Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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.

Read his original post again. It might not be the same level of cricket, but if you're using Swanns record against Australian batsmen against him, it's only fair to bring into account Hauritz's record against them, regardless of the fact that they were in shield cricket, it's the same set of batsmen.

[Johnners]

In other news though, PEWS further confirming his englishness, traitor!

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Read his original post again. It might not be the same level of cricket, but if you're using Swanns record against Australian batsmen against him, it's only fair to bring into account Hauritz's record against them, regardless of the fact that they were in shield cricket, it's the same set of batsmen.

So? Warne averaged in the 30s in domestic cricket and was an all-time great in Tests. As far as both bowlers go, they're both questions. But Hauritz should get much more attention, he is certainly Swann's equal and outbowled him when their respective sides faced each other.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Clapo

In other news though, PEWS further confirming his englishness, traitor!

Haha, it's always dire when there's a debate over an Australian player and an English player because no matter which side of the argument I favour I get called out as biased.

[GIMH]

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.

Not better players of spin per se, just better players. But of course, it's just as easy to bowl at Smith, Kallis and de Villiers as that awesome Pakistan batting line-up

Originally Posted by Ikki

So? Warne averaged in the 30s in domestic cricket and was an all-time great in Tests. As far as both bowlers go, they're both questions. But Hauritz should get much more attention, he is certainly Swann's equal and outbowled him when their respective sides faced each other.

He outbowled him in one match. I know you like your stats picking, so remoev the Cardiff match and Swann's average drops massively. Swann didn't bowl anything like himself in that match. The rest of the time he was the better bowler.

Of course you can say that Hauritz never got to bowl at The Oval, but he also failed to bowl his side to victory, something which happens to be a little more important than stats. And he never had to bowl at Headingley, nor did he have to bowl after his batsman had given him just 102 to play with.

So basically I completely disagree with the notion that he outbowled Swann in that series anyway, but the stats show that he did so he must have done

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Not better players of spin per se, just better players. But of course, it's just as easy to bowl at Smith, Kallis and de Villiers as that awesome Pakistan batting line-up

Who knows? Pakistani's have usually been adept at playing spin. We'll see how Swann does .

He outbowled him in one match. I know you like your stats picking, so remoev the Cardiff match and Swann's average drops massively. Swann didn't bowl anything like himself in that match. The rest of the time he was the better bowler.

Of course you can say that Hauritz never got to bowl at The Oval, but he also failed to bowl his side to victory, something which happens to be a little more important than stats. And he never had to bowl at Headingley, nor did he have to bowl after his batsman had given him just 102 to play with.

So basically I completely disagree with the notion that he outbowled Swann in that series anyway, but the stats show that he did so he must have done

Puh-lease, remove The Oval and his figures look even more ****-house than they do now. Hauritz took only 4 less wickets despite playing 2 less Tests, and his figures are a mile better than Swann's. Not even a question as to who bowled better overall.

Hauritz: Avg. 32.1 SR 62 - 10 wickets, 3 matches
Swann: Avg. 41.5 SR 73 - 14 wickets. 5 matches

Yep, those averages are lying again.

[GIMH]

'Overall' yeah. Way to completely ignore my point of course

After Cardiff - where Swann himself has been hugely critical of the way he bowled - then Hauritz was categorically not the better bowler.

And Hauritz couldn't bowl his team to victory when they needed him to - in Cardiff. Swann bowled England to victory twice.

[Ikki]

So performing great in 1 test is better than performing pretty well throughout? Not in my book, and I suspect others. The numbers don't lie there.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Who knows? Pakistani's have usually been adept at playing spin.

Wat.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Ikki

So performing great in 1 test is better than performing pretty well throughout? Not in my book, and I suspect others. The numbers don't lie there.

Where did I say that? Swann bowled us to victory twice.

He was turd at Cardiff and then averaged 31 for the rest of the series. But I couldn't care less what he averaged as in both of the matches we won he did what a spinner is meant to do in the fourth innings, bowled his side to victory.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Wat.

What? They've done pretty well against India and Sri Lanka.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Ikki

What? They've done pretty well against India and Sri Lanka.

Who's 'they'? Pakistan's only player against decent spin is MoYo. Before that, I dunno, Salim Malik maybe. Generally are bunnies unless playing on a runway.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Where did I say that? Swann bowled us to victory twice.

He was turd at Cardiff and then averaged 31 for the rest of the series. But I couldn't care less what he averaged as in both of the matches we won he did what a spinner is meant to do in the fourth innings, bowled his side to victory.

He was turd in Cardiff and Leeds. And to say his 4/87 won you the match at Lords is a stretch. It was the pace attack that pretty much settled the match after our first innings collapse.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Ikki

He was turd in Cardiff and Leeds. And to say his 4/87 won you the match at Lords is a stretch. It was the pace attack that pretty much settled the match after our first innings collapse.

He was by no means our worst bowler at Leeds and it wasn't suitable for spin at all (hence the wise call to leave Hauritz out by your lot). But again, as I said, hauritz never had to deal with his batsmen only giving him 100 to play with, it's why I don't like using stats for bowlers.

And alright, maybe I'm going a bit far saying he won us the match at Lord's, but my point is he did exactly what we needed him to there.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Who's 'they'? Pakistan's only player against decent spin is MoYo. Before that, I dunno, Salim Malik maybe. Generally are bunnies unless playing on a runway.

Don't look like Bunnies to me.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting