Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[Manee]

Harris has better accuracy than Swann but Swann has better attacking tools. Thus on a turning pitch Harris should be useful, Swann should be deadly. On a non-turner Harris and Swann are still capable of baiting batsmen out but I do think there've been a few more batsmen to fall for said trap than should be doing.

Hauritz has yet to show that he can be a terribly good bowler even on a turning deck.

So in short for me Swann > Harris >>>>> Hauritz.

I like watching all 3 bowl.

Hauritz is capable of bowling beautifully, a really nice classical offspinner. Not a world-beater but a bit underrated imho.

Harris looks so entirely unthreatening, but that is his secret weapon. That and the toxic mind-waves that he emits to lure batsmen into crazy errors against his bowling.

Admittedly it's not saying much, but Swann is by a distance the best English spinner I've seen for a while. He can sometimes get a fair amount of turn, but has a very good delivery that goes straight on (occasionally with a bit of arm-ball swing) and his record against lefties is outstanding.

All 3 are also handy with the bat, but Swann is the best of them.

Would agree with most of these. Hauritz is a good off spin bowler - there is no denying that. He is classical in his approach and is great to watch. His numbers may not be world beating and I'd expect he'll end his career with an average approaching 35 - but he does a job for Australia where McGain, Hogg and MacGill (post Warne retirement) failed and therefore has been a valuable asset for Australia.

Would agree with both about Harris. He is effective, but boy is he an uncomfortable bowler to watch.

Swann is the best of the three though. He simply takes the most wickets, turns the ball the most and is the best spinner of the three. However, that is not to discount the other two though, as they are both fine spinners, underrated when unfairly compared to Warne/Murali and when nostalgically compared to spinners of the past, who will always be seen with rose-tinted glasses.

[Richard]

Harbhajan deserves a mention, no? And Murali is still playing, albeit a much reduced force.

I think it's a given that Harbhajan is a better bowler than all three - he spins it as much, has better flight and unlike any of the three bowls a good Doosra.

Comparing fingerspinners to Murali is, even if Murali is not the force he once was, as unfair as ever. I'd still imagine Murali, given a turning deck, would outbowl most every fingerspinner going around currently.

[Richard]

they are both fine spinners, underrated when unfairly compared to Warne/Murali and when nostalgically compared to spinners of the past, who will always be seen with rose-tinted glasses.

Some day, the same will doubtless apply to them. I look forwards to the CW posters in 2023 who pine for the long-lost days of Harris and Hauritz.

[Manee]

Some day, the same will doubtless apply to them. I look forwards to the CW posters in 2023 who pine for the long-lost days of Harris and Hauritz.

Indeed, will be amusing to see how nostalga applies to the 'merely good' bowlers of the current age. However, I do think that the fact that we have such wide ranging footage may mean that talk of Akhtar bowling upwards of mach 3, Mcgrath being able to land the ball on a marker pen spot on the pitch and Muralitharan being able to turn the ball from one side of the cut strip to the other, may unfortunately not happen.

[Manee]

I think it's a given that Harbhajan is a better bowler than all three - he spins it as much, has better flight and unlike any of the three bowls a good Doosra.

I think that Swann pushes Harbhaan. Harbhajan rarely bowls his doosra these days (maybe in an attempt to clean up his action), tbh and I think it is currently matched for effectiveness by Swann's arm ball. Although Harbhajan is a criminally underrated bowler in Tests, atm, Swann rarely goes two Tests without a very good spell - and he rarely gets tracks which overtly assist his bowling.

[NZTailender]

A thread about three of my favourite players. Christmas has arrived early!

[Stapel]

I think it's a given that Harbhajan is a better bowler than all three - he spins it as much, has better flight and unlike any of the three bowls a good Doosra.

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

[Marcuss]

Swanneh by some margin IMHO. The battle for 2nd place out of the three between Harris and Hauritz is a much closer contest.

[subshakerz]

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

Nah, Harby notably better than these three. He actually I feel can run through a batting side on his day, don't think the others are quite as good.

[Jono]

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

Been winning his team some test matches lately, both home and away.

[zaremba]

People were saying that about MSP barely a couple of years ago. I don't doubt Swann is a bit better than Giles and certainly far, far more reliable than Tufnell (I'd still imagine Tufnell's best bowling on the exceptionally rare occasion he produced it is better than anything Swann can produce but he's got time to show otherwise yet) but I seriously dispute he's significantly if at all better Croft and even the county-spectator's favourite Such. He is currently better than MSP but I do still think MSP could potentially outdo him in the long-run, though that's looking less likely as time goes on.

I've never yet been truly familiar with how good or otherwise the Embureys and Edmundses were (obviously they didn't have the uncovered wickets advantage that their predecessors Illingworth and Underwood enjoyed for the first part of their careers) so I'll gladly not currently try to compare there, but I realise you may be calling Swann the best since Emburey so it may not be important anyway.

Yes I did have E&E in mind actually. Although Croft and Such were good bowlers too, and certainly of comparable quality to Swann.

Either way, Swann has been a relevation at Test level and the contrast with Panesar (not least re his all-round game) is so stark it's not funny.

[superkingdave]

Nah Croft was a plodder at best.

[zaremba]

Nah Croft was a plodder at best.

I think that's a bit unfair. He had a pretty good record when he started, although as I recall his record at home wasn't great compared with his success away from home.

It's quite possible that Swann may not keep up his present level of success, and his average will migrate towards the Giles Zone. We will have to wait and see.

[Uppercut]

I think that Swann pushes Harbhaan. Harbhajan rarely bowls his doosra these days (maybe in an attempt to clean up his action), tbh and I think it is currently matched for effectiveness by Swann's arm ball. Although Harbhajan is a criminally underrated bowler in Tests, atm, Swann rarely goes two Tests without a very good spell - and he rarely gets tracks which overtly assist his bowling.

No, Harbhajan's definitely better. I've posted this before. India isn't a particularly good place to bowl spin anymore, and Harbhajan does a seriously good job of it. At the very least he's vastly more proven than Swann, and I'd say he's better too.

Back on track, I think Swann is the best of the three. Plenty of turn, drift, accuracy, great variations in pace and flight (although he's gotten quicker since joining the England team which is a shame), fantastic arm-ball and the ability to bowl long spells. He's all you could really ask for in an off-spinner.

Harris is an interesting case indeed. He's almost found the perfect little niche as a foil to the South African attack. He's known for giving batsmen a bit of abuse and generally coming across as a bit of a ****. His bowling somehow repeatedly inspires brain-fades, and unlike Swann he loves being attacked. He's properly accurate and the occasional turning delivery is very, very dangerous as a result. Was particularly comical to hear Nasser Hussain suggest that England's problem against him in the first innings at Centurion was that they didn't attack him enough, but it can sometimes appear that way. His bowling seems innocuous enough that batsmen should be able to score easily off it but it's accurate enough that they can't. I love watching Harris bowl, just to try to figure out what exactly it is that makes batsmen want to slog him so badly.

Hauritz is currently benefiting from a backlash against the abuse he received in the run-up to the Ashes. The English media discovered, to their horror, that he was in fact a decent bowler who regularly put the ball in good areas with a little tweak- which is more than enough against England. He's the token spinner, takes a few wickets on turning tracks, keeps it tight, bowls long spells when nothing much is happening. Nice option for the captain to have, and much better than the filthy pie-chucker he was made out to be in the run-up to the Ashes. He's not a great bowler though, and I'd have the other two quite comfortably above him.

[Matt79]

I think the OP wanted to talk non-doosra bowling finger spinners, hence left out Harby deliberately.

Lol at the underrating of Hauritz in this thread. Someone said there are three better spinners in Australia - name them please.

I'm not saying he's better than Swann or Harris, although I think he outbowled Swann in the Ashes. But to say that he's not deserving of comparison to them, or is clearly massively inferior is wrong imo.

And Aussie somehow got confused on the point of whether Hauritz deserved his spot ahead of the potential fourth specialist quick in the Australian team with the question of how he compares to Harris and Swann