Nathan Hauritz and Jason Krejza

[karan316]

Hauritz
When Nathan Haurtiz made his debut against India, he looked like a pretty decent spin bowler, as he played more matches, he improved drastically and was having enough variations and was looking like a long term prospect, I think he wasn't handled well by Ponting and the selectors, I feel like he is still the best spinner Australia has at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mclxVSlyo

Krejza
12 wickets in his first test against India, and then he plays just one more test,
can't understand why he didn't go on to play more tests. I saw his bowling in the Australian domestic matches which are shown on star sports recently, he is such an attacking off spinner, I feel like he deserved a few more chances, and he wasn't handled well just like Hauritz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUUC8AKMOws&feature=related

Did the selectors and captain get too impatient with both of them and ruined their careers or did they deserve to get dropped??

 

[sudhindra9]

Hauritz. But stick with Lyon for now

 

[Prince EWS]

Krejza was always only going to be successful on genuine turners as he only really has any degree of control over one delivery - the flighted off break - and even with that he loses control of his length at times. On a pitch doing something he'll be enough of a threat to get away with that but Australia do not play on many turners and the selectors were not prepared to go 'horses for courses' with their spinners, which is why he was dropped. He was handled poorly and it was very harsh but given what the selectors and captain seem to want from the spinner it was probably for the best interests of the side. I'd still take him over Hauritz, Beer or O'Keefe in the subcontinent despite his lack of domestic success but it's frankly not going to happen. In terms of a spinner who has to play every match for Australia he wouldn't even be in the my top three choices anymore and I was by far his biggest fan on this forum before his Test debut. He's still one of my favourite cricketers but unless he improves his game he's done as a Test bowler.

Hauritz was the opposite; he was (usually) quite good at being the holding, pressure-building bowler the selectors wanted on pitches that weren't turning, but he didn't and still doesn't have the game to be a main attacking threat when conditions suit. When the ball is turning or the pitch is slow and you need your spinner to stand up and become a strike bowler, Hauritz is never going to do that for you, and his poor second innings record (match of questionable purity against Pakistan excluded) backs that up. In a lot of ways he was only performing the role another seamer could've done. I've never really rated him highly in general but to his credit he has improved out of sight since moving from Queensland to New South Wales to the point where he's now a good domestic FC cricketer (he wasn't even that when he was selected originally) and even held his own at Test level. Personally I'd take O'Keefe over Hauritz if a Hauritz-type cricketer (pressure-building stock spinner who can bat) was wanted.

Lyon's the best of both worlds. He has the control and variation of Hauritz with (almost) the turn, bounce and attacking instincts of Krejza. His only real issue for mine - and he'll admit this himself, freely - is that he's barely played any matches that last longer than three days throughout his cricket career due to the poor structure of the Futures League/CA Cup when he played in it, so he can struggle with stamina across five days or back to back Tests. I'm confident this issue will go away as he plays more First Class cricket, though, and make him an even better bowler. I called it before his first Test despite his lack of experience (or even meaningful performance in that limited experience) that he had the genuine potential to be a Test standard spinner in all conditions for Australia, above and beyond the other options, and he's given me no reason to back down on that.

 

[karan316]

Krejza was always only going to be successful on genuine turners as he only really has any degree of control over one delivery - the flighted off break - and even with that he loses control of his length at times. On a pitch doing something he'll be enough of a threat to get away with that but Australia do not play on many turners and the selectors were not prepared to go 'horses for courses' with their spinners, which is why he was dropped. He was handled poorly and it was very harsh but given what the selectors and captain seem to want from the spinner it was probably for the best interests of the side. I'd still take him over Hauritz, Beer or O'Keefe in the subcontinent despite his lack of domestic success but it's frankly not going to happen. In terms of a spinner who has to play every match for Australia he wouldn't even be in the my top three choices anymore and I was by far his biggest fan on this forum before his Test debut. He's still one of my favourite cricketers but unless he improves his game he's done as a Test bowler.

Hauritz was the opposite; he was (usually) quite good at being the holding, pressure-building bowler the selectors wanted on pitches that weren't turning, but he didn't and still doesn't have the game to be a main attacking threat when conditions suit. When the ball is turning or the pitch is slow and you need your spinner to stand up and become a strike bowler, Hauritz is never going to do that for you, and his poor second innings record (match of questionable purity against Pakistan excluded) backs that up. In a lot of ways he was only performing the role another seamer could've done. I've never really rated him highly in general but to his credit he has improved out of sight since moving from Queensland to New South Wales to the point where he's now a good domestic FC cricketer (he wasn't even that when he was selected originally) and even held his own at Test level. Personally I'd take O'Keefe over Hauritz if a Hauritz-type cricketer (pressure-building stock spinner who can bat) was wanted.

Lyon's the best of both worlds. He has the control and variation of Hauritz with (almost) the turn, bounce and attacking instincts of Krejza. His only real issue for mine - and he'll admit this himself, freely - is that he's barely played any matches that last longer than three days throughout his cricket career due to the poor structure of the Futures League/CA Cup when he played in it, so he can struggle with stamina across five days or back to back Tests. I'm confident this issue will go away as he plays more First Class cricket, though, and make him an even better bowler. I called it before his first Test despite his lack of experience (or even meaningful performance in that limited experience) that he had the genuine potential to be a Test standard spinner in all conditions for Australia, above and beyond the other options, and he's given me no reason to back down on that.

Agree with you totally on what you said about Krejza,
but still, they should have at least tried him for a few more tests and see what he has to offer,your assessment about his style of bowling is correct but if he picked 12 wickets on his debut against India, then he deserved a few more tests before finally judging him. One thing which i loved in his bowling is the way he kept on trying to pickup wickets and kept on attacking the batsmen.

And about Hauritz, I think he had the potential and wasn't just an economical bowler,
Ponting didn't back him and even Warne criticized him of not handling Hauritz well in the last series he played against India. I still feel like he is a long term prospect, atleast for tests I would say he is better than Lyon.

 

[Nomanculture]

How about giving O'keefe a chance at higher levels, rather than just making him a T20 specialist? I thought, when he took a 7-for against a touring SL-A side in a FC match a few years back, that he would go on to become a regular member in the Aussie side.

 

[Cabinet96]

Hauritz. But stick with Lyon for now

This. You can't really drop Lyon until he does something wrong. But would like to see Hauritz come back soon, possibly for India?

 

[Uppercut]

The treatment of Hauritz this time last year was absolutely obscene and for that reason alone I'd quite like to see him come back into the side at some stage. But I do think Lyon looks a slightly better bowler than Hauritz ever did for Australia.

 

[Hurricane]

Hauritz got more drift than lyon and in fact more than anyone I have seen. But this didn't worry top batsmen.

I want to see Lyon on a "normal" pitch to see how much he turns it. The amount of spin he got at the Gabba was terrific. Double that of Vettori.

 

[NZTailender]

Hauritz got more drift than lyon and in fact more than anyone I have seen. But this didn't worry top batsmen.

I want to see Lyon on a "normal" pitch to see how much he turns it. The amount of spin he got at the Gabba was terrific. Double that of Vettori.

That's hardly wraps for how much he turns a ball...

 

[Zinzan]

Lyon's looks the most likely of the 3

 

[Spikey]

Just a reminder - KREJZA IS AND ALWAYS WAS A **** PLAYER AND HIS TEST DEBUT RESULTS ARE AKIN TO JASON GILLESPIE'S DOUBLE TON

 

[Spikey]

I'm sorry that was mean. At least Gillespie has a couple of FC hundreds.

 

[Nate]

O'Keefers!

 

[sunilreddy]

Lyon- Because he saved Australia from Humiliation by scoring valuable 14 runs.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I would've persisted with Krezja. He looked to be a genuinely attacking spinner..I would've hedged my bets that the control would've arrived with a little more confidence shown in his abilities.

Lyon is good, though. Hauritz, strictly pedestrian.

 

[TumTum]

Even I wouldn't have any trouble playing Hauritz. Krejza just has no control. Obvious answer is Lyon.

 

[Furball]

Tell us more about spin bowling please.

 

[karan316]

I would've persisted with Krezja. He looked to be a genuinely attacking spinner..I would've hedged my bets that the control would've arrived with a little more confidence shown in his abilities.

Lyon is good, though. Hauritz, strictly pedestrian.

What PEWS said about Krejza was pretty correct, but I think the best thing with Krejza was that he would keep attacking the batsmen all the time, a lot of times you see that spinners don't bowl with the same intensity if they do not pick wickets in their first 2 or 3 spells,that didn't happen with Krejza, he kept on trying hard.
He deserved atleast a few more test to see how well he can bowl in different conditions and if he can improve, just assuming that he wouldn't have done well wasn't a good idea.

 

[Spikey]

We weren't assuming, we were basing it on a first class career that had been totally mediocre up to that point. To go back to the man above, because Gillespie scored that double ton should we have kept him on at number 3? Of course not. The debut match is a huge, huge outlier in his entire FC career. One of the biggest ever actually. I mean at least Ajit Agarkar has a 5 wicket haul at first class level! (that could be a good thread.....)

Remember though, Krejza missed a game through injury where Hauritz came in and did a very solid job, and then Krejza had that WACA nightmare/standard performance and so it was a bit of a no brainer really.

 

[Flem274*]

Hauritz is a good bowler. He's no Lyon, but he did his job. He kept things tight and chipped in with wickets. He's hardly the first spinner to get hit around by the Indians.

Wasn't a huge turner of the ball from what I saw, but he varied his flight and got a bit of drift to beat the batsmen, and he can land six consecutive balls in good spots.