The Hoggard and Harmison debate

There was a significant moment at the very start of the 2005 Ashes series; Steve Harmison was asked to bowl the first over of the innings. It was the first time that he had been given the new ball ahead of Matthew Hoggard since the two joined forces as the spearhead of the England attack at Dhaka in 2003.

Within two balls the tactic had produced a result of sorts; Justin Langer had been painfully hit on the arm. It wasn't long before Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting had also been struck by the Durham paceman. Harmison ended the innings with 5-43, Australia were dismissed for 190 and the new policy seemed inspired.

It was not to last. Although England persisted with this arrangement throughout the Ashes, by the time England's tour of Pakistan began last winter, the order had been reversed. In fact by the end of that tour, Harmison had dropped down to first change with Freddie Flintoff taking the new ball.

Back in England this summer Hoggard and Harmison renewed their new-ball partnership once more, with the Yorkshireman given first use. The question is 'should Harmison be given the new ball at all?'

Our analysis of their performances has categorically revealed that Hoggard has become far more effective with the new ball than Harmison. Further than this, Hoggard is comparatively brilliant at the start of the innings whilst Harmison is verging on atrocious.

Detailed analysis
We've examined the pair's performances for England since the end of the 2004 summer, leaving out the 2005 home series against Bangladesh. Harmison has had a pretty rough ride, particularly in South Africa but has nevertheless taken 63 wickets in the two years at 36.31. Hoggard has taken 91 wickets at 28.75.

The most startling difference however, is not in their respective averages over the period but in the breakdown of their wickets. Hoggard has taken more than half his wickets in his first 10 overs of the innings and has taken a wicket in his first over seven times in 43 innings.

Harmison, in contrast, has taken only 30% of his wickets in his first 10 overs, only one in his first over (when he didn't open the bowling) and, since the start of the 2005 Ashes series, has taken a third of his wickets with the second 'new' ball.

In the 30 innings that Harmison has opened the bowling he has taken the first wicket to fall only seven times (23%). Hoggard's figures read 24 times from 43 innings (56%).

Harmison is in fact most dangerous in the 61-70 overs stage of an innings; he has taken three more wickets in that 10-over bracket (11) than any other. This complements Hoggard who rarely strikes in this period. Often the Yorkshireman is being rested for the second new ball, and eight of his 11 wickets in the 81-90 over bracket have been with the new cherry.

What all this points to is that whilst Hoggard is a superb exponent of new-ball conditions, Harmison is better without it. The question then arises of who should partner Hoggard up front. Flintoff's attempts to fill the breach whilst Harmison was injured this summer were totally unsuccessful (in terms of new-ball wickets) and when he usurped his friend in Pakistan, his earliest wicket came in the 19th over. He has opened the bowling in nine innings since the Ashes and taken only two wickets in the first 20 overs of the innings. Flintoff's wickets-breakdown bears far more similarity to Harmison's than Hoggard's.

The man to step into the breach could be Jimmy Anderson, who was asked to open the bowling in the crucial second innings at Mumbai last winter. Anderson responded with a wicket in his second over. He also performed creditably when given the new ball against South Africa back in 2003.

This is an unlikely scenario this winter though. England will probably persist with Hoggy and Harmy - and may even revert to giving Harmison first use.

Either way, more than anything, this all proves how much England rely on Hoggard taking wickets with the new ball. It is not surprising that an attack should be at its most dangerous at the start of an innings - what is more unusual is that the threat should be coming from just one end.

There is a suggestion that Brisbane will be the closest in bounce to Old Trafford this summer so Harmison could have rare early success in the first Test. More generally, surviving Hoggard early on may prove the key factor in Australia's attempts to regain the urn.

Stats:
Harmison Six times he has taken a wicket in his first five overs (17% of innings)
Hoggard 26 times Hoggard has taken a wicket in his first five overs (60% of innings) - three times he dismissed the same batsman twice in a match in his first three overs

------------

Harmison Has taken 19 of 63 wickets in his first 10 overs (30%). Five of those were v Pakistan at Old Trafford.
Hoggard Has taken 48 of 91 wickets in his first 10 overs (53%)

------------

Harmison Has taken only eight of 63 wickets before score reached 50 (13%)
Hoggard Has taken 34 of 91 wickets before score reached 50 (37%)

------------

Harmison Has opened bowling in 30 inns and taken the first wicket seven times (23%) - he has never taken a wicket in his first over.
Hoggard Has opened bowling in 43 inns and taken the first wicket 24 times (56%) and taken a wicket in his first over seven times (16%)

------------

Harmison Has taken 21 of 63 wickets when ball is less than 25 overs old (33%) - 10 of those were with second new ball and nine when second new ball was more than 15 overs old Hoggard Has taken 59 of 91 wickets when ball is less than 25 overs old (65%)

------------

Harmison Since start of Ashes has taken 18 of 54 wickets with second new ball (33%)
Hoggard Since start of Ashes has taken 16 of 65 wickets with second new ball (25%) and one with third new ball

------------

Harmison 29 of 63 have been first five to fall (46%) and 34 of 6-10 (54%).
Hoggard 61 of 91 have been first five to fall (67%) and 30 of 6-10 (33%).

------------

Harmison 10 of 63 have been the 10th wkt (16%)
Hoggard Four of 91 have been 10th wkt (4%)