• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Caddick and his big mouth

Rik

Well-known member
krkode said:
Precisely how I feel. Saying things like, "getting 311 against Namibia is no great thing...Tendulkar's knock against Namibia was only an average knock" may hold truth, but who is he to say? I've never seen him hit a 152* nor contribute to a match effort of 311...
Nah but in 2 overs he's bowled, 4 wickets have fallen. 1 against the WIndies where he took all 4 and that last over against India where he got 3 and a run out. Not bad eh? ;)

He can be as effective as McGrath believe me, but it really depends on which side of the bed he gets out of. With McGrath this is not a problem.

Anyway mate, how come you aren't on MSN?
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
It doesn't matter if he gets the results to back it up, it's still funny to see him looking all poo faced when he gets proven wrong. Also he just tries to stir things up, which is ok by me on the pitch but it should stay on the pitch in my opinion.
Mate, if someone told you that saying exactly how you're going to get Brian Lara out in the press would rattle him so much it would work, wouldn't you do it??!?! Even if you don't strictly believe what you say, if merely SAYING it results in wickets, all well and good!

Besides, I think it's refreshing to see someone actually honestly answer questions from journalists about how they play without hiding their tactics. I mean, really he's handing the opposition an advantage in that they know exactly how he's going to bowl to them. Yet he still comes through. It does two things; shows just how good Glenn McGrath really is and that there's a difference between saying you're going to do something and actually going out there and doing it. Glenn does both and all credit to him. If someone's arrogant about what they do and get belted, you can laugh at the egg on their face but when they do that and are then successful, you have to say "RESPECK!!" :D

 

Rik

Well-known member
What is so annoying is that NZ worked out McGrath (ie that as soon as you leave the deliveries outside off he will get bored and aim at the stumps then you can try the drive) but no one has since followed on. His method is so glaringly simple it makes me wonder weather the coaches really are doing their jobs...
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
His method is so glaringly simple it makes me wonder weather the coaches really are doing their jobs...
Yeah his method is so simple; bowl at a batsman's weakness. Funny how that sems to work.......:duh:

It's one thing to know what a player is going to do but another entirely to actually counter that. People could pick Warnie's filpper years before they started to learn how to play it. Sure New Zealand tried something against him and it worked. But that's no guarantee it will work next time, either.

And other teams HAVE tried the 'leave everything' approach against Glenn McGrath but it hasn't worked real well because Glenn McGrath was too good for them. The thing which made his figures bloat in that series was the tactic working AND that Glenn McGrath didn't bowl with much rhythm and simply wasn't good enough to take wickets. Life sucks. How many bad series did has he had before or since then, particularly against NZ? He averages around 32 against them in Tests but averages around 20 against them in one-dayers. And other than that series, Glenn McGrath averages 26 against NZ, hardly bad bowling.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, just saying 'leave everything and hit the straight ones' just ain't as simple to execute as you make it sound, particularly if Glenn is bowling well at the time.
 

krkode

Well-known member
Rik said:
Nah but in 2 overs he's bowled, 4 wickets have fallen. 1 against the WIndies where he took all 4 and that last over against India where he got 3 and a run out. Not bad eh? ;)
Well, I personally believe that almost anyone who is a relatively reasonable bowler can take wickets in the slog overs. It's taking wickets early that makes a great bowler.

Make no mistake - I'm not saying Caddick is a bad bowler - In fact, I respect him as one of the best bowlers I've ever seen. That 7 wicket haul vs South Africa some time ago and the 7 wicket haul vs Aus this ashes were truly inspiring. I was just agreeing with the fact that word games shouldn't be played off the field, and stating that Caddick's remarks on India's game against Namibia and Tendulkar in general, were a bit harsh.
 

Tim

Well-known member
Caddick is an Englishman, not a New Zealander sorry.
It was funny last year when Caddick came back to NZ, he thought he would have gotten a big home coming but instead he got abuse from the crowds & started writing negative things about NZ in his newspaper column back in England.

So as far as we're concerned he's 100% pom.
 

krkode

Well-known member
Tim said:
Caddick is an Englishman, not a New Zealander sorry.
It was funny last year when Caddick came back to NZ, he thought he would have gotten a big home coming but instead he got abuse from the crowds & started writing negative things about NZ in his newspaper column back in England.

So as far as we're concerned he's 100% pom.
Well, if he got hated, i guess it's reasonable to return with hate...:duh:
 

Tim

Well-known member
Nah well it wasn't that straight forward, I read an article Caddick wrote & he made it sound like the King was going to NZ.
And NZ are fairly patriotic when it comes to sport, and as seen with the America's Cup if anyone jumps ship & joins the opposition then theres little respect for them.
 

Rik

Well-known member
Tim said:
Nah well it wasn't that straight forward, I read an article Caddick wrote & he made it sound like the King was going to NZ.
And NZ are fairly patriotic when it comes to sport, and as seen with the America's Cup if anyone jumps ship & joins the opposition then theres little respect for them.
Makes me wonder why we are so nice to Andy Symonds...:rolleyes:
 

Rik

Well-known member
Top_Cat said:
Yeah his method is so simple; bowl at a batsman's weakness. Funny how that sems to work.......:duh:
No actually it's more along the lines of bowl it just outside off stump just short of a length every single ball. And against NZ in Australia a year or so ago he averaged 70 odd with the ball. Me thinks they worked him out...
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tim said:
Caddick is an Englishman, not a New Zealander sorry.
It was funny last year when Caddick came back to NZ, he thought he would have gotten a big home coming but instead he got abuse from the crowds & started writing negative things about NZ in his newspaper column back in England.

So as far as we're concerned he's 100% pom.
Tim, Tim, Tim, we all know that Andy Caddick is a pom (as you so eloquently put it) but you have to allow the duck some licence.

He was born in Christchurch, New Zealand (I think) which is fair game to me. Don't upset DD - he has't even STARTED on the New Zealanders yet (apart from Billy Bowden).
 

Bazza

Well-known member
McGrath's method is simple. He just bowls it in the corridor of uncertainty (as Boycott labelled it). That's the problem though. Ye's he can be very one dimensional and if you leave the wide ones even he gives you balls to hit eventually, the problem is you don't know which ones are going to nip back and which ones are going to move away, which ones will hold their line, etc.

That's the exact reason he gets wickets, because he is one dimensional, because he does put every ball in the same place. It's because that place is the right place.
 

Bazza

Well-known member
Oh and on the subject of Caddick, people who spout off in the press or before a contest are generally disliked, especially by the opposition, because they appear arrogant, cocky, etc.

But it does work, mind games, psychology whatever - it works! That's why people do it. McGrath says I am going to target this batsman. That batsman can then try and ignore what has been said and everyone making a fuss about it (not possible) or he can use it to spur him on, which can sometimes have a negative effect.

End result = McGrath usually comes out on top. As he said before the Ashes (about Vaughan), if he gets Vaughan out early/cheaply he wins. If Vaughan gets a 50 and McGrath gest him out, McGrath wins, because how many of those 50 will have been scored off him? 10? 20 maybe? If Vaughan gets 100 and McGrath gets him out, it's a draw say, because Vaughan might have got 30 off him. If someone else gets him out, Vaughan has still lost his wicket, so the only way Vaughan can win is to score 150* (of course openers hardly ever finish not out, and when they do it is usually for a small score because they have chased a small target, so this is unlikely, therefore McGrath wins more often than not).

That is mind games, that makes the batsman think or worry even. It weighs on his mind, which in the long run does help when they are out in the middle, and that is how someone gets results. Like I say it might not always be popular.

Remember the thing between Alex Ferguson and Kevin Keegan in (I think) 1996? Might have been 94 actually, can't remember. Anyway Ferguson had a go, Keegan got really p****d off, and it showed. What happened? Newcastle blew a 12 point lead in January, Manchester United won the title and did the double. Everyone remembered that interview where Keegan said "I WOULD LOVE IT if we beat them". But they didn't. He was made to look silly.

Wenger does it as well. Ferguson and Wenger must be the two least liked managers outside Man U/Arsenal fans, but boy do they get results.
 

Anil

Well-known member
Bazza said:
Oh and on the subject of Caddick, people who spout off in the press or before a contest are generally disliked, especially by the opposition, because they appear arrogant, cocky, etc.
The point is they need to have the credentials to impress whoever they are targeting, which means the ability to execute on your boasts in the field. A McGrath has the pedigree to sow seeds of doubt in the best batsmen, a Caddick just doesn't have the same aura or the same impact.

As for McGrath being labelled a one dimensional bowler, apart from his immaculate line and length, he also has good pace, generates excellent bounce and sharp movement. That's what makes him stand out. There are a lot of accurate one dimensional bowlers around, especially in one dayers, but not everyone becomes a McGrath, right?
 

PY

Well-known member
krkode said:
Well, I personally believe that almost anyone who is a relatively reasonable bowler can take wickets in the slog overs. It's taking wickets early that makes a great bowler.
Think I'm right in saying that the West Indies four in an over was during a test match when we rattled them out for a mere 54 and won the test match in 2 days....the glory days of English Cricket :D
 

Bazza

Well-known member
My favourite day in fact. I'll never forget that commentary. Who would have thought Mark Nicholas would have such an impact on my life! :D
 

Rik

Well-known member
Tim said:
So as far as we're concerned he's 100% pom.
Forgetting that he was born in NZ and speaks with a NZ accent and only qualified to play for England because he qualified by living here for 5-7 years. He's not 100% Pom, he's more like 50% :)
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rik said:
Forgetting that he was born in NZ and speaks with a NZ accent and only qualified to play for England because he qualified by living here for 5-7 years. He's not 100% Pom, he's more like 50% :)
Which is why he is in the Caddick thread
 

Rik

Well-known member
luckyeddie said:
Which is why he is in the Caddick thread
You realise if Caddick was more succesful, we would be hearing "Oh so it too a NZealander to get you out of it this time" instead...
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
No actually it's more along the lines of bowl it just outside off stump just short of a length every single ball. And against NZ in Australia a year or so ago he averaged 70 odd with the ball. Me thinks they worked him out...
What???!!? You think itś so simple and easy, YOU do it. Glenn McGrathś bowling style is deceptively simple but the movement he gets is as much as anyone and simplay is not that easy to execute. Just watch him more closely and youḋ see. Itś the same reason Richard Hadlee never got the sae plaudits as other bowlers; both of them had a simple method (which is so NOT simple to execute) which works the percentages in their favour.

Oh and the NZ players played well against him for ONE series. This doesnṫ mean they worked him out at all. I donṫ care what Adam Parore (a noted stirrer of brown stuff) said in the press. There are a myriad of reasons why they did well against him in that season and they donṫ all revolve around the fact that they somehow ẃorked him out If it were that easy, why arenṫ other teams doing it and belting him? Do you think that itś because heś not actually a metronomic robot and actually adjusts his bowling to suit the opposition?

Again they had one good series against him. This is NOT a guarantee that it will happen again. The NZ players will have to keep working at their game plan and adjusting as he does if they want to continue to be successful against McGrath. If they try the very same tactic again, considering Glennś quality as a pace bowler, odds-on it will not work a second time and Glenn McGrathś record against teams which have initially got to him is testament to this. He almost ALWAYS performs better the second time around..

Geez, youŕe acting like all his wickets against other teams were a fluke! Glenn McGrath has one bad series in the last 7 or 8 years heś been playing Tests and suddenly heś been worked out? Whatever, Rik............Try using your head a bit more instead of running back to Cricinfoś stats database and using that as proof of dominance. Take it from a professional statistician that hilighting one series out of Glenn McGrathś career and using to prove that a team has worked him out would not be a representative sample.
 
Top