Nathan Hauritz's role in the Australian test side: Should he really be a fixture?

[aussie]

Amongst a lot of other stuff that can only be described as propaganda, aussie has made a useful point about Hauritz that hasn't really been acknowledged.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that Hauritz is actually a better bowler than, for example, Peter Siddle or Stuart Clark - he gets selected because he provides something different. Shane Watson's presence significantly diminishes the selection value of a fourth quick and Hauritz is picked in the hope that he might prosper in conditions that others wouldn't. However, as (surprisingly) good as he's been in Tests so far, he is yet to actually do that. Hauritz's best bowling has actually come at times you'd expect another quick to be effective too - there's no doubt in my mind that Pete Siddle would be a better job of bowling on Day 2 than Hauritz, for example. Aussie repeatedly bringing up the lack of a good Day 5 performances isn't just him sprouting crap; it's very relevant to the debate over whether Hauritz should play.

I wouldn't drop Hauritz yet for the reasons I extrapolated earlier in the thread, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of the idea that bowling well in the fourth innings is particularly important for him. If he can't do that we really would be better off picking the extra quick as he's not offering the variety he's being selected for.

Sense has finally arrived. It took you long enough.

 

[Kylez]

Hauritz is a decent enough spinner for mine and I believe he can play a role in the current line-up. Hauritz bowled pretty poorly though in the recent test match against India in conditions that suited offspin, even for his standards he was pretty dire.

 

[Flem274*]

SMH.

Firstly all those wickets (two 5 wickets hauls) againts a joke Pakistan batting line-up dont count. Thats the same PAK who gave Marcus North 6 wickets on Lord's on pitch that wasn't even turning. It might as well & have taken those wickets vs Bangladesh the way PAK have been batting in the last 6 months.

Did you even watch that series vs WIndies?. In the final two test @ Adelaide & Perth when Hauritz got turning tracks he failed. Case in point the Adelaide test when Benn from the windies got 5 wickets when the ball was begging to turn on day 2. Haurtiz went wicketless againts the windies batsmen when he got his chance to bowl - Marcus North as he did in the recent Mohali test had bowl since Hauritz struggled to be penetrative.

Same thing again @ Petth in the final innings when the ball began began to turn when AUS where bowled out 150 as Benn got big turn & Bravo got his off-cutters to move big. Hauritz was accurate but not penetrative on the wearing 5th day pitch & it was the fast-bowlers who won AUS that test.


I already told showed you that on the final of the 1st Ashes test when he got a turning pitch he struggled to bowl ENG out. Just fairly accurate - but never producing any wicket taking penetration in that innings nor at any point during the Ashes.


His failing in India is just a culmination of two years of consistently failing to do the same thing on turners/wearing pitches againts good opposition worldwide. If he had stepped up, it would have the first signs that he was turning the corner.

Although IND play spin brilliantly at home. Non great spinners who had the basics right as i told you before like Jason Krejza, Greg Matthews, Paul Adams, Nicky Boje, Ashley Giles. Kaneria etc have taken 5 wickets hauls in IND are on turners/wearing 4th & 5th wickets just like the one Hauritz got @ Mohali. Geez..

All proving clearly that Hauritz is not a good test match spinner & does not deserve his place.

Pakistan count. They're good against spin. Stop changing the rules to suit your argument.

Hauritz might not have done well on a turner against the WI, but he still came away with 11 wickets in the series.

Hauritz has played a whole 1 test in India and lets be honest, you were waiting for his first screw up to push your fast bowlers club agenda. It wouldn't matter if he'd taken 8 wickets in the previous match, you'd still write him off after one bad test.

Hauritz effectiveness on turners doesn't change his decent record. Unless of course, you stats pick, which is exactly what you have done.

 

[aussie]

Pakistan count. They're good against spin. Stop changing the rules to suit your argument.

Hauritz might not have done well on a turner against the WI, but he still came away with 11 wickets in the series.

Hauritz has played a whole 1 test in India and lets be honest, you were waiting for his first screw up to push your fast bowlers club agenda. It wouldn't matter if he'd taken 8 wickets in the previous match, you'd still write him off after one bad test.

Hauritz effectiveness on turners doesn't change his decent record. Unless of course, you stats pick, which is exactly what you have done.

I'm not chaning any rules. Its fairly general cricket consensus that runs & wickets vs BANG doesn't count. Just as it wasn't for performances vs Zimbabwe & facing windies bowlers vs much of the 2000s era after Ambrose/Walsh left. Pakistan batting in the last 6 months clearly fell into that category.

A pakistan batting line-up of Inzamam, Yousuf (at his peak), Younis was good againts spin without a doubt. But certainly NOT the Pakistan Pak batsmen that was seen vs AUS & ENG over the past 6 months. I have PAK friends here in ENG who accept this obvious fact & to quote a senior PAK poster on this site:



http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2330924-post25.html

this lot cant even bat on flat tracks Lords was flat and they got rolled over for 74 and 147 the batting is minnow standard nowdays for Pakistan.

You living in your own world if this is not obvious to you.

Fact that he failed to take wickets on the turners during the series vs Windies is all that mattered, since that was his main role & the main role of any test spinner. If you actually watched him bowl in that series, regardless of the fact that he took 11 wickets, it was clear the windies batsmen had no problem againts him. I would have backed another seamer to have done equally well or better in that scenario.


I could have telegraphed to you or anyone else 6 months ago, 1 year ago or 2 years ago that Hauritz would have failed in this India test & i was proven right:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2323270-post279.html

Well except for Johnson. Bollinger, Hilfy & Watson have proven they can reverse swing the ball since that will be the REAL key in whether AUS will win this series or not. Since i can certainly see the IND batsmen hitting Hauritz out of the attack.

So clearly going into this test their was nothing that needed to proven to me, i expected what eventually happened to occur. But if Hauritz had managed to step up & had taken a 5wicket haul in this test, my position on him would have had changed since it would have been a clear sign of improvement after two years of failures in similar conditions. Myself or any other critic of him would have had to acknowlege that. So dont try to play the biased card with me.


Stats dont tell the whole truth, Hauritz fairly decent test average flatters him severly at this early stage. Watching him bowl at that is obvious, a bowler like Suliemann Benn from who has already taken three 5 wicket hauls for againts good opposition & avergaes 40 ATS. Its quite obvious who is the better bowler of the two for eg

I have not stats picked anything. I have judged his progress (lack of progress rather) based on the historical precedence of what spinners need to do in other to of use ot their test side & to be considered test quality. Which i have explained over & over to you & others. I cannot be blamed if you are not ofay with these trends in cricket history.

 

[howardj]

One of the big problems in India is the expectation factor is raised to such high levels. YOu're expected, as a spinner, to roll the opposition or at least make a huge contribution toward doing so. Hauritz is more of a piston in the engine, rather than the actual horsepower itself (have no idea about cars). He's perfectly serviceable (averaging around 30) especially in Australia where the pitches offer little, but probably not a match winner. Down the track, I see Smith being our number one tweaker no doubt, but he needs to start as a batsman (# 6) and gradually give his bowling more exposure. There's lots of upside to his bowling.

 

[Dan]

So Aussie, what you're saying is that every piece of evidence that supports Flem's argument must be irrelevant? Why must wickets against Pakistan be cancelled out just because North took a 6-for? Is it not possible that North could just have bowled well or used this thing called psychology to take his wickets? Obviously, Pakistan isn't a superpower at the moment, but that doesn't mean all wickets should be disregarded. A Test match wicket is a Test match wicket.

Ostensibly, Hauritz is no Shane Warne. Or Daniel Vettori. Or Graeme Swann. He is who he is, a decent, reliable spinner who can keep it tight (usually) and chip in with a key wicket or 2. And he's the best we've got.

And Flem, correction, Hauritz played a test in India in 2004. From memory he took 5-not many in the first innings. TBF, Michael Clarke then went on to take 6-9 in the 2nd, but still

 

[BoyBrumby]

Amongst a lot of other stuff that can only be described as propaganda, aussie has made a useful point about Hauritz that hasn't really been acknowledged.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that Hauritz is actually a better bowler than, for example, Peter Siddle or Stuart Clark - he gets selected because he provides something different. Shane Watson's presence significantly diminishes the selection value of a fourth quick and Hauritz is picked in the hope that he might prosper in conditions that others wouldn't. However, as (surprisingly) good as he's been in Tests so far, he is yet to actually do that. Hauritz's best bowling has actually come at times you'd expect another quick to be effective too - there's no doubt in my mind that Pete Siddle would be a better job of bowling on Day 2 than Hauritz, for example. Aussie repeatedly bringing up the lack of a good Day 5 performances isn't just him sprouting crap; it's very relevant to the debate over whether Hauritz should play.

I wouldn't drop Hauritz yet for the reasons I extrapolated earlier in the thread, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of the idea that bowling well in the fourth innings is particularly important for him. If he can't do that we really would be better off picking the extra quick as he's not offering the variety he's being selected for.

It's like The Oval never happened...

 

[marc71178]

If wickets against Pakistan have to be disregarded because of North, shouldn't wickets in India be disregarded because of the infamous 6-9?

 

[four_or_six]

It's like The Oval never happened...

Agree with this. I think it would be madness if Australia went in with five quicks after what happened last summer. If there's a better spinner than Hauritz then fine, but from what I can gather there isn't. So he stays.

 

[TumTum]

It's like The Oval never happened...

Agree with this. I think it would be madness if Australia went in with five quicks after what happened last summer. If there's a better spinner than Hauritz then fine, but from what I can gather there isn't. So he stays.

Agree with this, plus he's been getting pretty nice flight, drift & dare I say spin recently.

 

[Andrew Pollock]

Hauritz is crap

Bring back Krezja

 

[Jono]

He's better than Swann tbh

Would genuinely love to re-read that thread again tbh. Would make for some hilarious reading.

 

[sledger]

Got to love these stupid arguments which go along the lines of "if you take away a players performance against a certain side then....."

Worst way to mount an argument ever.

 

[Jono]

Just to (reluctantly) chime in on this debate, there are many holes one can pick in aussie's arguments. But as Prince pointed out, it is not wrong to have serious concerns for the fact that Hauritz barely bowled on day 5 vs. India.

That was a particularly glaring issue for mine. Can't just sweep that under the carpet. Nor can you just excuse it because it was against India. Ishant Sharma isn't a superstar Indian batsman who is amazing against spin.

 

[aussie]

So Aussie, what you're saying is that every piece of evidence that supports Flem's argument must be irrelevant? Why must wickets against Pakistan be cancelled out just because North took a 6-for? Is it not possible that North could just have bowled well or used this thing called psychology to take his wickets? Obviously, Pakistan isn't a superpower at the moment, but that doesn't mean all wickets should be disregarded. A Test match wicket is a Test match wicket.

Ostensibly, Hauritz is no Shane Warne. Or Daniel Vettori. Or Graeme Swann. He is who he is, a decent, reliable spinner who can keep it tight (usually) and chip in with a key wicket or 2. And he's the best we've got.

And Flem, correction, Hauritz played a test in India in 2004. From memory he took 5-not many in the first innings. TBF, Michael Clarke then went on to take 6-9 in the 2nd, but still

Flem has given no creditible evidence that supports anything good Haurtiz has done, in the key circumstance where he should be doing the main role of a test spinner.

All test wickets are not equal. Just like when a batsman is called FTB if he constantly plunders runs againts joke attacks on raods, but strugggles to score runs againts quality bowling attacks in bowling friends conditions. The same thing applies for Hauritz situation with PAK, where he spun out a joke batting line-up, but struggled to do that same againts solid/quality opposition consistenly in his career when he has gotten tunrers/wearing 4th or 5th day tracks.

Did you even watch the lord's test on the final day??. Dear god, it was painstakingly obvious that it was nothing more than a dumb batting collapse on a final day batting beauty - the ball wasn't even turning. Pakistan went from negotiation AUS main wicket-taking threat, to collapsing ridiculously againts two part time spinners. This is getting excedingly ridiculous now.


The weak argument that "he is the best we got" is also quite dull ATM. No one is asking him to be a Murali, Warne, Swann or Vettori. Since unless you are one of the great spinners in test history you not expected to take wickets or be seriously effective on days 1-3. You at least however should come into serious play on the 4th & 5th days when the ball is turning & be able to bowl your team to victory/take 5 wicket hauls. Hauritz has consistently failed to so in his career againts good opposition. So quite clearly that proves AUS do not have a spinner capable of doing the main role of test match spinner - so they need to accept this glaring deficiency & depend on the fast bowlers to do the job in all conditons now (although i would have backed Krejza to have been more dangerous than Hauritz @ Mohali).

The fact that i had to repeat this to you & Flem makes me wonder if some of you watch cricket.


Bringing up Mumbai 04 just makes Hauritz look more bad & further proves my point. On what was one of the worst pitches in recent test history that playing like an old-fashioned sticky wicket. Hauritz AGAIN failed to spin out a good team - all he did in that test as he has done pretty much since his recall vs SA 08/09 was be accurate, with the batsmen playing him fairly comfortable in conditions where he should be on top. The fact that Clarke the part-timer came in and caused the havoc, showed how average he was on that day.

If wickets against Pakistan have to be disregarded because of North, shouldn't wickets in India be disregarded because of the infamous 6-9?

No they are two totally different things.

One is a part-time spinner spinning out a joke batting line-up on flat 5th day wicket with no turn.

The second is a part-time spinners spinning out a top class batting line-up on a underprepared wicket. Which in the pre -war days on sticky wickets used to happen all the time when part-time spinners of the likes of Frank Woolley etc used to bowl

 

[aussie]

Just to (reluctantly) chime in on this debate, there are many holes one can pick in aussie's arguments. But as Prince pointed out, it is not wrong to have serious concerns for the fact that Hauritz barely bowled on day 5 vs. India.

That was a particularly glaring issue for mine. Can't just sweep that under the carpet. Nor can you just excuse it because it was against India. Ishant Sharma isn't a superstar Indian batsman who is amazing against spin.

Funny that you can say their is many holes in that can be picked in my argument, when what you have said in the bolded, along with PEWS is what i have been saying since page 1. SMH..

 

[aussie]

It's like The Oval never happened...

Agree with this. I think it would be madness if Australia went in with five quicks after what happened last summer. If there's a better spinner than Hauritz then fine, but from what I can gather there isn't. So he stays.

SMH. If again you people are seriously suggesting that Hauritz would have made a difference to the outcome of the Oval test. That is totally ridiculous especially when he has failed consistently in his career before the Oval (1st test @ Caridff) & since the Oval on tuners or wearing 4th/5th day pitches to bowl out good teams.

Their is technically a better spinner in Krejza that i would back to be more dangerous on 5th day wickets or turners than Haurtiz againts good teams.

But overall 5 seamers can can certainly take 20 wickets & bowl well on 5th day wickets, Especially when most of the AUS quicks can reverse-swing the ball & has the showed in the Mohali test, they can utilize the low bounce that inevitably occurs on wearing last day wickets - which can result in alot of LBWS. Along with great stamina & heart to find extra bounce, which would adeuately make up for the lack of spinner capable of doing the usual 5th day bowling workload.

Got to love these stupid arguments which go along the lines of "if you take away a players performance against a certain side then....."

Worst way to mount an argument ever.

Thats how all cricketers are judged. Performances againts good opposition is always worth more than againts performances againts poor opposition.

Hauritz is crap

Bring back Krezja

Very good.

 

[sledger]

Thats how all cricketers are judged. Performances againts good opposition is always worth more than againts performances againts poor opposition.

Within reason, to simply pretend a significat portion of a player's career never happened for argument's sake is an inane and facile way of making a point. Sure, it is more impressive to perform well against good opposition, but this doesn't mean that performances against lesser opposition should lose all meaning or cease to exist.

 

[marc71178]

SMH. If again you people are seriously suggesting that Hauritz would have made a difference to the outcome of the Oval test. That is totally ridiculous especially when he has failed consistently in his career before the Oval (1st test @ Caridff) & since the Oval on tuners or wearing 4th/5th day pitches to bowl out good teams.

No, of course you're quite right, it would've been lunacy to pick a spinner on a pitch that was obviously going to turn, far better to pick 4 specialist seamers and an all rounder who bowls seam.

Clearly Ponting agreed that when he gave a part-time spinner 44 overs in the match (more than any other Australian bowler)

 

[aussie]

Within reason, to simply pretend a significat portion of a player's career never happened for argument's sake is an inane and facile way of making a point. Sure, it is more impressive to perform well against good opposition, but this doesn't mean that performances against lesser opposition should lose all meaning or cease to exist.

I never said this. All i said is that performances againts good opposition is always worth more than againts performances againts poor opposition.

No, of course you're quite right, it would've been lunacy to pick a spinner on a pitch that was obviously going to turn, far better to pick 4 specialist seamers and an all rounder who bowls seam.

Clearly Ponting agreed that when he gave a part-time spinner 44 overs in the match (more than any other Australian bowler)

Their was nothing obvious that the Oval was going to turn. Neither of the teams going into that test expected the ball to turn as much as it did. ENG would have likely picked Panesar to partner Swann as well, if they that where the case. So dont go making stuff up.



Past experience however would tell you that Oval gets reverse-swing later on for the quicks. Holding 1976, Wasim/Waqar 1992, Tait 05 for example. So the only change i would have made to winning team was Lee for Clark, given he was AUS premier exponent of reverse swing ATT. He would have farrr more effective than Hauritz on the abrasive wicket, in conditions when Hauritz has consistently failed to be effective in againts good opposition pre & post Oval. So it would have been ridiculous to presume Hauritz would have an effect on the outcome of the match. AUS lost that test simply due to dumb 1st innings batting collapse.