I never said he (Hauritz) would have made a difference, but there are plenty of reasons to include a spinner/bowler and you don't just include them for their ability to take five wickets or win matches. Sure it is nice if they do once in a while, but unless you have a match winning spinner then it's a bit hard to include one.
I know you didn't say it but that was the point of the post which I originally posted and you quoted.
England had Panesar, he won England matches but yet his contribution when he wasn't winning matches was negligible. The point is I'd rather a steady contributor who chips in with regular wickets than one who does nothing for 1-3 Tests then wins a match when the series is lost.
How was Monty not taking regular wickets or how is that any different to what Hauritz has done? Monty's last few test matches in terms of wickets per match: 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4. Isn't that regular wickets? Yes he had a couple of games where he only took 1 wicket but so has Warne and so has Hauritz. That is essentially similar to what Hauritz has done. Monty has a better economy than Hauritz, both have similar stats and both have similar series stats so I'm not seeing how you can defend Hauritz but not defend Monty.
And the similarities between Monty and Hauritz doesn't end there. Monty's last 4 series excluding the Ashes
v NZ in England 9 wickets at 27.22
v SA in England 13 wickets at 31.69
v India in India 6 wickets at 50.5
v WI in WI 5 wickets at 54
Then the one Ashes match.
Hauritz last 4
v WI in Aus 11 wickets at 33
v Pakistan in Aus 18 at 23.05
v NZ in NZ 4 wickets at 65.75
v India in India 6 wickets at 65
So really looks like de ja vu to me. 2 good series followed by 2 poor ones. Both now at the 1st Ashes test, Monty has played his taking 1 wicket for 115 and resulted in never again for him. Hauritz also has 2 good series followed by 2 poor ones, he too is at the 1st Ashes test. Now if the trend continues I'd prefer to skip the 1 wicket at 115.