Comments on: Matthew Hoggard dropped

By: SimonC

SimonC — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:06:32 +0000

Oh, I quite agree; my opinion of him is dropping rapidly (that whole interview reminded me of Blackadder: “Believe me, I shall be asking myself some pretty searching questions later”). He couldn’t get away with dropping just Harmison, as that would appear too reactive, yet the obvious batting candidate for the chop (Strauss) has just been rushed back, meaning to drop him again would look confused.

The disparity in treatment between various players is so blatant it might as well be written in 20-foot pink neon letters. How can any player (even the apparent untouchables) be motivated in this sort of environment? When a record like Hoggy’s counts for nothing, yet form like Anderson’s gets him picked, how can any player link their performance to selection? Ooh, it’s enough to make me write a “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” letter.

(Actually, I think I just did, didn’t I?)

By: Lemon Bella

Lemon Bella — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:00 +0000

Simon, that’s Michael Vaughan trying to deflect attention away from Michael Vaughan.

“Look how ruthless Michael Vaughan can be, isn’t that impressive? No, look this way, don’t look at his batting form or his uninspired captaincy, look at the bowlers, look at the bowlers…”

As I said, very, very ANGRY.

By: SimonC

SimonC — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:59:24 +0000

It’s certainly got a whiff of do-something-itis to it, but this article on cricinfo makes it sound very much Vaughan’s decision as well. It puts paid to my theory that Hoggy’s absence is just a matter of fitness, to boot.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/nzveng/content/current/story/342058.html

Terrible decision. Truly terrible. And you’ve got people sagely nodding and saying Hoggy’s been in decline for the past year, when he only played four Tests in 2007 due to injury (and averaged 26.5 in those). Rrrgh.

By: Dada

Dada — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:30:31 +0000

Smacks of Peter Moores trying to justify his appointment to the media by dropping a stalwart. Sounds a lot like Steve McClaren. Doomed to failure, methinks.

By: The Atheist

The Atheist — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:29:40 +0000

I’m with Lemon Bella, the treatment of Hoggard was unfair. I think that they wanted to boot Harmison but, seeing as he wasn’t the only bloke who had a terrible game, needed another scapegoat to make the dropping look fair.

Hoggard, reliability personified for so long, was that goat.

Bastards.

By: Lemon Bella

Lemon Bella — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:18:28 +0000

I’m definitely ANGRY about this. Very, very ANGRY.

This stinks of a coach wanting to placate the media and be seen to “do something” . Even more so given the announcement that they didn’t think the batting line-up needed shaking up at all.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:26:23 +0000

It seems a bit of a strange decision – when Anderson comes in and inevitably sprays it all around taking few for lots, who are they going to bring in for the third test?

By: A P Webster

A P Webster — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:53:06 +0000

I think it’s maybe a little harsh, but the Management are under pressure to ‘Do Something’ about the bowling, and he took 1 for 140-odd in the first Test. Maybe Wellington would have suited him more, but critics cannot have their cake and eat it.

I know this last fact for certain as I have just eaten some cake with my lunch, and now no longer have it.

By: Ceci Masters

Ceci Masters — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:56:46 +0000

Curse of the bloody columnist/blogger I think – Hoggard – Times on line columnist – dropped
Swann – BBC blogger – never even gets a chance.

Don’t count the rest of the “columnists” as they don’t write their own….

By: Suave

Suave — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:36:25 +0000

I’m with Simon on this..

He looks undercooked.

He’s slimmed down a fair bit, and seems to have lost his strength and zip..

He’ll be back as the spearhead soon enough.