Australia - the aftermath of the Ashes

[Spark]

He can't play anything on his body at all. He lets the bowler bowl an easy, rubbish (to anyone else that is) line at him and see him fend ungainly and get squared up again and again and again.

 

[TumTum]

Hauritz has improved, Hughes has gone backwards. I know I'd want the bloke who is consistently improving, and, more importantly, being open minded enough to try and improve.

Plus, Hughes ain't got all the shots. In fact, the opposite. He's got a cut, a swipe, a slop sweep and a pull. He can't drive, he can barely play on the on side. He is seriously limited as a batsman at this stage, and hasn't seemed like he wants to improve.

The only improvement Hauritz has made is that he gets more drift (that didn't help him in India though). Actually the only shot Hughes doesn't have is the pull. He drives magnificently, it's just that you were not able to see them as England bowled really tight to him and everybody else in the Australian line-up.

 

[stephen]

One has potential and the other doesn't. It's not as if Hauritz had a bag of tricks in his armory and just needed control (where Hughes all the strokes but just needs to find a consistent way of scoring).

Although I do think Hauritz's favorite opponent after Pakistan would have been England. Didn't he also get that wicket of KP attempting an ambitious sweep shot?

If you think that Hauritz is crap then quite frankly you don't really know too much about finger-spin bowling. Hauritz is a very good bowler because of what he does with the ball in the air. His drift and flight are what gets him wickets (and consequently make it look like the batsmen get themselves out). He's accurate too.

About the only thing Hauritz doesn't have is prodigious amounts of turn, but it's not like he doesn't get them to move off the straight.

The dire thing about all of this is that Hauritz is in his late 20s. Spinners don't hit their peak until their 30s. He also happens to be good enough to keep Steve O'Keefe out of the NSW team. To me that suggests that Hauritz should be picked for Australia.

 

[TumTum]

He can't play anything on his body at all. He lets the bowler bowl an easy, rubbish (to anyone else that is) line at him and see him fend ungainly and get squared up again and again and again.

Yeah this is the annoying part of watching him bat. Although he's been working on trying to work the ball to the leg side.

 

[TumTum]

If you think that Hauritz is crap then quite frankly you don't really know too much about finger-spin bowling. Hauritz is a very good bowler because of what he does with the ball in the air. His drift and flight are what gets him wickets (and consequently make it look like the batsmen get themselves out). He's accurate too.

About the only thing Hauritz doesn't have is prodigious amounts of turn, but it's not like he doesn't get them to move off the straight.

The dire thing about all of this is that Hauritz is in his late 20s. Spinners don't hit their peak until their 30s. He also happens to be good enough to keep Steve O'Keefe out of the NSW team. To me that suggests that Hauritz should be picked for Australia.

Agree with most of that, but the highlighted part is where his problem is. Drift and Flight are not enough for a Test match quality spinner, he needs to start getting the ball to spin to pick up the really good batsman. Sure he'll confuse the street cricketers from Pakistan, but against good sides he'll just be looping up harmless deliveries which the batsman just play the line.

 

[Andre]

Agree with most of that, but the highlighted part is where his problem is. Drift and Flight are not enough for a Test match quality spinner, he needs to start getting the ball to spin to pick up the really good batsman. Sure he'll confuse the street cricketers from Pakistan, but against good sides he'll just be looping up harmless deliveries which the batsman just play the line.

Opposite, actually. You get good players out in the air, not off the pitch.

It's not like he bowls dead straight. He doesn't turn them square but he does enough. Couple that with movement in the air, and when bowling well he's dangerous. There is more to spin bowling than giving it a rip.

 

[Spikey]

The whole 'they picked an SLA thing for KP' is so much more confusing for the fact that, if you're going to be picking one because you think they'll get KP out, surely you'd pick the bloke who actually got him out, let alone for the whole under-30 with the ball, over 40 with the bat thing. FMD, selectors.

Yeah that's one thing they never put up a bull**** excuse for. they came up with some crap about wanting a left arm spinner but they never explained how SOK went from being the Australia A spinner to being just some guy.

If you think that Hauritz is crap then quite frankly you don't really know too much about finger-spin bowling.

be kind he's only been watching cricket for a year

 

[Spark]

Odd post from TumTum.

The reason Swann is the most successful spin bowler in the world (well, arguably anyway) is because he can beat batsmen in flight. Drift, drop, changes of pace. He can turn it a country mile, yes, but that's not how he gets most of his wickets. In fact IIRC he has a huge amount of success with his arm ball which doesn't turn at all.

Hauritz at his best has three weapons - the off break, topspinner, arm ball. That's all Swann uses too, but he's cleverer at using them and disguising them.

 

[TumTum]

Opposite, actually. You get good players out in the air, not off the pitch.

It's not like he bowls dead straight. He doesn't turn them square but he does enough. Couple that with movement in the air, and when bowling well he's dangerous. There is more to spin bowling than giving it a rip.

Yeah that is the general belief, but that is assuming that any Test match quality bowler spins it.

Watching Hauritz you fell that he sets the batsman up perfectly in the air and you get excited in the thought that a wicket is coming, but it never does because that sudden panic from the batsman is erased due to the ball doing nothing of the pitch, hence the batsman just playing the line easily.

 

[TumTum]

Odd post from TumTum.

The reason Swann is the most successful spin bowler in the world (well, arguably anyway) is because he can beat batsmen in flight. Drift, drop, changes of pace. He can turn it a country mile, yes, but that's not how he gets most of his wickets. In fact IIRC he has a huge amount of success with his arm ball which doesn't turn at all.

Hauritz at his best has three weapons - the off break, topspinner, arm ball. That's all Swann uses too, but he's cleverer at using them and disguising them.

Hauritz doesn't have the arm ball, especially not one like Vettori/Swann/Benn/Harris has.

 

[Spark]

Besides, with a bit of help Hauritz turns it plenty... YouTube - Nathan Hauritz 5/101 v Pakistan, 1st Test 2009/10 the first ball. Drift into the rough, spin back.

 

[Andre]

Yeah that's one thing they never put up a bull**** excuse for. they came up with some crap about wanting a left arm spinner but they never explained how SOK went from being the Australia A spinner to being just some guy.

Just to clarify, Ponting wanted a spinner that would bowl to his plan. Ponting and Haurtiz had a blue in India about the angle Hauritz hits the crease, the height of his release and the line he was bowling. Haurtiz tried what Ponting requested and it didn't work for him so he went back to what had served him well. By that point, the relationship had deteriorated significantly.

Ponting then saw Doherty in the couple of Shield games he played before the first Test and was impressed by his selflessness and his ability to bowl to a plan, which he fault Hauritz wasn't (wasn't, not couldn't, big difference) doing at the time. Not sure what state the relationship between Punter and Haurie is now though.

 

[Spark]

Hauritz doesn't have the arm ball, especially not one like Vettori/Swann/Benn/Harris has.

*ahem* yes he does. He doesn't use it a lot but it's an extremely effective weapon when he gets it right. Has gotten quite a few out cutting with it, pushing it through.

Just to clarify, Ponting wanted a spinner that would bowl to his plan. Ponting and Haurtiz had a blue in India about the angle Hauritz hits the crease, the height of his release and the line he was bowling. Haurtiz tried what Ponting requested and it didn't work for him so he went back to what had served him well. By that point, the relationship had deteriorated significantly.

Ponting then saw Doherty in the couple of Shield games he played before the first Test and was impressed by his selflessness and his ability to bowl to a plan, which he fault Hauritz wasn't (wasn't, not couldn't, big difference) doing at the time. Not sure what state the relationship between Punter and Haurie is now though.

Well we don't need to worry about that for a few matches.

 

[TumTum]

*ahem* yes he does. He doesn't use it a lot but it's an extremely effective weapon when he gets it right. Has gotten quite a few out cutting with it, pushing it through.

Oh yeah that one, but cmon that is a genuinely bad ball short outside off stump. Good batsman would late cut it, which is what happened in India. I am talking about a more conventional arm ball that slides towards the batsman for lbw.

 

[Andre]

Yeah that is the general belief, but that is assuming that any Test match quality bowler spins it.

Watching Hauritz you fell that he sets the batsman up perfectly in the air and you get excited in the thought that a wicket is coming, but it never does because that sudden panic from the batsman is erased due to the ball doing nothing of the pitch, hence the batsman just playing the line easily.

I want to continue the discussion, but I don't think you understand. If batsmen were playing the line of release and playing him easially, by mechanics law he wouldn't be getting any drift, so what you've just said doesn't make sense.

 

[TumTum]

Besides, with a bit of help Hauritz turns it plenty... YouTube - Nathan Hauritz 5/101 v Pakistan, 1st Test 2009/10 the first ball. Drift into the rough, spin back.

That's probably the only ball Hauritz has spun a considerable amount, as you said with the aid of the rough.

 

[TumTum]

I want to continue the discussion, but I don't think you understand. If batsmen were playing the line of release and playing him easially, by mechanics law he wouldn't be getting any drift, so what you've just said doesn't make sense.

The line of the drift, it is easy to follow. If a bowler gets both drift and turn, what he does is that he gets the batsman to change his stroke mid flight, and hence him being in a worse position the spin does more damage. Problem with Hauritz is the 2nd part.

Edit: should have said "curved line", but you get the point.

 

[pup11]

Hauritz>Ponting.

As a batsman .

Seriously though, it's unlikely that it would have won Australia the Ashes but definitely would've improved their chances. If it was within my power I'd have fired everyone involved in his non-selection after the first test. Their job is to pick the best team and for some reason they're deliberately not doing it- I refuse to believe they could seriously have thought Doherty or Beer were better than Hauritz. It's akin to spot-fixing, tbh, except they're not getting paid extra for not doing their job properly.

The problem these days is that nobody in the Australian team is suppossed to have an opinion of their own, and whether you agree with it or not, as a player you are just suppossed to follow whatever the captain, selectors or the coach says.
Now people like Symonds, Hodge, Hauritz, Bollinger, Doherty have all at some point questioned the way the Australian hierarchy works, and that has resulted in their cards getting marked.
If teams were getting picked on form and performances then Hodge should be the first bloke to be picked in every format of the game, but that's obviously not happening and cricketing reasons have nothing to do it.
The sad part about all of this is that, people like Hilditch who are picking the team isn't really answerable to nobody, and that's why he has the audacity to come out in public after a 3-1 Ashes drubbing and say that the 'selectors did a good job'.

 

[Andre]

The line of the drift, it is easy to follow. If a bowler gets both drift and turn, what he does is that he gets the batsman to change his stroke mid flight, and hence him being in a worse position the spin does more damage. Problem with Hauritz is the 2nd part.

Turn and flight are completely unrelated. If a batsman has changed his shot mid-flight, he's not yet seen the ball turn as it hasn't bounced, and thus turn is redundant.

 

[TumTum]

Turn and flight are completely unrelated. If a batsman has changed his shot mid-flight, he's not yet seen the ball turn as it hasn't bounced, and thus turn is redundant.

I don't follow...

My point is that the batsman's footwork, body-position & bat-position will not be perfectly aligned the way he wants it, hence being in a bad position. But it really doesn't matter when the ball doesn't spin.