Why Don’t I care more?

[Top_Cat]

Ridiculous how much people under-rate how well Hauritz has bowled. Exceeded expectations by some distance (partly because they were so low) and has been one of the best bowlers in the series. You don't get Test wickets by accident as supposedly vastly superior bowled such as Krejza and Mcgain found out. He's laid on the pressure, gotten wickets by bowling tightly and gotten the occasional pole with a decent ball, averaging low-30's. Exactly what you expect from an offie who isn't the cutting edge of the attack to do.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's a non-disastrous set of figures, but like his figures in 2008/09, and those in the single game in 2004/05, it flatters him enormously. He's bowled nothing like that well, and had he a) been played more competently by top-order batsmen and b) had less chance to bowl at tailenders his average would be around about the 50-60 mark.

Pointless thing to say. If batters played McGrath better, he wouldn't have been an all-time great.

It's total rubbish to say he only bowled at the tail. Without dominating, he's managed to tie up the English batters just fine, just needed to watch the matches to see that, he's had plenty of the ball at the top-order.

That Strauss ball is about the only Test wicket I've seen him get by genuinely bowling a good ball, rather than having batsmen make gross errors.

Missed the ball he got Ravi with at lords then? Turned and popped. The LBW in the same innings was a decent arm-ball too. And the way he sucked-in Strauss at Cardiff was classic tactical off-spin bowling; get the bloke cutting then throw in the quicker straight one, nick behind, thank ya Strauss on your way chum.

Point is, once again, he's no world-beater but neither is he some n00b who has been gifted wickets from batters going after him.

The point was even despite bowling decently, he was still unable to punish England's quest for quick runs by taking 4-5 wickets (as, say, a MacGill would almost certainly have done, and in fact did, several times), nor stop them getting said quick runs.

MacGill was a better bowler. What a revelation. Doesn't and shouldn't diminish Hauritz's work.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've not seen him bowl that much like, but in our second dig at Lord's I thought he bowled really well

Richard admitted earlier that he hasn't watched chunks of this series so his opinion that he hasn't changed much is unusual given he has probably missed him bowl on occasions.

 

[Uppercut]

Missed the ball he got Ravi with at lords then? Turned and popped. The LBW in the same innings was a decent arm-ball too. And the way he sucked-in Strauss at Cardiff was classic tactical off-spin bowling; get the bloke cutting then throw in the quicker straight one, nick behind, thank ya Strauss on your way chum.

Point is, once again, he's no world-beater but neither is he some n00b who has been gifted wickets from batters going after him.

The ball that got Prior in the second innings at Cardiff was fantastic too. The ball that pitches slightly shorter and wider and turns dramatically into a batsman looking to cut is about as good a ball as any spinner can ever bowl to Prior.

What about the one that got Freddie at Edgbaston? Pitched in the rough then took off towards his glove like a homing missile. Absolute jaffa.

 

[tooextracool]

What about the one that got Freddie at Edgbaston? Pitched in the rough then took off towards his glove like a homing missile. Absolute jaffa.

Err just no. Yes the rough in the pitch caused the ball to turn, wow Hauritz is such a skillful genius
And even despite that, it was almost certainly down to poor batting technique against spin rather than that being a wicket-taking delivery.

Seriously, I have no problems admitting that Hauritz has improved as a bowler from his early days and even from the winter tours. But get a grip, he hasn't outbowled Swann this series (if his figures are better its because hes been allowed to do so) nor has he been anything other than average.

 

[Richard]

You don't get Test wickets by accident

A fair portion of wickets, at Test level or anywhere else, fall because of batting error alone, with no good bowling involved. Test batsmen are not batting machines and make errors with plentiful regularity.

 

[Richard]

Pointless thing to say. If batters played McGrath better, he wouldn't have been an all-time great.

Debateable. McGrath had the ability to oust batsmen regardless of whether said batsmen did everything in their power to resist or not. What you're essentially saying is that bowling is better if it's played poorly, well, no, I disagree.

It's total rubbish to say he only bowled at the tail.

Which might just be why I didn't say it, I said if he'd bowled less at tailenders his figures would be worse. At least 3 times in his career so far he's had 1\2-for-plenty\0-for-not-much and ended-up with a couple of tail-end wickets to make figures look respectable\good.

Missed the ball he got Ravi with at lords then? Turned and popped.

Harmless ball that only got a wicket due to bad batting, AFAIC.

The LBW in the same innings was a decent arm-ball too.

The Cook one? Was an undercutter or something, think McNamara said so at the time. Anyway, batsmen should be able to keep out straight balls at 50 mph when previous ones haven't turned much if at all IMO. Bad batting.

And the way he sucked-in Strauss at Cardiff was classic tactical off-spin bowling; get the bloke cutting then throw in the quicker straight one, nick behind, thank ya Strauss on your way chum.

Which only works with poor batting - ergo, it doesn't work very often.

Point is, once again, he's no world-beater but neither is he some n00b who has been gifted wickets from batters going after him.

He's been gifted wickets from bad batting. I never once mentioned whether it was over-aggressive, over-defensive or anything batting - it's simply been bad batting. He's been played far better in tour matches.

MacGill was a better bowler. What a revelation. Doesn't and shouldn't diminish Hauritz's work.

MacGill was a pretty poor bowler; Hauritz is even worse. AFAIC.

 

[Richard]

Richard admitted earlier that he hasn't watched chunks of this series so his opinion that he hasn't changed much is unusual given he has probably missed him bowl on occasions.

Hauritz didn't bowl that much in said chunks TBH. I'd reckon I've seen, ball-by-ball, about 80% of his bowling.

 

[Uppercut]

Err just no. Yes the rough in the pitch caused the ball to turn, wow Hauritz is such a skillful genius
And even despite that, it was almost certainly down to poor batting technique against spin rather than that being a wicket-taking delivery.

Seriously, I have no problems admitting that Hauritz has improved as a bowler from his early days and even from the winter tours. But get a grip, he hasn't outbowled Swann this series (if his figures are better its because hes been allowed to do so) nor has he been anything other than average.

This is just ridiculous. Before the series I had to wade through piles and piles of bull**** about how Hauritz was a crap bowler because he couldn't get the ball to turn. Then he turns and bounces one a ****ing mile out of the rough and... it doesn't count, for some reason.

Using the rough= quality bowling. If Shane Warne had done that you'd cream.

 

[tooextracool]

This is just ridiculous. Before the series I had to wade through piles and piles of bull**** about how Hauritz was a crap bowler because he couldn't get the ball to turn. Then he turns and bounces one a ****ing mile out of the rough and... it doesn't count, for some reason.

Using the rough= quality bowling. If Shane Warne had done that you'd cream.

So if a fast bowler landed the ball on a crack and it bounced along ankle height and rapped him on the pads it would be one of the best balls hes bowled all series? Yes hitting the rough is the rough is important as a spin bowler but ultimately a ball landing on the rough and turning significantly has more to do with luck and the pitch than it has to do with the skill/quality of the bowler itself.

And as I said earlier, even despite that, that ball was poorly played. Any half decent player of spin knows the value of getting your fingers out of the way when playing spin.

 

[GIMH]

Ridiculous how much people under-rate how well Hauritz has bowled. Exceeded expectations by some distance (partly because they were so low) and has been one of the best bowlers in the series. You don't get Test wickets by accident as supposedly vastly superior bowled such as Krejza and Mcgain found out. He's laid on the pressure, gotten wickets by bowling tightly and gotten the occasional pole with a decent ball, averaging low-30's. Exactly what you expect from an offie who isn't the cutting edge of the attack to do.

Fair one TC, seem to recall you were one of his bigger sceptics before the series, decent appraisal. I was loving how bad hauritz was supposed to be going into this series and he has impressed me a fair bit.

 

[Uppercut]

So if a fast bowler landed the ball on a crack and it bounced along ankle height and rapped him on the pads it would be one of the best balls hes bowled all series? Yes hitting the rough is the rough is important as a spin bowler but ultimately a ball landing on the rough and turning significantly has more to do with luck and the pitch than it has to do with the skill/quality of the bowler itself.

And as I said earlier, even despite that, that ball was poorly played. Any half decent player of spin knows the value of getting your fingers out of the way when playing spin.

It would be if the fast bowler was aiming for the crack in order to exploit it, and landing ball after ball there in the knowledge that there was a good chance one would keep low.

Hauritz deliberately bowled into the rough because he knew there was a fair chance that if he kept hitting his line and length consistently, one would misbehave and get him a wicket. And it did. Quality bowling, regardless of how Flintoff played it.

 

[Richard]

This is just ridiculous. Before the series I had to wade through piles and piles of bull**** about how Hauritz was a crap bowler because he couldn't get the ball to turn.

That's by no means the only reason why he was denounced as crap. In fact it's not really a reason at all, because any bowler can get the ball to turn when they've got rough to work with. I seem to remember even Mahendra Nagamootoo doing that a few times. One of the many reasons Hauritz is crap (IMO) is because he doesn't turn the ball much, and often at all, off the pitch, not out of the rough.

 

[Uppercut]

Turning it off the pitch is obviously inherently better than turning it out of the rough, of course, obviously. There's absolutely no reason why it would be when you've shot one directly onto the batsman's glove from the rough, but it still is. Just because.

 

[Richard]

But no-one ever said "Hauritz is crap because he can't turn the ball out of the rough". No-one. So it really isn't quite fair to suggest they did.

 

[Uppercut]

They didn't specify, but they did nothing but suggest that he doesn't turn the ball enough to be an effective test bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

Debateable. McGrath had the ability to oust batsmen regardless of whether said batsmen did everything in their power to resist or not. What you're essentially saying is that bowling is better if it's played poorly, well, no, I disagree.

Which might just be why I didn't say it, I said if he'd bowled less at tailenders his figures would be worse. At least 3 times in his career so far he's had 1\2-for-plenty\0-for-not-much and ended-up with a couple of tail-end wickets to make figures look respectable\good.

Harmless ball that only got a wicket due to bad batting, AFAIC.

The Cook one? Was an undercutter or something, think McNamara said so at the time. Anyway, batsmen should be able to keep out straight balls at 50 mph when previous ones haven't turned much if at all IMO. Bad batting.

Which only works with poor batting - ergo, it doesn't work very often.

He's been gifted wickets from bad batting. I never once mentioned whether it was over-aggressive, over-defensive or anything batting - it's simply been bad batting. He's been played far better in tour matches.

MacGill was a pretty poor bowler; Hauritz is even worse. AFAIC.

You've got an agenda so there's really no point in continuing this.

 

[duffer]

Funny, now that the Premier League has started again, I find myself caring a lot less about the 4th Test and more concerned about the Tuesday night and Saturday games we have on.

 

[Burgey]

Err just no. Yes the rough in the pitch caused the ball to turn, wow Hauritz is such a skillful genius
And even despite that, it was almost certainly down to poor batting technique against spin rather than that being a wicket-taking delivery.

Seriously, I have no problems admitting that Hauritz has improved as a bowler from his early days and even from the winter tours. But get a grip, he hasn't outbowled Swann this series (if his figures are better its because hes been allowed to do so) nor has he been anything other than average.

The fact he's even bowled at, or close to the standard which Swann has produced this series demonstrates the folly of England's suggested reliance on spin at The Oval tough, doesn't it?

Bloke does better than expected and still gets ****-canned on here. Not surprising really. Obviously all of Swann's wickets were unplayables though. Given how few of them there have been, we should be able to recall them quite clearly.

GMAFB.

 

[Pothas]

Funny, now that the Premier League has started again, I find myself caring a lot less about the 4th Test and more concerned about the Tuesday night and Saturday games we have on.

I am still far more envolved in the cricket than I am in Football at the moment, even though I always love they first day of the premiership. Sure that my interest in the football season will go up as soon as I make me first trip to Griffin Park.