This Hogg fellow

lardbucket wrote:

furriner wrote:And as I was saying in another thread, MacGill has a better Test career average than the Indian spin greats.

Well they would have bowled in India a fair bit

That's why MacGill's better average is surprising . . . FFS lardy!

Check this out!

Code:


              Mat  W  BBI    BBM    Ave  Econ    SR  5  10

Bedi        67  266  7/98  10/194  28.71  2.14  80.3  14  1
Macgill      42  203  8/108 12/107  28.14  3.17  53.1  12  2
Pras        49  189  8/76  11/140  30.38  2.40  75.9  10  2
Venkat      57  156  8/72  12/152  36.11  2.27  95.3  3  1
Chandra    58  242  8/79  12/104  29.74  2.70  65.9  16  2

MacGill has a better average, better strike rate. Not as economical, but these are the days of 'power batsmen' and flatter pitches.

Shocked me when I ran the numbers.

Hogg may be starting out, but how can you even compare him?

* hangs heads in shame *

pro Hoggy!! forummers are just bitter about MacGoo.

In all seriousness, his record will stand the test of time and compares favourably with any spinner of all time.

P.S. I loathe the wine-tasting freak, but acknowledge he has serviced Australia well in Warne's absence, but to suggest Hogg is even test standard is simply bogus.

lardbucket wrote:Hogg has batted and fielded better than MacGill.

Ah, the Gilo principle.

Invader Zim wrote:

furriner wrote:MacGill for all his temper issues etc was much much better; a wicket taker that one and his record shows it.

Was being the operative word. MacDill has been shit at all levels of cricket for at least 3 years. In that time Hogg has consistently outbowled him in all forms of the game.

Erm, from 2005 to 2007 MacGill had an average of 24.94 in Tests. Take away the SL Tests and it drops to 20.56

Actually his record shows that- over the past three years- he has been much better than his career average.

If I were to stretch the argument, without the SL tests, his career records from 2005 to 2007 show that he has been a great. This may be stretching it, but hey these are the numbers.

Basil wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Hogg has batted and fielded better than MacGill.

Ah, the Gilo principle.

Ah, the partial quote.

furriner wrote:Had MacGill being playing we would have been even more farked than we are. This Hogg or Hoggyyy!! fella doesn't seem to to be much to write home about.

Doubt it. Looked ordinary when we came here last time.

Macgill against India - 50.78 average. Looked toothless for the whole series. I don't expect Hogg to do any better but he can keep the SR down.

India were probably going to get the better of hogg or macgill but surely india should be a bit more worried about how they played clark and lee.

Also im not sure where this whole hogg vs macgill thing is coming from.

Macgill at his best would be Australia's first choice spinner right now...but he's injured in fact it was a disgrace that he was picked for the Sri Lankan games in the state he was in.

The only question is whether hogg is above the other contenders outside of macgill and he is.

india would be pretty happy if australia picked hogg for the rest of the series, even sydney

As PDY says above, some of those commenting don't seem to be aware that MacGill is actually unavailable at the moment. But to throw some fuel on the fire anyway:

MacGill has been lucky in his career in that he has relatively rarely played when conditions did not suit the spinners. The one time he was the first-choice spinner in all conditions for a prolonged period of time (Dec 2002 to Jan 2004), he performed significantly below his inflated career figures against all comers bar Bangladesh. His stats don't reflect his abilities. He's certainly not in the Bedi/Kumble/Gupte class as being suggested above. At his best, he is probably about as good as them, but about half the time hes barely even first class standard.

I don't think Hogg bowled badly on Day 2. He's not and never will be Shane Warne, but he kept his head up and bowled okay. It's the nature of being a solid (but not great) wrist spinner that you get whacked around a bit between wickets.

Agree 100% with Leo.

Hoggy will never be the next Shane Warne, but he plays a similar role to that played by Trevor Hohns in 1989, knows his game, and plays it well.

Should have played Tait.

Aathma wrote:Should have played Tait.

Lags!

Hogg will do a job for Aus on turning pitches, but he wont be guaranteed to make the side if the pitch is more likely to favour seam. They'll think that Symonds' and Clark's part time spin will be enough.

I think he could go alright vs teams like pakistan/south africa/kiwis who all play leggies pretty badly.

Harsh to judge him against this Indian batting though, warne has his career high vs India last time we toured and he still only averaged 30.

Well, FWIW, Richie Benaud said Hoggy's bowled all right and done a good job in this match.

He knows more about spin bowling than this entire forum combined several times over.

I'll take that judgment any day thanks very much.

To add my own two cents worth... He's also been incredibly unlucky, with at least two catchable chances being missed, and Gilchrist missing a dead easy stumping as well.

Aye Zat.

So Hoggy!!! finishes the Test with 4 wickets @ 33.25 after bowling 38 overs. Not a bad performance considering it's his 'comeback' test and the opposition.

2nd innings was much much better, didn't bowl as short and landed his wrong un.

If he can give us 20 with the bat do a good job in the field and take 4 wickets a test that's surely as good as we would have expected from him against India?

It's all we would have expected from warne against India.

Pretty useful contribution all round; nice runout "assist" too. He's the best we've got available at present and he should do better in Sydney than at the MCG.

Was an interesting battle with ganguly.

Ganguly wanted to belt him out of the attack and he did hit some runs but also lost his wicket twice and could have been out any of three times in the second dig.

So does Hoggy!!! now have a better record v India then Warne, MacShit and the little cheat?