Were Darren Gough & Andrew Caddick an under-rated bowling pair?

Question

Gough was my favourite too, but they are not mentioned as much so I thought of asking this. I agree they were both great swingers & thats why I'm saying they aren't much talked about when we discuss about great fast bowlers.

Answer 1

No they wher both around for along time and satistics don't back them up.

Answer 2

Yes but mainly because of injuries

Injuries cost both Gough and Caddick's test match careers to be cut short. Injuries also reduced the amount of time that these two bowlers actually bowled as a unit. If Gough and Caddick had both played between 90-100 test matches, and opened the bowling in about 45 of them (at least) then i think they would be regarded much higher than they are now.

Both were great bowlers, who on there day could have been devastating. As an England fan i feel that both could have been so much more successful in there England careers though.

Answer 3

Not at all.

They weren't under-rated at all.They were very highly rated.If anyone is not rating them highly then he/she has no knowledge of cricket.

Both of them were great swing bowlers.

Answer 4

WHY DO U THINK SO?? I MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOT.

DARREN GOUGH WAS ONE OF THE QUICKEST BOWLERS OF THE 90'S. IT WAS REALLY VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE OPPOSITE TEAM TO BAT OUT THE FIRST 15 OVERS WITHOUT LOSING ANY WICKET.........

ANDREW CRADDICK, WELL WASN'T AS FAST & ACCURATE AS D.GOUGH, BUT HE WAS A REAL FIGHTER. HE USED TO TRY VERY HARD TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN & ULTIMATELY USED TO GET THINGS RIGHT......................................

Answer 5

For someone who bowled for such a long time and in adverse of conditions to the best of their ability and with considerable success, yes, they were under-rated ...

Answer 6

I don't think they were under-rated: they were thought of very highly during their careers. However, during the early parts of their careers, they were not handled particularly well, and (Gough especially) suffered a lot of injuries. Caddick also had major problems with his confidence at times.

One problem for them was that they had no adequate back up seamer. Interestingly, England's third great seamer of the 1990's, Angus Fraser, never played in the same Test side as both Caddick and Gough! Each separately, but neither together.

Had their careers come along 6 or 7 years later, they could have achieved so much more, as they would have played in an environment that would have appreciated their talents. Sadly, central contracts came at the tail end of their careers.

So I don't think they are under-rated. But I do feel that each had wasted opportunities to cement their places amongst the all-time greats.

Answer 7

i didnt rate caddick highly until he destroyed us in the 5th test, sydney 2003 taking 7-for

they made a good combination and would have had much better records if not for injury as the bowled well together, i also acknowledge i havent said anything about gough yet, the only thing i will say is that in the 90's, Gough was the only "Pom" we ever saw and thought "geez, it would be good if he was an aussie". unlike most of the negative england bowlers they had in the 90s, he played like he was a winner, he played like an Australian, that i think coming from an aussie is the biggest compliment i can pay

also if he was an aussie, we would never have let him go on some dancing show! lol

Answer 8

They were the positive from the utterly rubbish 90's for England.

Answer 9

injured, that is Y

Answer 10

Yes, they were. If England had won an Ashes series with them, then everyone would think differently. Thanks to Englands atrocious batting, that never happened.

Answer 11

They were good bowlers and injuries forced them out. Yes they

are under-rated and that is cricket and life. These days Cricket

needs a player/bowler to be injury free and given the amount of

cricket played we will have plenty of these sort of injuries.