Mar 19 : Australia vs Pakistan

[aussie1st]

Nah that Hauritz talk is a myth. Yea Ponting encouraged him to be aggressive in interviews etc. But quite clearly Hauritz bowled no different in IND 2010 that how he bowled since he was recalled for the MCG test 2008/09. The Indian batsmen just smoked him accordingly & better than what international batsmen where doing (should have been doing for 2 years). Im sure you have all people will recall how the Indian batsmen was just the way Ross Taylor had crashed in a test in NZ in early 2010.

There is no question he bowled different in that series compared to how he usually bowled. He was bowling a more attack line which is not in his natural game.

Ok & what gives you impression that Smith doesn't have the confidence of Smith?. When you see articles this this:

Steve Smith hailed as new Steve Waugh | Herald Sun

Which highlight the fact that Ponting has had private convo with Smith about his importance to the national side (although i feel in some ways his importance is being over-rated), that is clear sign of confidence for eg.

Plus i definately i have seen no evidence that Smith looked more comfortable while Clarke was captaining him in AUS, compared to when Punter is in charge - none whatsoever.

Talk is cheap action speak louder than words. If Ponting was confident in Smith he would have used him against Pakistan.
Compare how he has bowled this WC to when we played against England. It's obvious where he looked more comfortable and the stats reflect it.

 

[Rehan_24]

It does not matter who is against or with Pakistan as long as the team keeps shutting them up for us in the field. Even here at PC the hostility towards Pakistan which is understandable keeping in mind the fixing saga, will subside if Pakistan continue to perform like Champions.

Ian chappel does it, there is no doubt in it. Off Late He has been quite biased. But I agree that the best way is to keep performing.

 

[Paki007]

so we might face Australia in the semis as well can't wait for that

 

[War]

There is no question he bowled different in that series compared to how he usually bowled. He was bowling a more attack line which is not in his natural game.

No he didn't. All that talk in media Ponting gave about wanting Hauritz to bowl like Harbhajan was simply that - talk.

Hauritz quite clearly bowled no way different in IND (his usual flat trajectory, with the occasionally attempted flighted/attacking delivery) that he bowled any time between MCG 2008 - NZ 2010 & the IND batsmen smoked everything he bowled at them.

Im not sure if you are using as a excuse defend Hauritz struggles in IND - if it that quite over the top. As i siad before, you dig up tapes (if you have it) of what Ross Taylor did to him in NZ 6 months before the IND series & you will find no difference to his bowling then & the treatment Taylor gave him compared. I telegraphed his pending doom in IND right after that if you recall & due to form it happened.

Talk is cheap action speak louder than words. If Ponting was confident in Smith he would have used him against Pakistan.
Compare how he has bowled this WC to when we played against England. It's obvious where he looked more comfortable and the stats reflect it.

What?. Why would Ponting have needed to use Smith (a part-time spinner) vs PAK?. AUS where bowled out for 170 odd, in such a scenario only your main 5-bowlers would have obviously going to be doing to main bowling to try to bowl out such a team.

I would think most international captains would have done like Ponting & kept bowling his main bowlers (although Tait & Johnson where below par) in that scenario & i perfectly support it. It very misguided to translate that as a sign that Ponting didn't have confidence in Smith bowling vs PAK my friend.

 

[aussie1st]

No he didn't. All that talk in media Ponting gave about wanting Hauritz to bowl like Harbhajan was simply that - talk.

I saw what I saw as did many others I talked to on other forums, so I'll stick with that.

What?. Why would Ponting have needed to use Smith (a part-time spinner) vs PAK?. AUS where bowled out for 170 odd, in such a scenario only your main 5-bowlers would have obviously going to be doing to main bowling to try to bowl out such a team.

Smith has been picked for his bowling if Ponting had confidence in him he would have been used. If James Hopes was playing instead of Smith there is no question he would have been used. This sticking to the 5 frontline bowlers is rubbish, it is to do with the confidence the captain has in a bowler.

 

[War]

I saw what I saw as did many others I talked to on other forums, so I'll stick with that.

I can use the forums argument as well, since i know people who would support my point too. If you put us in room then it would be like political debate between communist & proponents of democracy & the debate would run into a dead end due to stark ideological gridlock. So thats not a valid way of articulating your point sir.

So just to be clear. You are telling me IYO, Haurtiz failures in India was simply down to Ponting insistent that he bowled a different way & that if he had only stuck to what he had known, the IND batsmen wouldn't have slaughtered him?

Smith has been picked for his bowling if Ponting had confidence in him he would have been used. If James Hopes was playing instead of Smith there is no question he would have been used. This sticking to the 5 frontline bowlers is rubbish, it is to do with the confidence the captain has in a bowler.

No Smith is not picked for his bowling. He is picked as as all-rounder who can contribute with bat & ball - with his batting his clear strength at international level currently. His bowling is still very much - part-time not frontline.

Ponting was in his rights to use his main 5 bowlers in that PAK game as his main options to try & defend that target. Again - it very misguided to translate that as a sign that Ponting didn't have confidence in Smith bowling - Ponting did what 90+% of captains worldwide would have done in that situation.

 

[aussie1st]

I can use the forums argument as well, since i know people who would support my point too. If you put us in room then it would be like political debate between communist & proponents of democracy & the debate would run into a dead end due to stark ideological gridlock. So thats not a valid way of articulating your point sir.

That wasn't a point that was me saying you ain't going to change my views on the matter and I'm not going to bother trying to change yours.

So just to be clear. You are telling me IYO, Haurtiz failures in India was simply down to Ponting insistent that he bowled a different way & that if he had only stuck to what he had known, the IND batsmen wouldn't have slaughtered him?

Yes it was part of the reason. When on earth has Hauritz been a bowler that goes for runs? He is a boring bowler that doesn't take many wickets but if you are seriously telling me he is a bowler that bowls 70% half trackers then there is no point discussing this with you.

No Smith is not picked for his bowling. He is picked as as all-rounder who can contribute with bat & ball - with his batting his clear strength at international level currently. His bowling is still very much - part-time not frontline.

Ponting was in his rights to use his main 5 bowlers in that PAK game as his main options to try & defend that target. Again - it very misguided to translate that as a sign that Ponting didn't have confidence in Smith bowling - Ponting did what 90+% of captains worldwide would have done in that situation.

Lol are you really going to argue this after Smith was dropped, if that doesn't show a lack of confidence in a player I don't know what will. The whole reason he got ahead of Dussey and Ferguson is because of his bowling so yes he was picked for his bowling and if you ain't going to use him aka lack of confidence in the reason he was being picked then you bring in Dussey like they did in the India game. And as I have already pointed out, this 90% of captains would have used 5 bowlers is rubbish, if James Hopes or Afridi were in that side instead of Smith there is no question they would have been used.

 

[War]

Yes it was part of the reason. When on earth has Hauritz been a bowler that goes for runs? He is a boring bowler that doesn't take many wickets but if you are seriously telling me he is a bowler that bowls 70% half trackers then there is no point discussing this with you.

Hauritz didn't bowl 70% of half-trackers in the tests in India - that definitely didn't happen & I'd bet my house on that. Or could probably ask Robellina to post up videos of his bowling from that series jut to prove it.

He was driven (covers), swept & hit over mid-off & mid-on more than he was cut (and those cut shots where hardly off half-trackers either, it was just the skill of the Indian batsman to be able to hit good length balls for boundaries past point). I dont recall him bowling too many long-hopps which where pulled either.

Just now you where telling he bowled differently because he bowled a more attacking line, now this - so you gotta make up your mind which line of defense you are really giving me.

Plus as i've always maintained the reasons Hauritz didn't go for much runs between Melbourne 2008 - Sydney 2010 was because international batsmen played him with too much respect. (and of course match fixing from PAK 09/10).

Batsmen finally started the dominate him & play him properly when Ross Taylor took to him in early 2010 - long before IND batsmen destroyed him. How do you explain that then?. Since Ponting or no-one wasn't encouraging to bowl differently in that series.

Lol are you really going to argue this after Smith was dropped, if that doesn't show a lack of confidence in a player I don't know what will. The whole reason he got ahead of Dussey and Ferguson is because of his bowling so yes he was picked for his bowling and if you ain't going to use him aka lack of confidence in the reason he was being picked then you bring in Dussey like they did in the India game. And as I have already pointed out, this 90% of captains would have used 5 bowlers is rubbish, if James Hopes or Afridi were in that side instead of Smith there is no question they would have been used.

Although i was surprised Smith was dropped i wont necessarily call it a lack of confidence in his game. I saw it to be more tactical than anything (i.e Indian batsmen being great against leg-spinners historically for eg & Hussey being a more proven batsmen - given that regardless of potential Smith has yet to hit a ODI 50). Although in hindsight, they probably could have dropped White & retained Smith or called up Ferguson.

If Afridi was in the side, then OF COURSE he would have bowled. He unlike Smith is to class leg-spinner who would have certainly given the attack more variety. But i doubt whether Hopes would have bowled, i could have easily seen Ponting ignoring him sticking to 5 bowlers.

 

[aussie1st]

Hauritz didn't bowl 70% of half-trackers in the tests in India - that definitely didn't happen & I'd bet my house on that. Or could probably ask Robellina to post up videos of his bowling from that series jut to prove it.

He was driven (covers), swept & hit over mid-off & mid-on more than he was cut (and those cut shots where hardly off half-trackers either, it was just the skill of the Indian batsman to be able to hit good length balls for boundaries past point). I dont recall him bowling too many long-hopps which where pulled either.

Just now you where telling he bowled differently because he bowled a more attacking line, now this - so you gotta make up your mind which line of defense you are really giving me.

Plus as i've always maintained the reasons Hauritz didn't go for much runs between Melbourne 2008 - Sydney 2010 was because international batsmen played him with too much respect. (and of course match fixing from PAK 09/10).

Batsmen finally started the dominate him & play him properly when Ross Taylor took to him in early 2010 - long before IND batsmen destroyed him. How do you explain that then?. Since Ponting or no-one wasn't encouraging to bowl differently in that series.

What is this rubbish about Taylor dominating him? Are we calling 1 over where Hauritz got smoked for 24 runs to be domination? It was one poor over where Taylor was on fire but you make it sound like Taylor was smoking him all series. That was far from the case, Hauritz infact got him out LBW in the 1st Test. Apart from that 1 over of brilliance from Taylor and one from Vettori earlier in that spell, Hauritz in his other 3 innings went for less than 3 an over and took a couple of wickets aka what Hauritz does. His series economy was 2.82, yep he really did get 'dominated'.

Now compare that to the Indian series, there is no doubt he bowled a lot more crap deliveries (not so much the exaggerated half trackers I was referring to) than his norm. I put part of that down to Ponting asking him to change his game, you can't tell me he isn't going to listen to what his captain says and he has admitted to doing that so that is not in question. When you are asked to change your game either crap will result or you will rewarded your captain.

I'm not saying Hauritz didn't deserve to be dropped as I was the one calling for it but the bowler we saw in India was not the normal Hauritz, what he showed when he returned to Shield cricket was more like the normal Hauritz.