North should replace Hauritz as frontline spinner - MacGill

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
No way would I pick both Krejza and Hauritz. While they are two different offies, I don't see the benefit in that attack and I know the selectors won't. If you are playing two spinners they have to be different so that you at least get the variation.
 

Slowcoach

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Location
Australia
Playing North as the spinner may be ok if Smith is picked as the other spinner.

We have 4 seamers if you include Watson, so why pick another? Might as well play Smith.

Picking Doherty is stupid, he'll never take wickets at test level, it's like saying England should pick Yardy instead of Panesar based on his better limited overs record.
Who?
Exactly.

Hauritz got into problems in India because he tried to flight the ball, hoping for wickets. Speculatively tossing the ball up hoping for an outfield catch just leads to being tonked for six, it's stupid tactics, bad bowling.
He should have just tried to bowl maidens, which is what he was doing when he did well when he was first recalled to the team.
Bowl dot balls and the wickets will follow.

And telling me Doherty should be picked to bowl maidens instead is just plain dumb, his first class record is dreadful, and one performance doesn't mean he is any better than he was, he has always been crap.

And calling for Krejza to be picked is dumb too, yes, he took wickets in India, but the pitch was a minefield and he still managed to somehow concede 358 runs.
As for him being a "wicket taker", I didn't see a hell of a lot of wicket taking in that test at the WACA.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
We have 4 seamers if you include Watson, so why pick another? Might as well play Smith.

Because the next seamer is likely to get batsmen out in the conditions where the spinner wont. I.e a 5th day turner..

Hauritz got into problems in India because he tried to flight the ball, hoping for wickets. Speculatively tossing the ball up hoping for an outfield catch just leads to being tonked for six, it's stupid tactics, bad bowling.

He should have just tried to bowl maidens, which is what he was doing when he did well when he was first recalled to the team.
Bowl dot balls and the wickets will follow.

Am this is not an accurate representation of how Haurtiz bowled in India.

Haurtiz bowled in IND just as how he has been bowling since his recall vs S Africa 08/09. Which is his typical consistent outside the off-stump line, trying to turn it back into the right handers. At a pace 53-58 kmph.

What happened in IND was the IND batsmen hit him off his lenght & he had no answer to them, given his bowling repotoire was limited.


And calling for Krejza to be picked is dumb too, yes, he took wickets in India, but the pitch was a minefield and he still managed to somehow concede 358 runs.
As for him being a "wicket taker", I didn't see a hell of a lot of wicket taking in that test at the WACA.

Lets not overexaggerted. Since if Haurtiz played @ that Nagpur mindfield he would have conceeded 358 runs & taken no wickets. Plus i wouldn't cal Nagpur a mindfield at all, that was normal sub-continent turner.

Given Krejza had no support from the fast-bowlers & the IND batsmen when after him on his debut he bowled really well & did the job you would expect from a proper spinenr in tests. I can't see how you can logically critique his performances in that tests.

Krejza is wicket-taker on turning pitches & would always be dangerous on 5th day turner. Have you forgotten that big turning off-break that got Amla in the 1st innings @ Perth?.

Lets not forget Perth flattened out considerably on the final days & it certainly didn't deteriorate at all on that 5th day .

Fact is you have no understand how to use Krejza. You can't pick him as part of 4-man attack (3 quicks & 1 spinner), since given he is an attacking spinner that would be problem for thw 1st couple days in a test. In such an attack you need a spinner who can defend on to tie up an end i.e Swann.

If you pick Krejza in a 5-man attack (4 quicks + 1 spinner - Bollinger/Hilfy/Harris or Johnson/Watson & Krejza). You would be able to utilise him far better.
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
Hauritz got into problems in India because he tried to flight the ball, hoping for wickets. Speculatively tossing the ball up hoping for an outfield catch just leads to being tonked for six, it's stupid tactics, bad bowling.
He should have just tried to bowl maidens, which is what he was doing when he did well when he was first recalled to the team.
Bowl dot balls and the wickets will follow.

Spot on, I could probably live with Hauritz going at 2 an over ala McDonald and picking up some tailenders but when hes going at 4-5 an over then we got problems. I didn't watch him bowl at the SCG yesterday but he got whacked again, so don't know if that was him still trying to do what Ponting said or struggling to get back to his old style.
 

Slowcoach

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Location
Australia
Have changed my mind, Smith is useless, might as well pick Hauritz, two bad tests in India doesn't make him a bad bowler.
Smith is just another one of those young blonde legspinners who used to get picked for first grade in grade cricket when I was playing, and batted at number 11 and didn't bowl as part of their "development".
The difference is Smith bats at 8.
Seems a bit stupid that he is being picked as a "bowler" when he can't actually bowl.
If we get serious and actually want to win the World Cup we should drop him and pick someone else who can actually play, instead of totally disrupting the balance of the side in order to "develop" Cameron White MkII.
 

ZoraxDoom

Respected Legend
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Online Cricket Games Owned
Hauritz got into problems in India because he tried to flight the ball, hoping for wickets. Speculatively tossing the ball up hoping for an outfield catch just leads to being tonked for six, it's stupid tactics, bad bowling.
It isn't actually. If the batsmen are going after you, it's the perfect way to get wickets. You seem to equate tossing the ball up as bad bowling. It isn't. It's very hard to read flight. Toss the ball up, the batsman is more likely than not to mis-judge where the ball will land. Either you get him going for a big hit, or draw him onto the front foot for a delivery he should have stayed back too.

Also tossing the ball up allows it to drift, dip, and all that fun shizz. Give it a nice rip, toss it up, enjoy. That's the way a spinner should bowl. There will be times when you over pitch or drop short and get spanked, or when a big shot comes off. But that's the risk with aggressive spin bowling. You're not gonna rip through sides by bowling flat and good length and getting blocked away over after over.
 

angryangy

ICC Chairman
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
The trouble in India, or on any slow pitch that isn't turning square, is that a good batsman can be beaten at first and still find time to adjust. This is where the faster, flatter bowling comes in, as Kumble and Chandra did so well. This kind of bowling can with enough variation, be effective on its own, but can also create the pressure so that if the bowler chooses to flight the ball, the batsman might play it more rashly.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
Stupid idea, he is a part timer and they are never good substitutes for specialist bowlers.

There is so much talent in Australia in all departments of the game, its amazing that they are trying to salvage this hack instead of testing out young blood.

Exactly. If you don't have a good enough spinner then pick four seamers and play someone like North/Clarke/both as batsmen who can come on and England often get out to. As tactics go I didn't think aussies came out with such silly ideas.

Is Hauritz really that bad though?

Average : 34.98
SR : 66.67
5wi : 2

Home : 38 wkts @ 29.66 (SR 61.05)
Away : 25 wkts @ 43.08 (SR 75.20)

OK his taking of five wickets is pretty poor, but both have come at home. His home record is very handy and since that is where the Ashes will be played I sense this may be a senseless comment from MacGill, perhaps based on back to back poor series away from home Maybe he wasn't perfect in the 2009 Ashes, but his average of 32.10 and SR of 62.00 was hardly the worst on either side.

Ashes 2009

Hilfenhaus : 22 wkts @ 27.45
Broad : 18 wkts @ 30.22
Onions : 10 wkts @ 30.30
Siddle : 20 wkts @ 30.80
HAURITZ : 10 wkts @ 32.10
Johnson : 20 wkts @ 32.55
Harmison : 5 wkts @ 33.40

Everyone else took their wickets at 40+. As for spinners, Swann's 14 wkts cost 40.50 apiece, North's cost 51.00 each and Clarke and Panesar's one wicket each cost 75.00 and 115.00 respectively. Not exactly a good series for spinners, the main spinners on each side took 24 wickets between them which is about five per Test out of potentially 40 wickets, but spinners did not play the biggest of parts in the Ashes. Giles as I recall took 10 wickets in 2005, Warne did take 40 but he is an exception to most rules

Works both ways, playing Hauritz didn't help us in Cardiff and didn't help us in India..

As for Cardiff, Hauritz took 3/95 and 3/63, Panesar and Swann 1/246 between them. Not sure how England escaping with a draw should be in any way a detriment to Hauritz's contribution :noway
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
Stats don't tell the whole story, what they are showing is Hauritz is better than Swann which is far from the case and if anyone believes that then they can take Hauritz and we will have Swann. And the fact Johnson was better than any of the English bowlers despite all his troubles proves that case in point.

As for Cardiff, Hauritz took 3/95 and 3/63, Panesar and Swann 1/246 between them. Not sure how England escaping with a draw should be in any way a detriment to Hauritz's contribution

You've taken the quote out of context yes he did alright in that match but he didn't win it despite the track being a turner. So to suggest he would have won the match at the oval when hes never done it before is optimistic.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Just on Swann v Hauritz, here's a nice piece from Kerry O'Keefe:
It'll be hooray for Hauritz | The Daily Telegraph

Got a lot of time for Kerry and his opinions. He's a commentator that actually WATCHES the game and does his research, not to mention his great comedic value :p He does tend to be a bit of a NSW fan boy, but at least his opinions are based on sound reasoning.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Exactly. If you don't have a good enough spinner then pick four seamers and play someone like North/Clarke/both as batsmen who can come on and England often get out to. As tactics go I didn't think aussies came out with such silly ideas.

Preach it.

aussie1st said:
You've taken the quote out of context yes he did alright in that match but he didn't win it despite the track being a turner. So to suggest he would have won the match at the oval when hes never done it before is optimistic.

Amen.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
Stats don't tell the whole story, what they are showing is Hauritz is better than Swann which is far from the case and if anyone believes that then they can take Hauritz and we will have Swann. And the fact Johnson was better than any of the English bowlers despite all his troubles proves that case in point.

Hauritz may well be better than Swann, that wasn't the point I was making. I was pointing out that in that series few bowlers did better than Hauritz, whether he won any matches or not. But let's just look at who does better.

Swann vs WIN/BAN/PAK : 70 wkts @ 20.84 (SR 46.13, 5wi x7)
Hauritz vs WIN/NZE/PAK : 37 wkts @ 30.70 (SR 61.41, 5wi x2)

Swann vs AUS/IND/SAF : 43 wkts @ 35.86 (SR 67.14, 5wi x2)
Hauritz vs ENG/IND/SAF : 26 wkts @ 41.08 (SR 74.15, 5wi x2)

The stats don't show Swann is better than Hauritz, that wasn't the intention of the series stats. What the above stats show is Swann is better than Hauritz, BUT Swann has gorged himself in cheap wickets and when it comes to the better sides he's joe average.

Hauritz struggled bigtime at home against South Africa, Harris took twice as many wickets for South Africa but still quite expensive (38.70) and in the most recent series in India - both of which the aussies lost.

I don't think there is much doubt Swann is the better spinner, but like England's stats in general, and Vaughan's as captain, Swann has played the weaker sides way too much and it makes his stats look better than he is as a bowler.

You've taken the quote out of context yes he did alright in that match but he didn't win it despite the track being a turner. So to suggest he would have won the match at the oval when hes never done it before is optimistic.

If it was a 'turner' then how come England's TWO spinners took 1/246 between them? According to you Swann is better, I've never said he isn't, but Hauritz took six wickets in that match to Swann's NONE................... No he didnt' win the match, in my opinion Hauritz did very well to take six wickets.
 

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
If it was a 'turner' then how come England's TWO spinners took 1/246 between them? According to you Swann is better, I've never said he isn't, but Hauritz took six wickets in that match to Swann's NONE................... No he didnt' win the match, in my opinion Hauritz did very well to take six wickets.

The pitch was taking turn hence it was a turner, that is the definition of a turning pitch for me. There are a number of possible reasons why the other spinners didn't take wickets but there is no point in going into that as the point I was making was Hauritz has played on a number of turning surfaces and hes yet to win one excluding the Pakistan mess which has now been shown up to be very suspicious. I'm not saying he didn't do well because he did and I'd be happy if he bowled more like that in the current Ashes series but again to suggest he would have made any difference to the end result of the Oval test is optimistic.
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
The pitch was taking turn hence it was a turner, that is the definition of a turning pitch for me. There are a number of possible reasons why the other spinners didn't take wickets but there is no point in going into that as the point I was making was Hauritz has played on a number of turning surfaces and hes yet to win one excluding the Pakistan mess which has now been shown up to be very suspicious. I'm not saying he didn't do well because he did and I'd be happy if he bowled more like that in the current Ashes series but again to suggest he would have made any difference to the end result of the Oval test is optimistic.

I remember mention of a Test where Roger Harper struggled while Allan Border took 11 wickets, it happens.

EDIT : http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1113

AR Border : 7/46 & 4/50
TV Hohns : 1/49 & 3/69
PL Taylor : 2/65 & 1/91

RA Harper : 0/86 & DNB
CL Hooper : DNB & 0/24
IVA Richards : 1/68 & 1/12



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.

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. Including Hauritz in that Oval Test would have been a bit of a gamble, but Swann took EIGHT wickets and even North took four, so there is every chance that gamble might have paid off. Of course England had Flintoff in the side to facilitate the inclusion of a spinner, no reason the aussies couldn't have done likewise.
 
Last edited:

aussie1st

Retired Administrator
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Location
Auckland
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top