Last edited by GIMH; 18-01-2010 at 04:26 AM.
Originally Posted by Axl Rose
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)