant degree.

John Snow was a a good call by MS. Trueman was the best English fast bowler I ever saw, with the almost perfect foil of Statham at the other end. I'd have Willis and probably Anderson in the mix, with Botham and Flintoff fighting out the allrounders spot. Underwood would easily be my first choice spinner whatever the conditions.

[Gingerfinch]

From what I have see, my 7-11 would be:

Flintoff
Swann
Gough
Anderson
Fraser/Caddick/Hoggard

[rich1uk]

From what I have see, my 7-11 would be:

Flintoff
Swann
Gough
Anderson
Fraser/Caddick/Hoggard

no bopara ?