Harris vs. Hauritz vs. Swann

[Streetwise]

I think this might actually be literally true. Has there been any non-Aussies in the entire thread who thought Hauritz was better?

I dont think to many people would get caught up in something so petty.

 

[Ikki]

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

Hauritz has done well and fair play to him but if you really want to use stats to validate him being better than Swann you're in dreamland. West Indies/Pakistan at home is not really comparable to South Africa away hey?

Not to worry though, Swann has Bangas away then Bangas to home and Pakistan at home coming up so we'll see how he goes there.

Why, are South Africans better players of spin or something? I am going to love seeing Swann get shellacked in Oz.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why, are South Africans better players of spin or something? I am going to love seeing Swann get shellacked in Oz.

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

 

[Uppercut]

Furthermore, it'd be ridiculous to hold the fact that Swann averages 40 against Australia's eleven best cricketers against him in a comparison with Hauritz given Hauritz averages almost 50 against a cross-section of Australia's best 75 or so cricketers.

Haha, that's awesome.

 

[Streetwise]

Hauritz doesn't actually have better stats that Swann anyway; there's a big difference between having better stats and having a better Test average. Hauritz's Test average wouldn't be below 30 if it weren't for the wickets he took on debut on a pitch that was skewed so far towards his bowling style (specifically because the opposition didn't rate him, mind you) that a part-timer managed to take 6/9 despite the fact that Hauritz himself only managed five wickets in two innings. Furthermore, it'd be ridiculous to hold the fact that Swann averages 40 against Australia's eleven best cricketers against him in a comparison with Hauritz given Hauritz averages almost 50 against a cross-section of Australia's best 75 or so cricketers, and without that Ashes series Swann would average less than 30 himself. To completely ignore First Class cricket here would be a massive oversight, especially due to the fact that Swann's average against Australia is significantly higher than his overall average and single-handedly accounts for the current disparity that is about the size of a bee's dick anyway.

Given their Test averages are so close, it'd be beyond ridiculous to claim that they alone showed Hauritz to be the superior bowler, particularly given the fact that neither of them have played many Test matches and the fact that their First Class records are leagues apart. You can do what Ikki has done and say it suggests they are comparable or equal as bowlers, and although I disagree with him it's a valid conclusion to draw, but to suggest that Hauritz's extremely marginally better Test average proves he's performed better so far in his Test career is ludicrous. Some people in here are acting as if there's a huge difference between their averages; there's **** all in it and there's a lot to look at beyond them anyway.

Nobody is claiming Hauritz is better than Swann, I just pointed out that Hauritz has the better figures after reading how much better Swann was.

Though it does seem important to some that Swann is declared better than Hauritz.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nobody is claiming Hauritz is better than Swann, I just pointed out that Hauritz has the better figures after reading how much better Swann was.

He doesn't though. Having a better Test average and having better figures are two entirely different things.

 

[NUFAN]

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

Prince, it's fair to say that Hauritz has improved though as a first class cricketer..

If you were picking a mixed Australia-England side it would be a surprising selection if anyone had Hauritz in their XI but not Swann IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Much as Hauritz has for his entire Queensland and NSW career by batsmen far inferior to those who will do it to Swann.

Really, aren't we talking about Tests? Only in his 2 matches against S.Africa has Hauritz been ineffective, and even there he was very economical. Maybe Hauritz should go bowl in England.

 

[Prince EWS]

Really, aren't we talking about Tests? Only in his 2 matches against S.Africa has Hauritz been ineffective, and even there he was very economical.

Erm, Shield cricket much?

 

[Ikki]

Erm, Shield cricket much?

And why is Shield cricket even remotely relevant here? If your best argument is that Hauritz wasn't a good shield bowler, then that says it all. As someone else has mentioned here, Hauritz is a much better bowler than he was in Shield cricket.

 

[Johnners]

And why is Shield cricket even remotely relevant here? If your best argument is that Hauritz wasn't a good shield bowler, then that says it all. As someone else has mentioned here, Hauritz is a much better bowler than he was in Shield cricket.

Read his original post again. It might not be the same level of cricket, but if you're using Swanns record against Australian batsmen against him, it's only fair to bring into account Hauritz's record against them, regardless of the fact that they were in shield cricket, it's the same set of batsmen.

 

[Johnners]

In other news though, PEWS further confirming his englishness, traitor!

 

[Ikki]

Read his original post again. It might not be the same level of cricket, but if you're using Swanns record against Australian batsmen against him, it's only fair to bring into account Hauritz's record against them, regardless of the fact that they were in shield cricket, it's the same set of batsmen.

So? Warne averaged in the 30s in domestic cricket and was an all-time great in Tests. As far as both bowlers go, they're both questions. But Hauritz should get much more attention, he is certainly Swann's equal and outbowled him when their respective sides faced each other.

 

[Prince EWS]

In other news though, PEWS further confirming his englishness, traitor!

Haha, it's always dire when there's a debate over an Australian player and an English player because no matter which side of the argument I favour I get called out as biased.

 

[GIMH]

Why, are South Africans better players of spin or something? I am going to love seeing Swann get shellacked in Oz.

Not better players of spin per se, just better players. But of course, it's just as easy to bowl at Smith, Kallis and de Villiers as that awesome Pakistan batting line-up

So? Warne averaged in the 30s in domestic cricket and was an all-time great in Tests. As far as both bowlers go, they're both questions. But Hauritz should get much more attention, he is certainly Swann's equal and outbowled him when their respective sides faced each other.

He outbowled him in one match. I know you like your stats picking, so remoev the Cardiff match and Swann's average drops massively. Swann didn't bowl anything like himself in that match. The rest of the time he was the better bowler.

Of course you can say that Hauritz never got to bowl at The Oval, but he also failed to bowl his side to victory, something which happens to be a little more important than stats. And he never had to bowl at Headingley, nor did he have to bowl after his batsman had given him just 102 to play with.

So basically I completely disagree with the notion that he outbowled Swann in that series anyway, but the stats show that he did so he must have done

 

[Ikki]

Not better players of spin per se, just better players. But of course, it's just as easy to bowl at Smith, Kallis and de Villiers as that awesome Pakistan batting line-up

Who knows? Pakistani's have usually been adept at playing spin. We'll see how Swann does .

He outbowled him in one match. I know you like your stats picking, so remoev the Cardiff match and Swann's average drops massively. Swann didn't bowl anything like himself in that match. The rest of the time he was the better bowler.

Of course you can say that Hauritz never got to bowl at The Oval, but he also failed to bowl his side to victory, something which happens to be a little more important than stats. And he never had to bowl at Headingley, nor did he have to bowl after his batsman had given him just 102 to play with.

So basically I completely disagree with the notion that he outbowled Swann in that series anyway, but the stats show that he did so he must have done

Puh-lease, remove The Oval and his figures look even more ****-house than they do now. Hauritz took only 4 less wickets despite playing 2 less Tests, and his figures are a mile better than Swann's. Not even a question as to who bowled better overall.

Hauritz: Avg. 32.1 SR 62 - 10 wickets, 3 matches
Swann: Avg. 41.5 SR 73 - 14 wickets. 5 matches

Yep, those averages are lying again.

 

[GIMH]

'Overall' yeah. Way to completely ignore my point of course

After Cardiff - where Swann himself has been hugely critical of the way he bowled - then Hauritz was categorically not the better bowler.

And Hauritz couldn't bowl his team to victory when they needed him to - in Cardiff. Swann bowled England to victory twice.

 

[Ikki]

So performing great in 1 test is better than performing pretty well throughout? Not in my book, and I suspect others. The numbers don't lie there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Who knows? Pakistani's have usually been adept at playing spin.

Wat.

 

[GIMH]

So performing great in 1 test is better than performing pretty well throughout? Not in my book, and I suspect others. The numbers don't lie there.

Where did I say that? Swann bowled us to victory twice.

He was turd at Cardiff and then averaged 31 for the rest of the series. But I couldn't care less what he averaged as in both of the matches we won he did what a spinner is meant to do in the fourth innings, bowled his side to victory.