Nathan Hauritz

[Noble One]

Reckon Hauritz will do a great job myself. He's always been a confidence bowler, and now he's recognized as first choice, I think he'll draw on that. I have noticed in the last season that he is flighting the ball more, and being around the Australian set-up regularly he could show a lot of improvement. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he takes consistent wickets.

Spot on regarding Hauritz as a confidence bowler. You only need to see his improvement in the ODI game to recognise how confidence plays such a large role in his game. Hauritz becomes more prepared to throw the ball up above the batsman's eyeline, and also looks to get more turn. When finding his way Hauritz is prone to just darting the ball in.

Dissapointing that an off-spinner cannot back his own game to begin with.

 

[Furball]

If he plays twice, he'll get Pietersen 3 times, purely because Pietersen will attempt to hit him into the next county.

 

[howardj]

I take my hat off to this man.

Gone from the ****house to the penthouse in record time.

Every time he turns the corner nowadays, it's blue skies.

I admire the way he went to NSW and has turned his career around.

He genuinely is a good offspinner nowadays.

 

[Smith]

Nah, there's really no such thing as an "off-spinner", just an off-break or a leg-break - and that depends 50% on batsman and 50% on bowler (an off-break to a RHB is a leg-break to a LHB and vice-versa).

There's just fingerspin and wristspin, and Murali is neither fingerspinnner nor orthodox wristspinner.

They didn't, they changed the rules because they realised they were based on false ideals. But anyway, Murali is incomparable to most other bowlers, because he has a physical deformity of the elbow which makes any straightening more apparent and even makes straightening appear apparent where there is none.

Nah, Botha isn't neccessarily using the same technique and has been found to be outside the limits. None of those others were - some, of course, were never tested.

Dude, this would be a good starting point to learn about off breaks and leg breaks.

Off break - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rivera213]

If he plays twice, he'll get Pietersen 3 times, purely because Pietersen will attempt to hit him into the next county.

Ha ha.

Yeah, Pietersen can't resist against mediocre bowlers. Yuvraj Singh being the obvious example.

Hopefully he wont play and reverse shots in the first test. It only takes 1 to grip and turn to make him look like a pillock.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dude, this would be a good starting point to learn about off breaks and leg breaks.

Off break - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, as far as I was aware it was categorised according to what they bowl to a right-handed batsman. And therefore a left-handed bowler is called 'orthodox' or 'chinaman' and not 'off-break' or 'leg-break' as it'd get confusing. Keeps it pretty simple and you always know what the bowler is bowling.

 

[JRF1973]

I take my hat off to this man.

Gone from the ****house to the penthouse in record time.

Every time he turns the corner nowadays, it's blue skies.

I admire the way he went to NSW and has turned his career around.

He genuinely is a good offspinner nowadays.

Give me a break Howie...

I think you have a man crush on Horrie. Pick the team and decide who will take more wickets - "Horrie" or the 4th Quick (which maybe Stuart Clark, or at worst case Hillfy).

I'd play piggy riddle as a spinner before horrie...

 

[jondavluc]

Give me a break Howie...

I think you have a man crush on Horrie. Pick the team and decide who will take more wickets - "Horrie" or the 4th Quick (which maybe Stuart Clark, or at worst case Hillfy).

I'd play piggy riddle as a spinner before horrie...

piggy riddle

 

[Richard]

Dude, this would be a good starting point to learn about off breaks and leg breaks.

Off break - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't need any of that - an off-break is a ball that turns into a batsman, a leg-break is one that turns away. Simple as that.

 

[Richard]

Categorisation of an off spinner or leg spinner is based on both the batsman and bowler using the same hand. Murali is an offie to RH so is categorized as an off spinner. In reality it's just something to label him.

Murali being the exception to the rule, 99.9% of wrist spinners are leggies to a batsman who uses the same hand and and 99.9% of finger spinners are offies.

Murali's an exception to hundreds of rules - the only thing there's any point, in my view, categorising him as is a spinner. He's no more an off-spinner than any other right-arm standard fingerspinner is, because he bowls at LHBs as often as anyone.

But they changed the rules as a result of reviewing them based on their decision to ban Murali's doosra. There are plenty of batsmen who think the initial rule was the correct one (degree of straightening). Adam Gilchrist being 1.

The rule was changed as a direct result of him. If Murali didn't exist, the rule would still be the same.

It was simply a rule that needed someone to show-up the absurdity of it. Murali turned-out to be that person - if he hadn't, someone else, eventually, would have done.

I just wish it'd happened years ago because with hindsight it's pretty embarrassing that it took until 2004 for the realisation to dawn that no bowler bowls with an arm that straightens to zero degrees, and that five degrees is also completely unreasonable to expect. With a bit of imagination and luck, that could've been spotted in 1970.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, as far as I was aware it was categorised according to what they bowl to a right-handed batsman. And therefore a left-handed bowler is called 'orthodox' or 'chinaman' and not 'off-break' or 'leg-break' as it'd get confusing. Keeps it pretty simple and you always know what the bowler is bowling.

The point is LHBs are hardly so irregular that you need to categorise everything according to a RHB. What's even more ridiculous is that you don't know what someone's bowling at all - all bowlers have a change-up ball of some sort, and more ridiculous still is that some bowlers have that change-up included in their old-school classification (it's generally standard to classify a right-arm wristspinner as "leg-break-googly") and some don't.

Personally I just prefer right-arm fingerspin, right-arm wristspin, left-arm fingerspin and left-arm wristspin. Keeps it simple and exceptions to the rule are recognised as exceptions. None of this "orthodox" or "chinaman" lark.

 

[Jakester1288]

I thought I posted this before but it appears I didn't or it got deleted somehow.

Hauritz is a very underrated Test cricketer and a very overrated limited overs cricketer. I reckon he will surprise a few people during this series.

 

[Noble One]

I thought I posted this before but it appears I didn't or it got deleted somehow.

Hauritz is a very underrated Test cricketer and a very overrated limited overs cricketer. I reckon he will surprise a few people during this series.

Overrated as a limited overs cricketer is a tad harsh. I believe his recent ODI efforts have been well above expectation and proved he has some ability in the limited overs game. He has been far superior to any other domestic spinner in the limited overs format for years now, and deserves the recognition as our number one ODI spinner.

As a Test cricketer, well he will never be a star. Just a solid contributor, should only play if the pitch is turning or is an obvious road.

 

[Jakester1288]

Overrated as a limited overs cricketer is a tad harsh. I believe his recent ODI efforts have been well above expectation and proved he has some ability in the limited overs game. He has been far superior to any other domestic spinner in the limited overs format for years now, and deserves the recognition as our number one ODI spinner.

As a Test cricketer, well he will never be a star. Just a solid contributor, should only play if the pitch is turning or is an obvious road.

No, he is overrated. A few good limited overs domestic games, lots of people think he is great, but he's not. He could probably get by playing for Australia as a spinner in both forms, but will never set the world on fire, but he won't let you down.

 

[pasag]

No, he is overrated. A few good limited overs domestic games, lots of people think he is great, but he's not. He could probably get by playing for Australia as a spinner in both forms, but will never set the world on fire, but he won't let you down.

Which is where most rate him. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks he'll set the world on fire.

 

[Noble One]

No, he is overrated. A few good limited overs domestic games, lots of people think he is great, but he's not. He could probably get by playing for Australia as a spinner in both forms, but will never set the world on fire, but he won't let you down.

I have never heard of anyone who speaks of Nathan Hauritz as a great finger spinner. Recognised as the most consistent ODD bowler, but thats not overrating Hauritz.

All Australia have needed since the retirement of Brad Hogg is a limited overs spinner than can send down 10 tightish overs, and possibly produce a wicket or two. Hauritz has been able to achieve that since his return for Australia, and it is an ability he has always displayed playing for Queensland and New South Wales.

No expectation that Hauritz will produce anything like a Vettori, Murali or Harby. But he is the best Australian limited overs spinner by a considerable margin, and he is rated spot on as a decent little cricketer. Nothing more.

 

[andyc]

I have never heard of anyone who speaks of Nathan Hauritz as a great finger spinner. Recognised as the most consistent ODD bowler, but thats not overrating Hauritz.

All Australia have needed since the retirement of Brad Hogg is a limited overs spinner than can send down 10 tightish overs, and possibly produce a wicket or two. Hauritz has been able to achieve that since his return for Australia, and it is an ability he has always displayed playing for Queensland and New South Wales.

No expectation that Hauritz will produce anything like a Vettori, Murali or Harby. But he is the best Australian limited overs spinner by a considerable margin, and he is rated spot on as a decent little cricketer. Nothing more.

Yeah, this.

 

[Burgey]

piggy riddle

May mean Piggy Riddell, former Saints and Parra hooker, now earning squillions in Uk Super League, and probably asleep in a gutter somewhere surrounded by beer cans and cheeseburger wrappers.

Good footy player though,and could turn his off break tbf.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The point is LHBs are hardly so irregular that you need to categorise everything according to a RHB. What's even more ridiculous is that you don't know what someone's bowling at all - all bowlers have a change-up ball of some sort, and more ridiculous still is that some bowlers have that change-up included in their old-school classification (it's generally standard to classify a right-arm wristspinner as "leg-break-googly") and some don't.

Personally I just prefer right-arm fingerspin, right-arm wristspin, left-arm fingerspin and left-arm wristspin. Keeps it simple and exceptions to the rule are recognised as exceptions. None of this "orthodox" or "chinaman" lark.

I think you'd find most people do Richard. I fail to see how what you've described makes it any easier. The change-up is irrelevant...you won't find any bowler classified solely on what they bowl as a change-up delivery. It sounds as though you have, but I've never seen it.

"And now coming on at the Member's End, Brett Lee the right-arm slower ball bowler."

And no, you don't need to categorise everything for a right-handed bat but I'd say it was done out of simplicity and not because there weren't any left-handers around at the time.

 

[Richard]

Classifications essentially imply that there aren't any change-up deliveries. That's why I don't like them. I prefer a classification that says only something a bowler does all the time. IE, a bowler is always a seamer even if he's fast sometimes and medium-fast on his slower-delivery; a bowler is always a fingerspinner whether they're bowling standard fingerspinner's (to like-hander) Off-Break or Doosra; a bowler is always a wristspinner whether they're bowling a standard wristspinner's Leg-Break (to like-hander) or Googly (or Flipper). And a right-armer is always a right-armer whether they're bowling seam or spin.

Either that or just use "right-arm orthodox" and "left-arm orthodox" or whatever.