Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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 retarded. 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.

So Swann wins the online poll and Hauritz gets the better figures. win win situation.

[GIMH]

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Marcuss

Yeah, welldone Hauritz on taking wickets against a ridiculously fragile Pakistan batting line ups at home.

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

anyone whose watched them both bowl and is neither English nor Australian will tell you that Swann is the better bowler.

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]

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.

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I think this might actually be literally true. Has there been any non-Aussies in the entire thread who thought Hauritz was better?

I dont think to many people would get caught up in something so petty.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

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.

Why, are South Africans better players of spin or something? I am going to love seeing Swann get shellacked in Oz.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Why, are South Africans better players of spin or something? I am going to love seeing Swann get shellacked in Oz.

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

Haha, that's awesome.

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

Nobody is claiming Hauritz is better than Swann, I just pointed out that Hauritz has the better figures after reading how much better Swann was.

Though it does seem important to some that Swann is declared better than Hauritz.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Streetwise

Nobody is claiming Hauritz is better than Swann, I just pointed out that Hauritz has the better figures after reading how much better Swann was.

He doesn't though. Having a better Test average and having better figures are two entirely different things.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

Prince, it's fair to say that Hauritz has improved though as a first class cricketer..

If you were picking a mixed Australia-England side it would be a surprising selection if anyone had Hauritz in their XI but not Swann IMO.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

Really, aren't we talking about Tests? Only in his 2 matches against S.Africa has Hauritz been ineffective, and even there he was very economical. Maybe Hauritz should go bowl in England.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Really, aren't we talking about Tests? Only in his 2 matches against S.Africa has Hauritz been ineffective, and even there he was very economical.

Erm, Shield cricket much?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Erm, Shield cricket much?

And why is Shield cricket even remotely relevant here? If your best argument is that Hauritz wasn't a good shield bowler, then that says it all. As someone else has mentioned here, Hauritz is a much better bowler than he was in Shield cricket.