Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

TBF to Hauritz he pushed it wide when he saw KP get down for the shot. The pitch map made that blindingly obvious, it was a foot wider than anything he'd bowled that day. Gotta give him credit for that one.

Although Hauritz did push it wider when he saw KP go down for the sweep. KP tried to be too cute with that shot, he could have easily played a hard commanding sweep. He would have never tried such a such a shot vs Murali or Harbhajan.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I agree that Hauritz's figures for the series flatter him somewhat while Swann's are a bit harsher than they should be, but Hauritz was definitely the better spinner in that series nevertheless.

How could that be, when Swann actually did his job by utilizing wearing 5th day wickets @ Lords & Oval & play a key role in ENG bowling out AUS. While Hauritz failed to do so in similar conditons @ Cardiff?

[GingerFurball]

Because Cardiff wasn't a wearing 5th day pitch, and Hauritz wasn't given much of an opportunity to bowl at England on the 5th day of any Tests.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Because Cardiff wasn't a wearing 5th day pitch, and Hauritz wasn't given much of an opportunity to bowl at England on the 5th day of any Tests.

spillsteajpg.

Cardiff wasn't a wearing 5th day pitch??. My word what where you watching - first you tell me in another thread Adelaide 09 (where Hauritz also failed to be penetrative when Benn took 5 wickets) wasn't turning & that was "worst test pitch ever- now this. Doing a very good job in proving that you dont watch cricket - or pay attention to key details.

Rough patches where everywhere on the last day & Hauritz certainly got turn out of them. But his failure was fact that although turn was present, ENG batsmen managed to keep he out - especially the tailenders. Jason Krejza would have done far better job on that final day.

[GIMH]

The oval wasn't a day five pitch tbh

[vic_orthdox]

KP could have played a hard, commanding sweep, he could have left it, he could have cover driven it. Simply put, Hauritz bowled a delivery which coaxed him into making the wrong decision, which is pretty much what spinners try to do to take wickets; and it doesn't have to be with wonderballs like Swann's to Farhat (who could have defended it off the back foot, or got his leg in line with the ball and padded it away seeing as it pitched outside leg) or a Murali doosra.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

KP could have played a hard, commanding sweep, he could have left it, he could have cover driven it. Simply put, Hauritz bowled a delivery which coaxed him into making the wrong decision, which is pretty much what spinners try to do to take wickets; and it doesn't have to be with wonderballs like Swann's to Farhat (who could have defended it off the back foot, or got his leg in line with the ball and padded it away seeing as it pitched outside leg) or a Murali doosra.

Nail, head, etc.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

KP could have played a hard, commanding sweep, he could have left it, he could have cover driven it. Simply put, Hauritz bowled a delivery which coaxed him into making the wrong decision, which is pretty much what spinners try to do to take wickets; and it doesn't have to be with wonderballs like Swann's to Farhat (who could have defended it off the back foot, or got his leg in line with the ball and padded it away seeing as it pitched outside leg) or a Murali doosra.

KP was only coaxed into playing that sweep because of the utter disdain he had for Hauritz & other joke/average spinners he has faced in his career either.

Its not the first time either. @ Kingston he tried a similar stupid shot going for hundred. Both of these dismissals where down to KP own stupidy & utter disdain for them - nothing to do with the ability of Hauritz & Benn. He would have never tried those shots facing Murali or Kumble etc.


Yes i agree & believe to an extent that dismissals through the batsman underrating and/or attacking avergae spinners are still valid (if not just as valid) in comparison to dismissals that come from something "special" (such as large amounts of drift and turn). As a finger spinner in particular, luring the batsman into underrating and/or attacking your bowling is probably how you're going to get a lot of your dismissals, by drawing batsmen into a false sense of security. Paul Harris & Giles are perfect examples of this.

But what those two guys have over Hauritz quite clearly as i've mentioned before is that thread of mine, is the ability to be wicket-taking (take 5 wicket hauls) againts the best of oppositions on a 4th or 5th day wearing pitch. Which is the main job of a spinner in tests.

All Haurtiz has proven he can do in such circumstances is be accurate - but not wicket-taking. So basically at the end of the day Australia when trying to bowl out a side in the 4th innings will still have to depend mainly on the fast-bowlers to take the wickets - since Haurtiz is not doing his job.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by aussie

Its not the first time either. @ Kingston he tried a similar stupid shot going for hundred. Both of these dismissals where down to KP own stupidy & utter disdain for them - nothing to do with the ability of Hauritz & Benn. He would have never tried those shots facing Murali or Kumble etc.

YouTube - Pietersen's reverse-sweep for SIX off Murali

Originally Posted by aussie

Yes i agree & believe to an extent that dismissals through the batsman underrating and/or attacking avergae spinners are still valid (if not just as valid) in comparison to dismissals that come from something "special" (such as large amounts of drift and turn). As a finger spinner in particular, luring the batsman into underrating and/or attacking your bowling is probably how you're going to get a lot of your dismissals, by drawing batsmen into a false sense of security. Paul Harris & Giles are perfect examples of this.

But what those two guys have over Hauritz quite clearly as i've mentioned before is that thread of mine, is the ability to be wicket-taking (take 5 wicket hauls) againts the best of oppositions on a 4th or 5th day wearing pitch. Which is the main job of a spinner in tests.

All Haurtiz has proven he can do in such circumstances is be accurate - but not wicket-taking. So basically at the end of the day Australia when trying to bowl out a side in the 4th innings will still have to depend mainly on the fast-bowlers to take the wickets - since Haurtiz is not doing his job.

His fourth innings average was highlighted by a number of commentators in the Australian summer, and he set about rectifying that; performing well against Pakistan in three tests which you've discounted for an understandable reason. He's had only one other chance to bowl in the last innings, and that was when he bowled pretty well against NZ, but Johnson was being a wrecking ball up the other end.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by aussie

KP was only coaxed into playing that sweep because of the utter disdain he had for Hauritz & other joke/average spinners he has faced in his career either.

Its not the first time either. @ Kingston he tried a similar stupid shot going for hundred. Both of these dismissals where down to KP own stupidy & utter disdain for them - nothing to do with the ability of Hauritz & Benn. He would have never tried those shots facing Murali or Kumble etc.

YouTube - Pietersen's reverse-sweep for SIX off Murali

[Top_Cat]

EDIT: Hah! @ Jack.

[tooextracool]

Think the point that is trying to be made here is that Pietersen is a ********. Hence deceiving him doesn't really require any sort of extraordinary genius, he tends to oblige by making himself look like an idiot. And its really what will probably ultimately separate him from greatness.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Think the point that is trying to be made here is that Pietersen is a ********. Hence deceiving him doesn't really require any sort of extraordinary genius, he tends to oblige by making himself look like an idiot. And its really what will probably ultimately separate him from greatness.

Maybe so but you won't get much agreement that KP got himself out and Hauritz just happened to be the palooka sending the ball down when he imploded either. Just because Hauritz played for that, doesn't mean he had no role in it and, tbh, those who argue otherwise don't get spin bowling.

[tooextracool]

Perhaps not though quite honestly, KP was doing just fine before he played that shot. Its not like Hauritz had bowled a tantalizingly frustrating spell to induce that shot. It was the first ball that Pietersen faced off a new spell.

[Top_Cat]

See, I don't quite agree with that either. KP was obviously looking to go after Hauritz and, for the large portion of the morning, couldn't get him away or, at least, couldn't land him rows back. KP looked comfortable against everyone but Hauritz, I thought. The chipped top-edge seemed inevitable and I get the feeling that's why Hauritz was bowled as much as he was by Ponting.

Ponting's captaincy is littered with examples where he pulled spinners out of the attack at the first sign of trouble but Hauritz seemed the most likely to take KP's wicket

[tooextracool]

Personally, I thought Pietersen looked fairly comfortable milking him away for singles and twos. Unfortunately, I dont think he's ever quite satisfied with that and he ends up trying to do something more extravagant.

Point anyhow is not that it wasn't an intelligent piece of bowling to firstly notice the premeditated sweep and to then toss it wide. Though I'd maintain till death that only an imbecile would have gone through with the sweep shot when it would have been called a wide for being that far outside off stump.

Edit: In other words I dont quite subscribe to the idea of him being coaxed into playing that shot by Hauritz. I think its more a case of his own rush of blood to the head.