Nathan Hauritz

[pup11]

I think the reason why Hauritz gets so much stick, though, is because it's perceived that he's bowling his nuts off just to compete whereas Swann is still finding his range.

Was funny when Hauritz only started getting taken to when he was really turning them. Had a look of surprise which said "I bowl the ball outside off and it ends up over leg. Why's it doing that?!" He definitely bowled as well as I've ever seen him bowl yesterday, no doubt. It's a worrysome thought for Aus when he's off his game, though.

Well that's one way of looking at it, the other theory could be that Swann is a spin bowler full of confidence, who doesn't have to worry about the fact whether he would be playing in the next game or not, neither is he expected to bowl a line to contain the batsmen, rather than looking to get 'em out, and that confidence is reflected in the way he bowls.

I think we all would agree that, Hauritz looks a much better bowler when he gives the ball some air, but since he has been asked to hold one end up, bowling an enticing line or length isn't really an option for him, and to his credit he has done what's been asked of him pretty decently.

Moving on, I think one would see most Australian spin bowlers fairing a lot better when they play outside Australia on more receptive pitches, because back in Australia, they play on concrete block like pitches, which hardly offer them anything, and that's one of the main reasons why most of the Aussie spin bowlers have such shoddy FC career stats.

 

[Richard]

Five matches, 17 wickets @ 30 with an economy rate under three - what's wrong with that? I've watched Hauritz closely in domestic ODIs, and his bowling has improved out of sight. I believe, given Ponting shows confidence in him like he did last night, he can make commensurate improvements in the Test match theatre.

If showing confidence = letting him bowl when the easy wickets are up for grabs, yeah, for sure. Of those 17 wickets, 6 are Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Murali Kartik, Tim Southee, James Anderson and Monty Panesar. That is over 1\3 of wickets tailenders - there's also Duminy who was equivalent to a tailender as he was the last wicket of the innings. For all the fact that some people will claim he's also got the scalps of Tendulkar, Laxman, Smith, Kallis, Pietersen et al that's due to the fact that good batsmen are not batting machines, not the fact that he has an ability to actually bowl deliveries which good batsmen cannot play.

 

[andruid]

If showing confidence = letting him bowl when the easy wickets are up for grabs, yeah, for sure. Of those 17 wickets, 6 are Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Murali Kartik, Tim Southee, James Anderson and Monty Panesar. That is over 1\3 of wickets tailenders - there's also Duminy who was equivalent to a tailender as he was the last wicket of the innings. For all the fact that some people will claim he's also got the scalps of Tendulkar, Laxman, Smith, Kallis, Pietersen et al that's due to the fact that good batsmen are not batting machines, not the fact that he has an ability to actually bowl deliveries which good batsmen cannot play.

Really how does that work?

Aside from that the rest of the argument seems ok, but seriuosly how does that work? can a batsman's skill vary depending on how many wickets have fallen before or after he is dismissed?

 

[Richard]

You have noticed, haven't you, how batsmen tend to have a swing (rather than playing normally) when there's only one or two wickets left?

If not, that's a little worrying.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

If showing confidence = letting him bowl when the easy wickets are up for grabs, yeah, for sure. Of those 17 wickets, 6 are Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Murali Kartik, Tim Southee, James Anderson and Monty Panesar. That is over 1\3 of wickets tailenders - there's also Duminy who was equivalent to a tailender as he was the last wicket of the innings. For all the fact that some people will claim he's also got the scalps of Tendulkar, Laxman, Smith, Kallis, Pietersen et al that's due to the fact that good batsmen are not batting machines, not the fact that he has an ability to actually bowl deliveries which good batsmen cannot play.

Also not to mention that those wickets of Tendulkar and Laxman came on an absolute minefield that he will in all likelihood never play on again.

 

[Hoggy31]

If showing confidence = letting him bowl when the easy wickets are up for grabs, yeah, for sure. Of those 17 wickets, 6 are Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Murali Kartik, Tim Southee, James Anderson and Monty Panesar. That is over 1\3 of wickets tailenders - there's also Duminy who was equivalent to a tailender as he was the last wicket of the innings. For all the fact that some people will claim he's also got the scalps of Tendulkar, Laxman, Smith, Kallis, Pietersen et al that's due to the fact that good batsmen are not batting machines, not the fact that he has an ability to actually bowl deliveries which good batsmen cannot play.

Isn't cleaning up the tail a key part of a spinner's role?

Haha and ridiculous call on Duminy.

I'll keep backing him as long he does the job, bowled a few nasty deliveries on just the second morning (pitch etc.) and I reckon he's a good chance for 5 in the 2nd dig.

 

[Postmanpat]

Duminy wasn't trying to blast Hauritz out of the park, he top edged a sweep is all.

 

[Richard]

Are you seriously suggesting he'd have played that shot at virtually any other stage in his innings?

He'd barely hit a false stroke until then.

 

[Richard]

Isn't cleaning up the tail a key part of a spinner's role?

No.

Tail-end wickets are deserved by whichever bowlers have knocked-over the top-order. Bowlers who take 1-90 against the top-order then knock-over a couple of tailenders are near-worthless to the actual team cause.

 

[andruid]

You have noticed, haven't you, how batsmen tend to have a swing (rather than playing normally) when there's only one or two wickets left?

If not, that's a little worrying.

Ah, that's the argument TY

 

[Uppercut]

The thing about Hauritz's tail-end wickets is, the other three bowlers all had a go at cleaning them up first and didn't manage it. So you can't really say they added nothing to the team cause.

 

[social]

Well that's one way of looking at it, the other theory could be that Swann is a spin bowler full of confidence, who doesn't have to worry about the fact whether he would be playing in the next game or not, neither is he expected to bowl a line to contain the batsmen, rather than looking to get 'em out, and that confidence is reflected in the way he bowls.

I think we all would agree that, Hauritz looks a much better bowler when he gives the ball some air, but since he has been asked to hold one end up, bowling an enticing line or length isn't really an option for him, and to his credit he has done what's been asked of him pretty decently.

Moving on, I think one would see most Australian spin bowlers fairing a lot better when they play outside Australia on more receptive pitches, because back in Australia, they play on concrete block like pitches, which hardly offer them anything, and that's one of the main reasons why most of the Aussie spin bowlers have such shoddy FC career stats.

All good points

People should also remember that Hauritz is only 27 and is currently playing only his 51st fc match - in other words, he's a baby in terms of experience

Compare that to Swann with 190 matches and Monty with about 150

Personally, I can see improvements in his bowling and if he continues to develop, he might become a handy test bowler

 

[GIMH]

No.

Tail-end wickets are deserved by whichever bowlers have knocked-over the top-order. Bowlers who take 1-90 against the top-order then knock-over a couple of tailenders are near-worthless to the actual team cause.

Tail-end wickets are deserved by whichever bowler has the best chance of dismissing the tail, and nothing else. A captain's job is to take the wickets as quickly as possible, not to make sure bowlers end up with certain figures. Freddie, the ****ing best human of all-time, isn't great at cleaning up the tail (in Tests) and so I'd probably give the ball to harmison at that point rather than him if I was skipper. I don't give a **** about who averages what, all wickets need to be taken, nothing else.

England's tail added 100 yesterday, without that we'd be staring down the barrel. Tailend wickets are not worthless.

 

[Noble One]

Jimmy Anderson looked very unlikely to be dismissed by one of Siddle, Johnson or Hilfenhaus. It took a spin bowler tossing the ball up above eyeline to tempt Anderson into a high risk shot.

Hauritz's wicket was worth just as much as any possible middle order wicket, without it, England may well have scored 500+.

 

[Mister Wright]

You have noticed, haven't you, how batsmen tend to have a swing (rather than playing normally) when there's only one or two wickets left?

If not, that's a little worrying.

You obviously didn't watch that innings. Duminy was doing anything but hit out.

You also forget to mention the absolute sitter that Hussey bombed off Hauritz's bowling (the batsmen was Steyn, but it was early in his innings and he went on to get 60 odd).

 

[Mister Wright]

No.

Tail-end wickets are deserved by whichever bowlers have knocked-over the top-order. Bowlers who take 1-90 against the top-order then knock-over a couple of tailenders are near-worthless to the actual team cause.

So even Siddle who bowled really well, but didn't pick up the wickets doesn't deserve some wickets at the tail end?

 

[Hoggy31]

All good points

People should also remember that Hauritz is only 27 and is currently playing only his 51st fc match - in other words, he's a baby in terms of experience

Compare that to Swann with 190 matches and Monty with about 150

Personally, I can see improvements in his bowling and if he continues to develop, he might become a handy test bowler

Yeah this, was awful in the tour game when I watched but I've actually been impressed with his variation of side and over spin in this Test, not to mention drift. Definately could develop into more than a stop-gap solution, he's outbowled Swann by far this game.

 

[Pup Clarke]

he's outbowled Swann by far this game.

Swann has by no means been "good", but to say Hauritz has "outbowled" Swann "by far" is laughable frankly.

 

[aussie]

Haurtiz is Peter Taylor in reincarnation. Useless in test, solid in ODI's (depending on conditions).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reckon Hauritz could end up being the Giles of 2009. Everyone talking about how crap he is, end up with pretty ordinary figures, but played a role in the side that isn't really represented in figures.