Nathan Hauritz role in the Australian test side. Should he really be playing?

[Bhargav]

How about Ferguson, i think he's the most classical in terms of technique to come into the team.Interestingly no one is talking up Shaun Marsh for the test team despite him doing really well in odi stuff.I think his technique outside off stump will let him down if given an opportunity in test.

i agree with S.Marsh.
btw ferguson has also a good technique!

 

[lethalhughes]

i agree with S.Marsh.
btw ferguson has also a good technique!

:banana2

 

[razahood]

Yeah i like the way Ferguson plays they should try him.He can provide some strength to their Batting

 

[War]

2008 was almost 4 quicks. Watson bowled more overs than White did in that series, so the 4 most used bowlers were fastmen. In fact, Michael Clarke almost bowled as many overs as White in that series

Watson was the man bowling well on that 4th afternoon in Nagpur when Ponting decided to play Mr Morality with the overrates and bowl 25 overs of Krejza, White, Hussey and Clarke when the ball was reversing nicely. It's the failures of Perth 2008, Nagpur 2008 and the Oval 2009 that have dented the 4-man pace attack idea - rightly or wrongly is up to you...

Wrongly of course.

While on a side note to your Ponting "Mr.Morality" point. Although it was irritating viewing watching it at the time. After it was explained, i sort of accept the reasons why Ponting had to do that. Since i'm quite sure if he had being arrogant & bowled his main bowlers, he still would have been criticized, whether AUS had won or lost.

only lee and clark? Lee was phenomenal that australian summer. Johnson has proved the best newbie they uncovered and Clark was still a force.

now who will it be, johnson, hilfenhaus, siddle and novie peter george? and siddle's been dropped before, not a huge difference for me.

I mean, am I the only person that's noticed that despite australia playing a spinner, they got to the point in the match where they needed to take 2 wickets with 90 runs in reserve. maybe you have to just say well done Laxman and Sharma, because I'm pretty sure give them 2 wickets to win with india needing around 90 runs to win in bangalore, they'd take that.

Yea only Lee & Clark where the consistent threats in that 4-man attack @ Perth that day. Johnson blew hot & cold throughout that series as a newbie & Tait was crap.

Right now in Hilfy, Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle, Harris. Thats 5 quicks that all @ one time be bowling well during a test - no weaklinks.

With regards to your other point. The fast bowlers did the MAJORITY of the work in getting AUS to within 2 wins with 90 runs to play. Hats off indeed to Laxman & Sharma for holding them out, but Hauritz failed to step up also, in conditions where he should have. This putting extra work on the quicks

And yes I can see Smith averaging 50 in Test cricket, again refer to what he did last season and how he did it.

It was only 1 season though. We cant really be sure if he can maintain that in every other FC season in the coming years.

But based on what ive seen of him in international cricket, i'd say he can average 35-40+ (under 45) at best long term in tests TBH.

 

[angryangy]

Thats 5 quicks that all @ one time be bowling well during a test - no weaklinks.

optimistic. :laugh

 

[Themer]

I see don't believe you're going to keep dismissing the big flaws in going in with 5 pacers.

As seen in the current match you need spinners to allow your pacers a rest if nothing else even though Hauritz has been poor.

If you were to have gone into this game without Hauritz they'd all be completely knackered as seen today despite them being given respite by Clarke and Hauritz their pace is down massively.

On a different discussion I've yet to see Hilfenhaus look at all dangerous with old ball. As said at the time he's similar to Anderson; no new ball no help no wickets.

 

[angryangy]

He's not really a dangerous bowler. He's a very skilled workhorse who can get on top of quality batsmen, but he doesn't bowl a great deal of glory-balls.

 

[War]

I see don't believe you're going to keep dismissing the big flaws in going in with 5 pacers.

As seen in the current match you need spinners to allow your pacers a rest if nothing else even though Hauritz has been poor.

If you were to have gone into this game without Hauritz they'd all be completely knackered as seen today despite them being given respite by Clarke and Hauritz their pace is down massively.

On a different discussion I've yet to see Hilfenhaus look at all dangerous with old ball. As said at the time he's similar to Anderson; no new ball no help no wickets.

Well its not as if AUS had 5 strong pace bowling options in this test. It was basically two in Hilfy & Johnson. Given that George & Watto weren't penetrative. Hauritz being crap, consistently forced Ponting to bring back the quicks (mainl Hilfy & Johnson) more than it was needed.

If Hilfy & Johnson were backed up by 3 other strong options in Bollinger, Harris or Siddle & Watto. The quicks would have been able to be rotated much easier in short sharp bursts - thus being kept fresh.


On Hilfenhaus i'm not sure what you have been watching this series if you are going to say Hilfenhaus has not looked dangerous with the old ball. Hilfy has bowled superbly, especially considering he has gotten the reverse swing that he has gotten in past series on flatish pitches in SA & ENG 09.

Anderson would have never been as effective as Hilfy in he has played in IND. Given his recent record bowling on flat pitches againts good batting sides.

 

[War]

optimistic. :laugh

Optimism based on their performances instead of any guesswork or hunch. Only worry in such a scenario is Johnson having the odd bad test.

 

[aussie1st]

If we wanted a spinner to relieve the pacemen then North is a decent enough option to do that or even Smith given Hauritz is going at 4 an over anyway. Hauritz always seems to be out bowled by the part timers, Clarke has taken the only spinners wicket for us. I really hope a spinner in the domestic comp stands up as we are going no where with Hauritz.

aussie1st added 3 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...

Optimism based on their performances instead of any guesswork or hunch. Only worry in such a scenario is Johnson having the odd bad test.

Siddle is pretty inconsistent atm. The last Ashes series shows that. He may have the potential but he right in the Johnson boat for consistency.

 

[War]

Siddle is pretty inconsistent atm. The last Ashes series shows that. He may have the potential but he right in the Johnson boat for consistency.

Ye which is why i would pick Harris as the 4th seamer.

 

[angryangy]

Optimism based on their performances instead of any guesswork or hunch. Only worry in such a scenario is Johnson having the odd bad test.

Johnson might produce the worst of it, but they all go missing at times. If they were that consistent, they'd all be averaging low 20s.

 

[sifter132]

^Exactly. Bollinger can be a bit hit and miss too, one ripping spell followed by some loose or less intense stuff. Hilfy is the only sure thing in this pace attack.

 

[angryangy]

And even then, like we were discussing up the page, he's not like a Dale Steyn sort of sure thing. He'll make it easier for other bowlers to charge in, but they'll have to be successful.

 

[War]

Think you guys are a bit too pessimistic about the pace attack to be honest.

All i will say is this. If England 4-man pace attack circa 2004-2006 of Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Jones could enjoy the success world wide as a bowling pace quartet. I see no reason why Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Johnson/Harris or Siddle cant.