Nathan Hauritz

[pup11]

Indeed, people ridicule me when I say he is good but he is accurate and turns the ball. He doesn't get much drift nor is his flight magnificant so he won't be great but he has the tools to do well on a consistent basis.

He doesn't get much drift...?

Tbh, one of Hauritz' big strengths is the kind of drift he gets, he has never been a big turner of the ball, but his drift and accuracy have always been his big assets to his bowling.

I think confidence can do wonder s to the way a bowler bowls, I have never seen Hauritz flight and turn the ball as beautifully as he has done in the last two games, I think Warney summed up Hauritz's case pretty well he was on air, Nathan Hauritz is a constantly improving cricketer, and the more he plays, the better he would become.

I think one can pretty comfortably say he would never be a world-beater, but nonetheless he could be a very handy part of the Australian bowling attack in the upcoming future.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hauritz bowled sensationally last night. His drift was extreme, coming from well outside offstump and landing close to middle. A sight to see. His ball to get Strauss was a GEM!

Who'd have thought at the start of the series he'd be the 1st or 2nd bowler selected for the 3rd test.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Who'd have thought at the start of the series he'd be the 1st or 2nd bowler selected for the 3rd test.

I had a feeling he'd do OK, more to England's inepitude against spin.

 

[Richard]

Sunday morning breakfast of humble pie for all the Hauritz Haters.

Horrie: Six Tests, 23 wickets @ 30 with an economy rate of 2.83

Most importantly, both in ODIs and Tests, the more he plays, the more he improves.

No matter how many times it keeps being said, things will change eventually. Bowlers do not get First-Class averages of all but 50 for no reason.

 

[Hoggy31]

Haha, if CW was around in the early ninetees you'd still be bumping the Shane Warne thread waiting for him to go bad.

 

[Richard]

No I wouldn't. Warne didn't play in an Ashes before he became good.

In any case Hauritz will eventually get the figures he deserves - Warne was good. Hauritz is crap.

 

[Matt79]

And that will obviously never change.

Sometimes Rich, you need to be prepared to consider that a player might still be learning their craft when you see them the first time.

 

[Top_Cat]

And that will obviously never change.

Sometimes Rich, you need to be prepared to consider that a player might still be learning their craft when you see them the first time.

"Then why were they selected in the first place? Should be the finished product by the time they're playing Tests!"

</Richard>

 

[Richard]

And that will obviously never change.

Sometimes Rich, you need to be prepared to consider that a player might still be learning their craft when you see them the first time.

I'm quite prepared to consider it. However, Hauritz was exactly the same bowler that I saw at 20 in 2001/02 as he was at 27 in 2008/09. Seems rather a long-shot that he was learning his craft all that time. Strikes me instead that he'd hit his own ceiling and was never going to get better.

So no, I do indeed not accept that Hauritz remains anything other than hopeless, and hopefully it won't be too long before his Test average starts to balloon up to where it belongs.

 

[Richard]

"Then why were they selected in the first place? Should be the finished product by the time they're playing Tests!"

</Richard>

Obviously you don't neccessarily expect someone to have maximised all their potential before being picked for Tests (some have decent-good, and lengthy, Test careers without ever maximising their potential) but it is pretty stupid to pick someone prematurely, knowing full well it's premature.

 

[Matt79]

I'm quite prepared to consider it. However, Hauritz was exactly the same bowler that I saw at 20 in 2001/02 as he was at 27 in 2008/09. Seems rather a long-shot that he was learning his craft all that time. Strikes me instead that he'd hit his own ceiling and was never going to get better.

So no, I do indeed not accept that Hauritz remains anything other than hopeless, and hopefully it won't be too long before his Test average starts to balloon up to where it belongs.

Reckon he's a patently better bowler ATM than he was at the start of the 08/09 Aussie summer. Think Ponting should be credited for this in large part - he's instilled the confidence in Hauritz to bowl in a more attacking manner and feel confident enough not to go back into his shell when attacked. Has made him into a different bowler.

I hope he continues this type of bowling personally.

 

[Richard]

Funny how no matter how "attacking" he supposedly is most of his wickets have come through batsman error rather than good deliveries that have actually turned.

In fact no fingerspinner can be "attacking" just through thinking "let's attack", because when you bowl at 50mph you are required to turn the ball to attack. Fingerspinners, and Hauritz more than most, cannot do that on most surfaces. Heck, even when Hauritz has turned the ball (both decks for the opening two Tests this series have indeed turned) he's produced a whole 1 genuine wicket-taking ball (that being the one to Strauss in the Lord's second-innings).

Hauritz to me is no different now from the start of the 2008/09 summer, he's merely profited from relatively poor England batting, same way Johnson has.

 

[Matt79]

And having got to the real issue that colours your assessment of Hauritz, I'll leave the discussion there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And having got to the real issue that colours your assessment of Hauritz, I'll leave the discussion there.

Fascinated to know what Dick said, but would hazard a guess that the phrases "fingerspinners need helpful tracks" and "batsman's error/gifted wickets" or synonyms thereof crop up in there somewhere.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fascinated to know what Dick said, but would hazard a guess that the phrases "fingerspinners need helpful tracks" and "batsman's error/gifted wickets" or synonyms thereof crop up in there somewhere.

Spot on!

 

[Richard]

Fascinated to know what Dick said, but would hazard a guess that the phrases "fingerspinners need helpful tracks" and "batsman's error/gifted wickets" or synonyms thereof crop up in there somewhere.

Some things are so obvious they need to be said. Not really the sort of thing that takes Einstein to figure-out, any fool should be able to do that.

 

[Richard]

And having got to the real issue that colours your assessment of Hauritz, I'll leave the discussion there.

What, that I don't consider Hauritz bowled wicket-taking balls in the Tests in question? Or that I have a realistic assessment of the limitations of fingerspin?

 

[Matt79]

More that we all view the game through the prism of our beliefs and understanding of the game, and that while I honestly think you spend a lot of time thinking about cricket and have some very interesting and valid views, you also have some very deeply held views that IMO are simply wrong. There are instances where those views lead to you assessments I don't agree with, and fair enough - it would be a boring site and world if we all agreed. That said, I think we've discussed some of those views enough for me to say that we'll simply have to agree to disagree - I'm not interested in repeating the same discussion over and over.

 

[stephen]

I disagree that a spinner's greatest weapon is turn.

A spinner's greatest weapon is actually flight and drift. Warne himself said that a spinner does not beat a batsman off the pitch but through the air. You only need the ball to turn enough to catch the edge to take a wicket.

By the way Richard, most batmsen get out by gifting their wicket to the bowler. They do so because it's ridiculously hard to concentrate for hours and not make a mistake. Yet out is out and the bowler rightly gets the credit because they were the one who caused the lapse in concentration.

 

[Jamee999]

Fascinated to know what Dick said, but would hazard a guess that the phrases "fingerspinners need helpful tracks" and "batsman's error/gifted wickets" or synonyms thereof crop up in there somewhere.

This is ridiculous, how can someone be that predictable?