Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Hauritz got runner up. If Swann had Watson playing he wouldn't have gotten close.
Haurie...sub 30 average, sub 60 SR. Lovin' it!
-
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.
Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Haurie...sub 30 average, sub 60 SR. Lovin' it!
[Richard]Well, AFAIC, Hauritz is utterly incapable of bowling like a Test-class spinner. His Test career thus far has ind33d been wrought with the fickleness of utter luck, eliciting less than satisfactory strokes from players who are five yards and a bit short of Test-class. That ind33d suits the intricacies of the situations in which Hauritz is present, because he himself is a spinner of real, utter horror. It will gladden me to see his average soar like a helium balloon after these outings.[/Richard]
Both Swann and Hauritz (and Duminy!) have eclipsed Harris lately. Swann is probably still a bit ahead, but there's not much wrong with Hauritz right now, except he could do with a little more of that turn which collected Faisal Iqbal's stumps. Swann is probably more aggressive and more convincing on turners, even though I still don't think a flat deck gets in the way of Hauritz all that much.
Both Swann and Hauritz (and Duminy!) have eclipsed Harris lately. Swann is probably still a bit ahead, but there's not much wrong with Hauritz right now, except he could do with a little more of that turn which collected Faisal Iqbal's stumps. Swann is probably more aggressive and more convincing on turners, even though I still don't think a flat deck gets in the way of Hauritz all that much.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Feels ****ing good to be a fan of Swann and Hauritz right now. So, so good. [/smug]
I thought you were a big fan of Paul Harris (who still is underrated, BTW).
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.Hauritz got runner up. If Swann had Watson playing he wouldn't have gotten close.
Haurie...sub 30 average, sub 60 SR. Lovin' it!
Hauritz has done well and fair play to him but if you really want to use stats to validate him being better than Swann you're in dreamland. West Indies/Pakistan at home is not really comparable to South Africa away hey?
Not to worry though, Swann has Bangas away then Bangas to home and Pakistan at home coming up so we'll see how he goes there.
Streetwise
Banned
Funny thing is if you take out Swanns WI matches he only has 43 wickets @ 36
Swann may end up better than Hauritz some may think he already is but as far as cricket goes Hauritz is the better bowler. We all saw what happened to Monty Englands last great spin bowler.
Streetwise
Banned
Its relevence is you cant judge a player on what he is going to do, so far Hauritz has done as good but more than likely better than Swann. Monty is a classic case where he was judged on what he was going to do and not on what he had done, and we know that all ended in tears.
I dont ever recall there being much hype with McGain, well not in Australia but I suppose it may have been big news in England.
Streetwise
Banned
Better strike rate, economy and bowling average.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Four of Swann's WI matches were played on 700 plays 500 pitches.
Using stats to compare bowlers is facile at the best of times, but when the samples are so small it's pretty much ********. If you think hauritz's better stats make him a better bowler then that's up to you but anyine whose watched them both bowl and is neither English nor Australian will tell you that Swann is the better bowler.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
McGain on this forum and here in Victoria was huge.
But anyway I don't see anyone saying Swann could be better than Hauritz. They're saying he's better now. You can disagree and that's fine. But no one is dropping the 'potential' line.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I am, but the fact he didn't play in the most recent Test means he's been a bit quiet and not approaching Man of the Series status like Swann achieved or that Hauritz nearly did, so it's a bit harder to gloat.
Last edited:
Streetwise
Banned
So Swann wins the online poll and Hauritz gets the better figures. win win situation.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Now now Swanny, you just enjoy your MOTS over there in SA and leave poor Nathan alone. What's he ever done to you?
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think this might actually be literally true. Has there been any non-Aussies in the entire thread who thought Hauritz was better?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Hauritz doesn't actually have better stats that Swann anyway; there's a big difference between having better stats and having a better Test average. Hauritz's Test average wouldn't be below 30 if it weren't for the wickets he took on debut on a pitch that was skewed so far towards his bowling style (specifically because the opposition didn't rate him, mind you) that a part-timer managed to take 6/9 despite the fact that Hauritz himself only managed five wickets in two innings. Furthermore, it'd be ridiculous to hold the fact that Swann averages 40 against Australia's eleven best cricketers against him in a comparison with Hauritz given Hauritz averages almost 50 against a cross-section of Australia's best 75 or so cricketers, and without that Ashes series Swann would average less than 30 himself. To completely ignore First Class cricket here would be a massive oversight, especially due to the fact that Swann's average against Australia is significantly higher than his overall average and single-handedly accounts for the current disparity that is about the size of a bee's dick anyway.
Given their Test averages are so close, it'd be beyond ridiculous to claim that they alone showed Hauritz to be the superior bowler, particularly given the fact that neither of them have played many Test matches and the fact that their First Class records are leagues apart. You can do what Ikki has done and say it suggests they are comparable or equal as bowlers, and although I disagree with him it's a valid conclusion to draw, but to suggest that Hauritz's extremely marginally better Test average proves he's performed better so far in his Test career is ludicrous. Some people in here are acting as if there's a huge difference between their averages; there's **** all in it and there's a lot to look at beyond them anyway.
Given their Test averages are so close, it'd be beyond ridiculous to claim that they alone showed Hauritz to be the superior bowler, particularly given the fact that neither of them have played many Test matches and the fact that their First Class records are leagues apart. You can do what Ikki has done and say it suggests they are comparable or equal as bowlers, and although I disagree with him it's a valid conclusion to draw, but to suggest that Hauritz's extremely marginally better Test average proves he's performed better so far in his Test career is ludicrous. Some people in here are acting as if there's a huge difference between their averages; there's **** all in it and there's a lot to look at beyond them anyway.
Last edited: