-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Who's the better lower order batsman?
- Thread starter Matt79
- Start date
Matt79
Global Moderator
Some context for the argument - since the start of the Ashes, Johnson has scored 230 @ 13.52, with a HS of 63. Hauritz has scored 298 runs in two fewer matches @ 37.25, with a HS of 75.
Obviously, this timeframe precisely cuts out Johnson's steller series with the bat against SA, but I guess a part of my question is whether that series can now be seen as an abberration rather than the dawn of a new allrounder.
Much
to both players btw.
Obviously, this timeframe precisely cuts out Johnson's steller series with the bat against SA, but I guess a part of my question is whether that series can now be seen as an abberration rather than the dawn of a new allrounder.
Much
to both players btw.
Himannv
International Coach
Johnson was never a batsman for me, just a bowler who could score a few quick boundries if needed, nothing more. I'm far more impressed with his obvious talent with the ball as opposed to the little contributions he may or may not bring with the bat. I dont think Australia need any more allrounders with Watson in their side.
Not a big fan of Hauritz with the ball. His contributions with the bat are rather secondary in that respect. Miss watching Warne tbh..
Not a big fan of Hauritz with the ball. His contributions with the bat are rather secondary in that respect. Miss watching Warne tbh..
Matt79
Global Moderator
Kinda missing the point there Himannv. I'm not interested in weighing them as bowlers, but rather, as batsmen, given they're both secure in the team atm, yet Johnson is coming in ahead of Hauritz despite the disparity in their recent records I pointed out.
As to whether we "need" more allrounders, so long as they're good enough to merit selection on their stronger discipline alone (ie. Watson with the bat, Johnson with the ball), then you can never have too many allrounders - their second discipline is a bonus and the better they are at it the bigger the bonus.
As to whether we "need" more allrounders, so long as they're good enough to merit selection on their stronger discipline alone (ie. Watson with the bat, Johnson with the ball), then you can never have too many allrounders - their second discipline is a bonus and the better they are at it the bigger the bonus.
Last edited:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I personally have long thought that Hauritz is a better batsman. Probably not capable of some of the things that Johnson is, but Johnson has a reasonably loose game, and will be prone to going through fits of form with the bat, and also some dry spots. Hauritz is a bit tighter in defence.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Rather like Warney, Johnson seems to give the impression to the casual observer that he could be better if he gave more of a toss. Based on the little I've seen he looks to have the bigger array of shots to choose from, but seems determined to deploy them at the earliest op.
As a semi-related aside, was the selection of Harris a 100% pukka bowling call or did his batting come into the equation too? If it's the latter with Johnson and Doogie Hauritz coming below Haddin it seems unduly conservative IMHO.
As a semi-related aside, was the selection of Harris a 100% pukka bowling call or did his batting come into the equation too? If it's the latter with Johnson and Doogie Hauritz coming below Haddin it seems unduly conservative IMHO.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Nah, all on bowling. Known as a guy who can hold the willow, but not selected on it.
Basically has bullied his way into the side on the back of his super ODI performances, in which batting certainly wasn't a factor.
Basically has bullied his way into the side on the back of his super ODI performances, in which batting certainly wasn't a factor.
Noble One
International Vice-Captain
Hauritz was always rated highly for his batting as a junior. Made the Austalian U19 team as much for his batting ability as his off-spin talent.
Johnson has some form issues currently. He rarely bats well when he attempts to hit out from ball 1. Helps explain his average record with the bat in ODIs. He will come good again, an average of 20-25 is more reflective of his ability.
Johnson has some form issues currently. He rarely bats well when he attempts to hit out from ball 1. Helps explain his average record with the bat in ODIs. He will come good again, an average of 20-25 is more reflective of his ability.
Streetwise
Banned
Nah Hauritz is just a slogger and not a very good number 8 batsman, apparently.
Spark
Global Moderator
Much like today. However in such situations... well, I don't think you can include situations like today into account. Sure he could have taken his time and gotten 30, 40 like Hauritz, but instead he decided to try and hit it into outer space instead. Doesn't always work.
I thought it had been realised by all and sundry that Warne was quite simply a freak. To expect any up and coming spinner to even be within the same order of magnitude as him in terms of talent and skill is quite foolish, so we should stop comparing Hauritz to Warne. Hauritz has a job to do in the team and shockers such as Sunday aside he's doing it well.
Last edited:
Himannv
International Coach
Ah, well in that case, Johnson ahead of Hauritz. Just a matter of getting a bit of form I reckon.
Disagree on your allrounder theory though. I love Specialists.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I don't think it's a case of one being better than the other, they just have differing strengths.
Johnson's a more destructive batsmen when he gets going, whereas Hauritz is more obdurate. Hauritz will probably end his career having been the more consistent batsmen, possibly with a higher average, however Johnson will have played more memorable innings.
IMO, purely because of his destructive capabilities, Johnson should bat 8, Hauritz 9. If your 10 and 11 were Glenn McGrath and Chris Martin, you'd be wasting what Johnson can bring to the side with the bat by batting him below Hauritz.
Johnson's a more destructive batsmen when he gets going, whereas Hauritz is more obdurate. Hauritz will probably end his career having been the more consistent batsmen, possibly with a higher average, however Johnson will have played more memorable innings.
IMO, purely because of his destructive capabilities, Johnson should bat 8, Hauritz 9. If your 10 and 11 were Glenn McGrath and Chris Martin, you'd be wasting what Johnson can bring to the side with the bat by batting him below Hauritz.
Utterly unfair to group McGrath along with that hack Martin.
Admittedly he's not the greatest of bats, but if you consider that he averaged 10 (4 times Martin) for the any test in the 21st century (2001 onwards), duly unfair to place him alongside Martin as the 2 worst bats of recent times.
Admittedly he's not the greatest of bats, but if you consider that he averaged 10 (4 times Martin) for the any test in the 21st century (2001 onwards), duly unfair to place him alongside Martin as the 2 worst bats of recent times.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Jesus Christ, I'm not grouping McGrath with Martin, he's an example because he's probably the least talented tailender Australia have had while I've been watching cricket.
Martin's only an example because every other Aussie bowler has been useful to some degree with the bat.
Martin's only an example because every other Aussie bowler has been useful to some degree with the bat.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Yeah, that's exactly what Athlai said in the AUS vs NZ thread.Nah Hauritz is just a slogger and not a very good number 8 batsman, apparently.
To be fair to Johnson a lot of the times he has come in recently (obviously not the first innings in this test) Australia have already got a big score and some quick runs are needed.
He is one of those player though that looks like pretty awful at the start of his innings but when he gets in looks like a proper atacking batsman. Watched him make a 50 on the last day at Lords last year and I still have no idea how he did not get out to an inspired Flintoff early on but once he got in played some fantastic shots.