Nathan Hauritz

[pup11]

Lots of opportunities will be given to anyone who shows a hint of ability

Have heard some reasonable things about Holland. What's your view?

I have read previously that like of Border and Jenner rate him pretty highly, he has all the qualities that Jack just mentioned, and they say that he's pretty similar to Daniel Vettori, but frankly speaking whatever little I have seen of him, he just come across as a steady spinner, and nothing more than that.

He's still pretty young though and the upcoming season should provide him with opportunities to show really how good he is, he's currently playing in OD games against Pakistan A, but I would have rather had Xavier Doherty instead of him as the OD spinner.

 

[Uppercut]

So, umm, Hauritz is actually a pretty decent tweaker.

 

[Prince EWS]

So, umm, Hauritz is actually a pretty decent tweaker.

Based on one game?

Sorry, but I'm much more inclined to take the evidence of 46 First Class games on board than one Test in favourable conditions. He's shown some things in this game that I really didn't think he was capable of at all and clearly improved in the last year or so, so good on him, but he's still a long, lonnnng way from convincing me he's a Test standard bowler, let alone "pretty decent".

There have been hundreds of terrible bowlers throughout history who have looked good in one game, and in fact even larger sample sizes than that. I can see why people who backed him from the start would be saying "I told you so" as this performance backs up their opinion as such, but I don't think people should actually be changing their opinions drastically based on this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Never said anything to the contrary, but people (Brumby in particular) calling it a rank wide etc etc when he obviously bowled it as a reaction to Pietersen's idiocy.

In fairness I actually said if Pietersen had left it it could have been called wide. Which is true. Pietersen's idiocy unfortunately extended to going through with the shot despite Hauritz pushing it out.

Has looked different bowler this innings tho, in fairness.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

In fairness I actually said if Pietersen had left it it could have been called wide. Which is true. Pietersen's idiocy unfortunately extended to going through with the shot despite Hauritz pushing it out.

If Pietersen was shaping to leave it then it never would've been bowled. Once he commited to it he was never pulling out, regardless.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If Pietersen was shaping to leave it then it never would've been bowled. Once he commited to it he was never pulling out, regardless.

Had time to adjust, surely? Dead slow pitch and all. Just the ego of the bloke that made him go through with it.

 

[Uppercut]

Based on one game?

Sorry, but I'm much more inclined to take the evidence of 46 First Class games on board than one Test in favourable conditions. He's shown some things in this game that I really didn't think he was capable of at all and clearly improved in the last year or so, so good on him, but he's still a long, lonnnng way from convincing me he's a Test standard bowler, let alone "pretty decent".

There have been hundreds of terrible bowlers throughout history who have looked good in one game, and in fact even larger sample sizes than that. I can see why people who backed him from the start would be saying "I told you so" as this performance backs up their opinion as such, but I don't think people should actually be changing their opinions drastically based on this.

Well, he's looked decent. His first-class career tells me he's been ineffective for a large part of his career. It could be because he was useless, because the pitches never favoured him, or because Aussie domestic stuff has a ridiculously high standard of batting. Or all three. But right here, right now, he looks a decent enough tweaker on a turning pitch. Nothing special, but decent enough. Certainly not the pie merchant he was made out to be in the build-up.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, he's looked decent. His first-class career tells me he's been ineffective for a large part of his career. It could be because he was useless, because the pitches never favoured him, or because Aussie domestic stuff has a ridiculously high standard of batting. Or all three. But right here, right now, he looks a decent enough tweaker on a turning pitch. Nothing special, but decent enough. Certainly not the pie merchant he was made out to be in the build-up.

I don't disagree with that.

What I take issue with is your assumption that if someone looks a certain standard in one match, they are of that standard. What someone looks in a small sample and what they actually are quite often two completely different things. You didn't say he looked decent in this'n; you said that he is decent. I can't agree with that at all.

I didn't think Hauritz could actually be a threatening Test bowler in conditions anything short of being absolutely ridiculously in his favour, and he's proven me wrong on that front. Test cricket isn't just about what you can do when you're at your best and the conditions are in your favour though - it's about replicating it consistently, and a long span of First Class cricket is a much better indication of whether he's going to be able to do that than one match in favourable conditions.. Jason Krejza will testify to that. It's a far cry between having a good game and being a 'pretty decent' bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't disagree with that.

What I take issue with is your assumption that if someone looks a certain standard in one match, they are of that standard. What someone looks in a small sample and what they actually are quite often two completely different things. You didn't say he looked decent in this'n; you said that he is decent. I can't agree with that at all.

I didn't think Hauritz could actually be a threatening Test bowler in conditions anything short of being absolutely ridiculously in his favour, and he's proven me wrong on that front. Test cricket isn't just about what you can do when you're at your best and the conditions are in your favour though - it's about replicating it consistently, and a long span of First Class cricket is a much better indication of whether he's going to be able to do that than one match in favourable conditions.. Jason Krejza will testify to that. It's a far cry between having a good game and being a 'pretty decent' bowler.

*Shrug*

He looks pretty decent then. Has justified the decision to pick him in this game, although he'll play at Lord's too and probably shouldn't.

 

[wpdavid]

*Shrug*

He looks pretty decent then. Has justified the decision to pick him in this game, although he'll play at Lord's too and probably shouldn't.

I still think England would rather see Hauritz than Clark at Lord's.

 

[social]

Cant believe that people are still being so tough on Hauritz - bowled beautiffully today, justified his selection and looks a waaaaaaaaaaaaay better bowler than his direct opponents (Swann has technical issues and Monty has zero variation)

Big deal if he has a **** fc record from bowling at the Gabba - name me a finger-spinner that doesnt? How good have Murali or Harby looked there? Pretty !@@#$$$% terrible that's what

Give the kid a break

 

[aussie]

Hauritz performance

Well as one of his biggest critics, its clear he bowled very well today but still the performance should be taken with a BIG pinch of salt.

It was just like Suliemann Benn vs ENG @ Jamaica early this year. A very average spinner utilizing a help-ful 5th day surface. But overall it doesn't change the fact that his overall presence affects the balance of AUS bowling attack.

But IF England's batting continues to look so vulnerable throughout the series, along with the conditions in the next 4 test becoming more helpful for the pace trio. Unfortunately & irritatingly, Neilsen & Ponting would have a legitimate reason to pick Haurtiz, since ENGs batting may not have the nouse to take advantage of him like a South Africa, IND or SRI (at home).

 

[Manee]

I still think England would rather see Hauritz than Clark at Lord's.

Indeed. Clark is similar to Mcgrath and may get the ball to go down the slope into the stumps with good control. Pace is not an issue when there is such a slope and a bowler who can control the ball.

 

[howardj]

I'm serving up helpings of humble pie.

Come into this thread, apologise, and get your bellyfull - especially Richard.

You know who you are.

 

[DaRick]

Well, he bowled very well throughout the second innings and not too badly during the first. He was easily better than Swann and Panesar, that's for sure. Honestly, some of the criticism he has received has been insane, as if he does a Bryce McGain every time he steps onto the field.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hauritz did a great job in this test, was far better than the man who was going to spin England to victory and Monty.

I don't think he should be picked in the next test on the basis of this performance however, depending on the conditions though of course.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well as one of his biggest critics, its clear he bowled very well today but still the performance should be taken with a BIG pinch of salt.

It was just like Suliemann Benn vs ENG @ Jamaica early this year. A very average spinner utilizing a help-ful 5th day surface. But overall it doesn't change the fact that his overall presence affects the balance of AUS bowling attack.

But IF England's batting continues to look so vulnerable throughout the series, along with the conditions in the next 4 test becoming more helpful for the pace trio. Unfortunately & irritatingly, Neilsen & Ponting would have a legitimate reason to pick Haurtiz, since ENGs batting may not have the nouse to take advantage of him like a South Africa, IND or SRI (at home).

Surely the spinner being there actually helps the "balance" of the bowling attack. Its whether or not he's good enough to be a test cricketer that's the issue.

 

[inbox24]

Still think Hauritz should only play in conditions that really really favour him (at best). On flat pitches (which is quick becoming the norm) he really doesn't offer much and will only get wickets if batsmen make mistakes like in England's first innings.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Still think Hauritz should only play in conditions that really really favour him (at best). On flat pitches (which is quick becoming the norm) he really doesn't offer much and will only get wickets if batsmen make mistakes like in England's first innings.

Oh, we will, inny, we will.

Hauritz bowled very well in the second dig and fair play to him. Almost visibly grew into his role whilst his opposite number shrank from his when it became obvious the Australian batsmen weren't going to show the kind of largesse the West Indians had.

 

[pup11]

I don't disagree with that.

What I take issue with is your assumption that if someone looks a certain standard in one match, they are of that standard. What someone looks in a small sample and what they actually are quite often two completely different things. You didn't say he looked decent in this'n; you said that he is decent. I can't agree with that at all.

I didn't think Hauritz could actually be a threatening Test bowler in conditions anything short of being absolutely ridiculously in his favour, and he's proven me wrong on that front. Test cricket isn't just about what you can do when you're at your best and the conditions are in your favour though - it's about replicating it consistently, and a long span of First Class cricket is a much better indication of whether he's going to be able to do that than one match in favourable conditions.. Jason Krejza will testify to that. It's a far cry between having a good game and being a 'pretty decent' bowler.

I think the way spinners are treated in Australian domestic scene by their captains and their state associations has a lot to do with their current predicament, there is obviously nothing their in the pitches for them and they are just picked in the sides on CA insistence, on a lot of occasions they aren't even given many overs to bowl.

Shane Warne one of the greatest spinners to have ever played the game, has time and again said how important it is for the spinners to be treated nicely by their captains, as confidence plays a huge role in how a spinner bowls, despite the whole world criticising Hauritz during the lead-up to the 1st test, Ponting showed faith in him, made him feel as if he belongs to this stage and as a result the improvements in Hauritz's bowling were also there for all to see.

Like you said Hauritz still has a long way to go, but the bloke has a very good temperament, and he has shown signs of improvement throughout the last 12 months, so if he is backed by his selectors and captain, and is given a decent run then I am sure he would improve further as a bowler, and probably would also add more variations to his bowling with time.