Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Hauritz got runner up. If Swann had Watson playing he wouldn't have gotten close.Swann just got MOTS in an away series to Saffa in case it passed you by
Haurie...sub 30 average, sub 60 SR. Lovin' it!
Hauritz got runner up. If Swann had Watson playing he wouldn't have gotten close.Swann just got MOTS in an away series to Saffa in case it passed you by
I thought you were a big fan of Paul Harris (who still is underrated, BTW).Feels ****ing good to be a fan of Swann and Hauritz right now. So, so good. [/smug]
If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.Hauritz got runner up. If Swann had Watson playing he wouldn't have gotten close.
Haurie...sub 30 average, sub 60 SR. Lovin' it!
Funny thing is if you take out Swanns WI matches he only has 43 wickets @ 36West Indies/Pakistan at home is not really comparable to South Africa away hey?
Its relevence is you cant judge a player on what he is going to do, so far Hauritz has done as good but more than likely better than Swann. Monty is a classic case where he was judged on what he was going to do and not on what he had done, and we know that all ended in tears.How is Monty relevant to Swann at all?
You may as well say you all saw what happened to Bryce McGain.
Better strike rate, economy and bowling average.More importantly how the **** is Hauritz better than Swann?
Four of Swann's WI matches were played on 700 plays 500 pitches.Funny thing is if you take out Swanns WI matches he only has 43 wickets @ 36
Swann may end up better than Hauritz some may think he already is but as far as cricket goes Hauritz is the better bowler. We all saw what happened to Monty Englands last great spin bowler.
McGain on this forum and here in Victoria was huge.Its relevence is you cant judge a player on what he is going to do, so far Hauritz has done as good but more than likely better than Swann. Monty is a classic case where he was judged on what he was going to do and not on what he had done, and we know that all ended in tears.
I dont ever recall there being much hype with McGain, well not in Australia but I suppose it may have been big news in England.
I am, but the fact he didn't play in the most recent Test means he's been a bit quiet and not approaching Man of the Series status like Swann achieved or that Hauritz nearly did, so it's a bit harder to gloat.I thought you were a big fan of Paul Harris (who still is underrated, BTW).
So Swann wins the online poll and Hauritz gets the better figures. win win situation.Four of Swann's WI matches were played on 700 plays 500 pitches.
Using stats to compare bowlers is facile at the best of times, but when the samples are so small it's pretty much ********. If you think hauritz's better stats make him a better bowler then that's up to you but anyine whose watched them both bowl and is neither English nor Australian will tell you that Swann is the better bowler.
Now now Swanny, you just enjoy your MOTS over there in SA and leave poor Nathan alone. What's he ever done to you?Yeah, welldone Hauritz on taking wickets against a ridiculously fragile Pakistan batting line ups at home.
I think this might actually be literally true. Has there been any non-Aussies in the entire thread who thought Hauritz was better?anyone whose watched them both bowl and is neither English nor Australian will tell you that Swann is the better bowler.