Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[NZTailender]

A thread about three of my favourite players. Christmas has arrived early!

 

[Stapel]

I think it's a given that Harbhajan is a better bowler than all three - he spins it as much, has better flight and unlike any of the three bowls a good Doosra.

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

 

[Jarquis]

Swanneh by some margin IMHO. The battle for 2nd place out of the three between Harris and Hauritz is a much closer contest.

 

[subshakerz]

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

Nah, Harby notably better than these three. He actually I feel can run through a batting side on his day, don't think the others are quite as good.

 

[Jono]

Is he?
His figures are marginally better. I think Harbhajan Singh is a bit overrated these days.

Been winning his team some test matches lately, both home and away.

 

[zaremba]

People were saying that about MSP barely a couple of years ago. I don't doubt Swann is a bit better than Giles and certainly far, far more reliable than Tufnell (I'd still imagine Tufnell's best bowling on the exceptionally rare occasion he produced it is better than anything Swann can produce but he's got time to show otherwise yet) but I seriously dispute he's significantly if at all better Croft and even the county-spectator's favourite Such. He is currently better than MSP but I do still think MSP could potentially outdo him in the long-run, though that's looking less likely as time goes on.

I've never yet been truly familiar with how good or otherwise the Embureys and Edmundses were (obviously they didn't have the uncovered wickets advantage that their predecessors Illingworth and Underwood enjoyed for the first part of their careers) so I'll gladly not currently try to compare there, but I realise you may be calling Swann the best since Emburey so it may not be important anyway.

Yes I did have E&E in mind actually. Although Croft and Such were good bowlers too, and certainly of comparable quality to Swann.

Either way, Swann has been a relevation at Test level and the contrast with Panesar (not least re his all-round game) is so stark it's not funny.

 

[superkingdave]

Nah Croft was a plodder at best.

 

[zaremba]

Nah Croft was a plodder at best.

I think that's a bit unfair. He had a pretty good record when he started, although as I recall his record at home wasn't great compared with his success away from home.

It's quite possible that Swann may not keep up his present level of success, and his average will migrate towards the Giles Zone. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Uppercut]

I think that Swann pushes Harbhaan. Harbhajan rarely bowls his doosra these days (maybe in an attempt to clean up his action), tbh and I think it is currently matched for effectiveness by Swann's arm ball. Although Harbhajan is a criminally underrated bowler in Tests, atm, Swann rarely goes two Tests without a very good spell - and he rarely gets tracks which overtly assist his bowling.

No, Harbhajan's definitely better. I've posted this before. India isn't a particularly good place to bowl spin anymore, and Harbhajan does a seriously good job of it. At the very least he's vastly more proven than Swann, and I'd say he's better too.

Back on track, I think Swann is the best of the three. Plenty of turn, drift, accuracy, great variations in pace and flight (although he's gotten quicker since joining the England team which is a shame), fantastic arm-ball and the ability to bowl long spells. He's all you could really ask for in an off-spinner.

Harris is an interesting case indeed. He's almost found the perfect little niche as a foil to the South African attack. He's known for giving batsmen a bit of abuse and generally coming across as a bit of a ****. His bowling somehow repeatedly inspires brain-fades, and unlike Swann he loves being attacked. He's properly accurate and the occasional turning delivery is very, very dangerous as a result. Was particularly comical to hear Nasser Hussain suggest that England's problem against him in the first innings at Centurion was that they didn't attack him enough, but it can sometimes appear that way. His bowling seems innocuous enough that batsmen should be able to score easily off it but it's accurate enough that they can't. I love watching Harris bowl, just to try to figure out what exactly it is that makes batsmen want to slog him so badly.

Hauritz is currently benefiting from a backlash against the abuse he received in the run-up to the Ashes. The English media discovered, to their horror, that he was in fact a decent bowler who regularly put the ball in good areas with a little tweak- which is more than enough against England. He's the token spinner, takes a few wickets on turning tracks, keeps it tight, bowls long spells when nothing much is happening. Nice option for the captain to have, and much better than the filthy pie-chucker he was made out to be in the run-up to the Ashes. He's not a great bowler though, and I'd have the other two quite comfortably above him.

 

[Matt79]

I think the OP wanted to talk non-doosra bowling finger spinners, hence left out Harby deliberately.

Lol at the underrating of Hauritz in this thread. Someone said there are three better spinners in Australia - name them please.

I'm not saying he's better than Swann or Harris, although I think he outbowled Swann in the Ashes. But to say that he's not deserving of comparison to them, or is clearly massively inferior is wrong imo.

And Aussie somehow got confused on the point of whether Hauritz deserved his spot ahead of the potential fourth specialist quick in the Australian team with the question of how he compares to Harris and Swann

 

[Migara]

Rangana Herath has no shout there?

 

[Nate]

Lol at the underrating of Hauritz in this thread. Someone said there are three better spinners in Australia - name them please.

They're Steve Smith iirc.

 

[Uppercut]

I think the OP wanted to talk non-doosra bowling finger spinners, hence left out Harby deliberately.

Lol at the underrating of Hauritz in this thread. Someone said there are three better spinners in Australia - name them please.

I'm not saying he's better than Swann or Harris, although I think he outbowled Swann in the Ashes. But to say that he's not deserving of comparison to them, or is clearly massively inferior is wrong imo.

And Aussie somehow got confused on the point of whether Hauritz deserved his spot ahead of the potential fourth specialist quick in the Australian team with the question of how he compares to Harris and Swann

Dunno. They were pretty similar for mine, you could argue that either were more effective. But pre-Ashes expectations of them were so vastly different that Hauritz's performances appeared better and Swann's worse. England played Hauritz so, sooo much worse than Australia played Swann so it's not the fairest comparison, but I guess we can only judge them on how they did the task they were each presented with.

 

[silentstriker]

Michael Clarke. I only rate spinners on how many Tests they win against India, therefore MiIchael Clarke uber alles.

 

[aussie]

I'm not saying he's better than Swann or Harris, although I think he outbowled Swann in the Ashes. But to say that he's not deserving of comparison to them, or is clearly massively inferior is wrong imo.

Hmm i'd be interested to know how TBH...

And Aussie somehow got confused on the point of whether Hauritz deserved his spot ahead of the potential fourth specialist quick in the Australian team with the question of how he compares to Harris and Swann

Ahh no i didn't. I said imo Hauritz is the most accurate of the three:

Hauritz i still think he is joke - but he no doubt has improved a great deal in 2009 & is the most accurate/economical of the three

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the OP wanted to talk non-doosra bowling finger spinners, hence left out Harby deliberately.

Lol at the underrating of Hauritz in this thread. Someone said there are three better spinners in Australia - name them please.

I'm not saying he's better than Swann or Harris, although I think he outbowled Swann in the Ashes. But to say that he's not deserving of comparison to them, or is clearly massively inferior is wrong imo.

And Aussie somehow got confused on the point of whether Hauritz deserved his spot ahead of the potential fourth specialist quick in the Australian team with the question of how he compares to Harris and Swann

We'll never really know, tbh. Leaving out the specialist tweaker for The Oval was one of the larger selectorial bollocks that've been dropped of late. Would've been nice to see how Haurie went under the shadow of the old gasworks, but it wasn't to be. As (IIRC) North took 4 wickets with his serviceable part-time stuff I think it's fair to assume Hauritz had his moment stolen from him.

In Swann's defence, whilst he was mostly disappointing with the ball in the summer, on the decks that offered him a little (The Oval & 2nd dig at Lords) he conjoured up match-turning spells.

It's nice to see three classic finger-spinners, none of whom possess a throwsra, doing decent jobs for their sides tho. 18 months ago the conventional wisdom seemed to be that all orth(o)dox twirlers needed a wrong 'un to prosper.

The other conventional offie I had high hopes for was Ramesh Powar. Could watch him bowl all day; absolutely beautiful action. Seems to have disappeared off the radar a bit of late tho. Shame, cricket needs its lardos, IMHO.

 

[Woodster]

I think Swann is more capable of winning Test matches for his side, than Harris or Hauritz, that said he does not necessarily do his best work when people are expecting him to be a big threat on af ourth/fifth day pitch that's offering plenty for him.

Swann erally gives the ball a rip, can extract a fair bit of turn, helped with a nice bit away drift, and does bowl generally an attacking line.

Hauritz is similar in his line and the drift he gets, but probably on the whole is not as threatening, albeit a much improved bowler.

I am surprised by the success Harris has had in recent times, and has become a useful foil to the quicker bowlers. Not a big spinner, in fact spin can at times be one thing he has missing from his armoury! From his round the wicket angle, he is generally bowling at the stumps, pitching on and attempting to straighten, and sides don't have great success when they do attack him. I have been crying out for teams to get after him, but it does not appear quite easy as that, so credit to him for that.

Taking everything into account I would list them as follows, 1. Swann, 2. Hauritz, 3. Harris

 

[aussie]

Harris is a lot better than you give him credit for.

If i give him any more credit i'd be over-rating him to be frank. Off all the useful/decent SA spinners that have played tests since readmisson in Symcox, Boje, Adams, Eskeen, Henderson all where better than Harris IMO. (although you can argue not much is between him and Henderson).

Harris is only better than the "utter trash duo" of Peterson, Botha.

As i said Harris has benefited in the last 3 years of being part of a 5-man attack & Smith has used him cleverly. If Kallis stops bowling & Harris has to bowl as part of 4-man attack he will be exposed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Swan the more threatening of the three but seems to only bowl in two modes; all-out attack or all-out defence. The other two distinctly under-rated. Hauritz at least has some Aussies rating him these days, Harris seems to be universally trashed. They both put up decent, unpretentious stuff, though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Harris is currently at #7 in the test bowling ranks so he's obviously doing something right.

Swann #11 & Hauritz #43, ftr.