*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[NUFAN]

Rasclath. What's with the Hauritz hate uncle? He's starting to perform now.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yea a trait we need to get over slightly in this post Warne/MacGill era. My point is AUS shouldn't go into a test with the precedence of "we have to pick a spinner" just for the sake of it. Picking the 4 quicks given that AUS strenght, should be first preference & Hauritz should come in where conditions demand a spinner..

But as i said if North gets dropped the whole dynamic here would change..

The fact is, whether it's just a fluke or not and whether it'll last or not, Hauritz hasn't just been holding his place in the team as the best spinner; he's been holding his place purely on his bowling numbers in Tests. I still don't really rate him (personally I don't think it'll last - an entire career of abject Sheffield Shield failure means more to me than eleven games of decency at Test level, but I'm slowly coming around to the idea of him just improving rapidly) and I certainly wouldn't have picked him to begin with, but he's been more effective than a lot of other bowlers we've tried in his time. Since he became Australia's #1 spinner only Johnson and Bollinger have comprehensively outbowled him and both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are very debatable. We've seen a whole host of other seamers play, either as a fourth or third quick in McKay, Clark, McDonald and Watson. The fact that he's outbowled them all has to mean something.

Based on his effectiveness at Test level in his career so far (and nothing before that) he's not actually being picked as "the spinner"; he's being picked as one of the best (or "most effective" lets say - it means the same thing to me but it means something different entirely to many others for some reason) four bowlers in the country as he has outperformed the alternatives. That's before you even factor in the balance of the attack, the fact that Watson's there as the fourth seamer anyway, the fact that he's a key member of the ODI setup and the fact that Ponting's keen to play a spinner in all conditions to give him the requisite Test experience for when he's really needed. As I said, I don't really think it'll last, but given the selectors picked him in the first place they are hardly going to discard him now that he's performed admirably, and it'd be stupidly harsh to do so at the minute anyway.

Hauritz has about as much chance of being dropped any time soon as Michael Clarke does really. We have to face that fact.

 

[Johnners]

Pews, wag.

 

[Jono]

Yeah really good post PEWS.

 

[howardj]

Quality postology.

 

[Noble One]

Top post. Any member who attempts to post something negative on Hauritz should be directed to that post. Explains the situation so well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Since Hauritz's recall in November 2008:

[B]Name		Mts	Wkts	Avg	5wi[/B]

DE Bollinger	5	26	22.50	1
MG Johnson	17	86	25.88	3
SR Watson	8	11	30.00	0
BW Hilfenhaus	9	34	30.58	0
NM Hauritz	11	42	31.47	2
PM Siddle	15	51	32.39	2
AB McDonald	4	9	33.33	0
A Symonds	3	1	41.00	0
B Lee		3	10	42.00	1
SR Clark	3	5	50.80	0
MJ North	12	6	60.66	0
CJ McKay	1	1	101.00	0
JJ Krejza	1	1	204.00	0

It's one thing to not rate him or not have confidence in him continuing this level of effectivness, but it's another thing entirely to deny that he's done very well so far and that, based soley on his effectiveness as a Test bowler, he completely deserves his retention.

 

[Burgey]

Since Hauritz's recall in November 2008:

[B]Name		Mts	Wkts	Avg	5wi[/B]

DE Bollinger	5	26	22.50	1
MG Johnson	17	86	25.88	3
SR Watson	8	11	30.00	0
BW Hilfenhaus	9	34	30.58	0
NM Hauritz	11	42	31.47	2
PM Siddle	15	51	32.39	2
AB McDonald	4	9	33.33	0
A Symonds	3	1	41.00	0
B Lee		3	10	42.00	1
SR Clark	3	5	50.80	0
MJ North	12	6	60.66	0
CJ McKay	1	1	101.00	0
JJ Krejza	1	1	204.00	0

It's one thing to not rate him or not have confidence in him continuing this level of effectivness, but it's another thing entirely to deny that he's done very well so far and that, based soley on his effectiveness as a Test bowler, he completely deserves his retention.

Mmmmmmmmmm Dougeh!!!!!!

Dougeh.

 

[Matt79]

Overflowing with PEWS love at the moment.

 

[Xuhaib]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Rashif advised PCB to drop Kamran

Staff Report

KARACHI: Former Pakistan wicketkeeper and captain Rashid Latif had recommended in a report to the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to drop Kamran Akmal from international cricket, to give him time to correct a number of flaws. Latif, widely regarded as the best, pure gloveman to come out of Pakistan after Wasim Bari, worked for the PCB in a brief stint as a wicketkeeping coach at the National Cricket Academy (NCA) from June 2008. A number of the country’s top wicketkeepers attended, including Akmal, Sarfraz Ahmed and Salman Ahmed, both of whom have often been touted as potential replacements. “I gave the board a report in which I recommended that Akmal not play international cricket for at least six months but they didn’t listen,” Latif was quoted as saying on a website Thursday. “He had too many technical faults, had put on too much weight for a wicketkeeper of his size and wearing a helmet to spinners was really hampering him.”

Akmal’s glovework has long become a source of worry for Pakistan. For a period over 2004-05, including the last trip to Australia, his keeping was widely lauded. But during 2006, in particular the tour to England where he continued playing with an injured finger, his form dipped alarmingly, and he dropped a number of chances over the next two years. His work became a little tidier last year, but he dropped four catches in the Sydney Test, including Michael Hussey three times off Danish Kaneria. Hussey went on to score a hundred, setting up a shock 36-run win for his side from a dire position.

But Akmal’s batting – he has 11 international hundreds – has often saved him; he scored valuable runs on the recent tour to New Zealand, which resulted in Sarfraz, who was on tour as a back-up, being sent back to Pakistan. “The blunder was to send Sarfraz back. I had recommended that at least try guys like Sarfraz and Salman. He wears helmets to spinners which I think they shouldn’t because it messes up the eye-line. And as far as the argument for his batting goes, in such Tests what help is the batting? He scores a hundred every six or seven innings. Outside Pakistan and the subcontinent his average is very low. If another guy comes and scores 30 or 40 in most innings

 

[DingDong]

The fact is, whether it's just a fluke or not and whether it'll last or not, Hauritz hasn't just been holding his place in the team as the best spinner; he's been holding his place purely on his bowling numbers in Tests. I still don't really rate him (personally I don't think it'll last - an entire career of abject Sheffield Shield failure means more to me than eleven games of decency at Test level, but I'm slowly coming around to the idea of him just improving rapidly) and I certainly wouldn't have picked him to begin with, but he's been more effective than a lot of other bowlers we've tried in his time. Since he became Australia's #1 spinner only Johnson and Bollinger have comprehensively outbowled him and both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are very debatable. We've seen a whole host of other seamers play, either as a fourth or third quick in McKay, Clark, McDonald and Watson. The fact that he's outbowled them all has to mean something.

Based on his effectiveness at Test level in his career so far (and nothing before that) he's not actually being picked as "the spinner"; he's being picked as one of the best (or "most effective" lets say - it means the same thing to me but it means something different entirely to many others for some reason) four bowlers in the country as he has outperformed the alternatives. That's before you even factor in the balance of the attack, the fact that Watson's there as the fourth seamer anyway, the fact that he's a key member of the ODI setup and the fact that Ponting's keen to play a spinner in all conditions to give him the requisite Test experience for when he's really needed. As I said, I don't really think it'll last, but given the selectors picked him in the first place they are hardly going to discard him now that he's performed admirably, and it'd be stupidly harsh to do so at the minute anyway.

Hauritz has about as much chance of being dropped any time soon as Michael Clarke does really. We have to face that fact.

legendary post. easily the best post i have ever read on cricketweb. i thought about putting it in my signature thingy but i think its a bit too long.

 

[Uppercut]

It's even better in context, PEWS was the single biggest critic of Hauritz's Ashes selection around.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Re: Siddle, I like the boy and I can see why others do too. He comes across as something of a throwback (even his first name seems to belong to an earlier era; Peter Siddle could easily have played alongside Bert Ironmonger or Bill Ponsford, but yer Shanes, Mitchells and Marcuses are noteably absent from team sheets of yesteryear) and is palpably a wholehearted kid. Runs in all day and not afraid of roughing the batsmen up. Bowled really well in the Ashes for scant reward at times. He mightn't produce the miracle balls that Johnson manages, but he also seems to send down less tripe too. I think, like Flintoff, and Morkel to an extent, one of his best deliveries is the ball just short of a length that climbs and, like them, induces a lot of false strokes without finding the edge. If he can learn to consistently bring such balls back into the right handers he'll be very good indeed.

It could be that he'd benefit from a spell in SS cricket, but I still reckon he'll have a significant test career.

 

[Noble One]

It could be that he'd benefit from a spell in SS cricket, but I still reckon he'll have a significant test career.

Good post overall, but I found this part interesting. Siddle has yet to even complete a full season of Sheffield Shield cricket. Get the feeling a season / half season of first class cricket will go a long way in rediscovering his form and working on the more subtle aspects of his game that do need some polishing. He almost ticks all the boxes to become a really successful pace-bowler (pace, work ethic, strong action, subtle movement, mongrel), but has yet to have the time to fully develop his game and become the world class bowler he may possibly be. Playing him out of form, and out of fitness in Hobart and then possibly asking him to back it up playing a string of ODI's will surely not be as beneficial as time spent back playing for Victoria.

 

[Johnners]

If we're lucky, they won't play him in the ODI's, and he'll get a few games of SS cricket this season with the vics.

 

[Uppercut]

Siddle's so much more likeable than he is effective.

 

[Andrew Pollock]

Statistics Proves Allan Border is a better spinner than Nathan Haurtiz


Nathan Haurtiz

Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Econ 4w 5w 10
2798 1425 47 5/53 6/130 3.05 0 2 0

Alan Border
Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Econ 4w 5w 10
4009 1525 39 7/46 11/96 2.28 1 2 1

 

[Shri]

The huff n puff isn't non threatening my any means. He is always at you as batsman & would run in for a captain all day even if tough conditons.

As i said he has been down on pace this summer since that injury he suffered in India. Which is why hasn't been at his usually bustling best as he was on debut he he hit Gambhir on his helmet - was superb in SA & in ENG (after a slow start).

If thats one of his most notable achievements to date as an australian bowler, it is worrying.

 

[GIMH]

Siddle's so much more likeable than he is effective.

Must be seriously ineffective then

Haven't seen much Aussie cricket this winter. Like most, thought he was up and down in the Ashes. I was there on the day of 102ao, and he bowled bloody well but obviously it was Clark that blew me away that day.

 

[stephen]

The fact is that Australia have a 4 man attack in which three of the bowlers are currently performing very well. Johnson, Bollinger and Hauritz are all taking a lot of wickets at a very good average at the moment and because of that Siddle is the odd man out.

Even in the WIndies teams of yesteryear there was almost always one weaker bowler. Noone remembers them well because they simply performed their role and applied pressure at the other end while the other bowlers took the wickets. At the moment Siddle is the pressure bowler. He does a lot of things right, but not right enough to be taking wickets and yet he is the third best fit quick in the country at the moment. Even given a full roster of players available only two would replace him - Lee and Hilfenhaus.

The other thing that is in Siddle's favour at the moment is that it is not the bowling attack that is Australia's weakness, but its batting. Since the third Ashes test the Australian bowling has worked very well and worked very well together. Siddle has been a big part of that, even without taking wickets. He's been frustrating at times as it always looks as though he should be taking more wickets than he does, but much like Harmison in the 05 ashes, Siddle's bowling means more to the team than the wickets that it produces.

Having said all of that, should either Lee or Hilfenhaus get fit, I believe that it is Siddle that should make way for one of those two. Nevertheless, in any 4 man attack there will always be one weaker bowler and with Dougeh and Johnson firing at the moment, that man is Siddle. There's a lot to like about him, but we have to be realistic about his role and ability at the moment.