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.
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.
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.
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.
EDIT: Hah! @ Jack.
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.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Last edited by Top_Cat; 22-08-2010 at 10:13 PM.
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.
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
Last edited by Top_Cat; 22-08-2010 at 10:24 PM.
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.
Last edited by tooextracool; 22-08-2010 at 10:30 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)