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

[War]

I watch all cricket series except those involving Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (I just sort of pay attention in those matches, unless they involve India) so that argument doesn't hold. He wasn't very impressive against West Indies but I thought he really came into his own vs Pakistan. That is when Ponting really began to have confidence in him. Hauritz himself has admitted that self esteem has been an issue for him in the past so I think that that Pakistan series was a real defining moment. I don't think Ponting or the selectors expect him to run through batting line ups anyways. They obviously feel as though they need a spinner in the line up which is why they have Smith waiting on the sidelines in case Hauritz starts to fail miserably. However, I think they feel he's too raw at the moment and for some reason, they refuse to try him out as a batting all rounder in place of North. I don't think that they are confident with the 4 prong pace attack unless they get a Leeds type pitch again, especially after The Oval. I'm not a huge Hauritz fan by any means but he has been sufficiently consistent without being spectacular. I don't think there are any other options that Australia could pursue and I'm not a big fan of the 4 man pace attack so for now, Hauritz will have to do.

Wickets againts the joke Pakistan batting team of the last 6 months do not count. That same PAK batting team gave the part-timer Marcus North 6 wickets on a lord's 5th day wicket that wasn't even turning. He might as well & have taken those wickets vs Bangladesh given the way PAK have batted like minnows for the last 6-8 months.

Againts all other proper batting opposition that i highlighted to you before (along with his debut vs IND on a dustbowl in 2004). Hauritz has consistently failed to be effective/take 5 wickets againts good batting opposition on wearing 5th day tracks or turners. The only consistency here is consistent failure to do the MAIN job of test match spinner.

AUS also dont need a Leeds type pitch to play 4/5 quicks. Overall 5 seamers 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 adequately make up for the lack of spinner capable of doing the usual 5th day bowling workload. So whether you are big fan or not of 4-man pace attack is not relevant here - that is what AUS have to do.


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 & i would have certainly backed him to have been far more effective than Hauritz @ Mohali.

Plus what happened @ the Oval??. I really hope you are now not going to suggest 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, as i already stated. AUS lost that test simply due to dumb 1st innings batting collapse - nothing more.

 

[sami ullah khan]

^quite right about the Pakistan thing. Pakistan's batting has been horrible and I would say at best at par with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Hauritz's performance against Pak is hardly of any credence as far his ability is concerned. These days any one who can roll him arm over can get fifers against us.

 

[War]

^quite right about the Pakistan thing. Pakistan's batting has been horrible and I would say at best at par with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Hauritz's performance against Pak is hardly of any credence as far his ability is concerned. These days any one who can roll him arm over can get fifers against us.

Yep. Quite expected a Pakistan fan to agree.

 

[Num]

Firstly as an Indian with all due respect i dont know how much of Hauritz you have seen in tests since his recall vs SA 08/09.

But long before he failed to be effective on the final day of the recent Mohali test, in the past two years he has consistently failed to bowl other good batting opposition when has gotten similar conditons. Such as NZ @ Wellington earlier this year, Windies twice last summer in AUS & in ENG in the Cardiff Ashes test. Which proves conclusively he consistently failed to do the main job of test spinner worth any degree of credibilty as test bowler - wich is bowl his team to victory/take 5 wicket hauls on a turner/4th or 5th day wearing wicket againts solid/good/very good opposition.

Many decent/average spinners in recent times who aren't of the calibre of Murali & Warne such a Boje, Giles, Paul Harris & Adams, Croft, Greg Matthews Krejza, Kaneria for example have either gone to the India (or SRI or PAK) bowled on wearing 5th day wickkets & have bowled their sides to victory by taking 5 wicket hauls.

Hauritz has consistenly failed to do either, so no in his career to date he has clealry been useless everywhere & should be dropped.

Not all those players have taken 5 wicket hauls in the subcontinent in the 3rd/4th innings of Test matches.

The proposal of replacing Hauritz with Siddle to greater Australia's wicket-taking ability on wearing 4th/5th day wickets is questionable. Consider that against the same Pakistan batting line-up, in the fourth innings, Siddle averaged 28.00 at a SR of 64.6, as opposed to Hauritz' average of 14.15 at a SR of 24.4.

 

[War]

Not all those players have taken 5 wicket hauls in the subcontinent in the 3rd/4th innings of Test matches.

The proposal of replacing Hauritz with Siddle to greater Australia's wicket-taking ability on wearing 4th/5th day wickets is questionable. Consider that against the same Pakistan batting line-up, in the fourth innings, Siddle averaged 28.00 at a SR of 64.6, as opposed to Hauritz' average of 14.15 at a SR of 24.4.

All of the certainly have, check their cricinfo records. Well except for Croft, but if you saw him bowl in SRI 2000/01, he certainly was super dangerous on those turners & was unlucky not to take a 5 for.

Siddle wasn't bowling @ his best during the home summer just gone. Was basically playing injured after that injury he suffered in India during either the CL playing for Vic or the ODI series in IND (cant remember which one exactly).

When he was bowling @ his best for example vs S Africa @ SCG 09. If you remember that 5 wicket haul & overall match performance, he was getting some serious reverse-swing on that wearing wicket, which is what quicks needs to have in their armory to be effective on final day wearing wickets.

But id sooner pick Harris before Siddle. Since i want a line-and-lenght quick bowler in that all pace attack, that Ponting can rely on block up and end for an extended period.

 

[Num]

All of the certainly have, check their cricinfo records. Well except for Croft, but if you saw him bowl in SRI 2000/01, he certainly was super dangerous on those turners & was unlucky not to take a 5 for.

Siddle wasn't bowling @ his best during the home summer just gone. Was basically playing injured after that injury he suffered in India during either the CL playing for Vic or the ODI series in IND (cant remember which one exactly).

When he was bowling @ his best for example vs S Africa @ SCG 09. If you remember that 5 wicket haul & overall match performance, he was getting some serious reverse-swing on that wearing wicket, which is what quicks needs to have in their armory to be effective on final day wearing wickets.

But id sooner pick Harris before Siddle. Since i want a line-and-lenght quick bowler in that all pace attack, that Ponting can rely on block up and end for an extended period.

Yeah, fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. Being a Hauritz supporter and not exactly a fan of a 5-man pace attack, I'd like the selectors to show more faith in Hauritz. Smith would have to be in the team if Hauritz is dropped though, because Clarke and Katich can't be relied upon as part-time spin bowling options (because of their injuries) and North shouldn't be in the Test team for his part-time spin bowling solely.

 

[sifter132]

^Right. If we play 4 quicks with Watson but North is dropped and Clarke/Katich aren't fit - who can bowl off a short run? Ponting? Hussey? In that case you have to pick Smith or maybe a Dave Hussey type just to give you a bowler who can get through the overs.

Because to me a lot of it comes down to overrates. If we can get away with playing 4 quicks and getting the overs in, then it's a genuine option eg. South Africa '09. But before that we played 4 quicks and the overrate was bad. Perth 2008 v India, Ponting got fined for slow overs and the famous 4th Test later that year in India where Ponting feared fine/suspension and bowled part timers for an hour and let any chance of victory slip away. That's what I fear, not so much that life is impossible without a spinner. So my rule might be: if the pitch looks like you can bowl them out in less than a day with 4 quicks, then yes give it serious consideration, but otherwise you'll be sprinting between overs and bowling 15 overs of part time stuff a day to get your overs in. That's why I don't think it can be the standard XI.

And I guess it all depends who you pick too. SA '09 had McDonald and Hilfenhaus who have shorter runs and don't muck around and North provided competent backup spin. Perth '08 you had Lee, Tait and Johnson who all take a fair while to bowl their overs.

 

[Symptom_Control]

I rate Krejza but he has done nothing in first class cricket to force his way back in. If any Aust spinner took some wickets they would get a look in.
Aust did well in SA with McDonald holding an end up + I feel he is underrated, his bowling doesn't look like much but he is very effective, arguably the best bowler in the world of his pace.

 

[aussie1st]

McDonald is basically the more effective version of Hauritz. We are better of with Harris or maybe George who can do the same thing at a better pace though.

 

[sifter132]

I was thinking of McDonald again today - I bagged his selection at the time, but I thought he did quite well. He may be a good choice especially if we play Smith at #6, as there may be a need for a little more depth in the batting in that case and also we'd need someone who could keep it quiet and get through some overs while the main quicks rest/fire from the other end - that is often Hauritz'z job. So if Hauritz/North fail badly this summer, I might support a Smith/McDonald combo to replace them. A guy like John Hastings might also be a candidate for that job if McDonald doesn't have the form behind him. Or maybe Magoffin.

 

[Symptom_Control]

Interesting selection dilemmas right now for Aust, thats for sure. I really rate Smith and Khawaja and also feel that Ferguson is destined for Test success but wonder if either is what is needed right now to replace North (surely he has been given enough chances) given the flakiness of our middle order. Despite his age I think a David Hussey would be worth a shot in the interim, he must be good for a couple of seasons at least?

 

[lethalhughes]

Interesting selection dilemmas right now for Aust, thats for sure. I really rate Smith and Khawaja and also feel that Ferguson is destined for Test success but wonder if either is what is needed right now to replace North (surely he has been given enough chances) given the flakiness of our middle order. Despite his age I think a David Hussey would be worth a shot in the interim, he must be good for a couple of seasons at least?

---------------------------------
David hussey wont play test cricket for australia, too old.Agreed with ur view on Ferguson,its hard not to get excited about Ferguson being a test player.There are players you just watch bat and instantly you see class.I know his first classs stats aint impressive, but if one youngster i would take a great punt on that would be ferguson.Ferguson, Hughes and Khawaja( in right order) am tipping to break through the side in the not too distant future.
I also dont like the idea of 4 frontline quicks.Over rates would be a worry.Hauritz has done enough to stay in the team.The spinner who could have really been a match winner on a ragging turner for the aussie is McGain, but he got slaughted by the South Africans.Jason Krejza is not an option he got dumped by his state.Hauritz has really improve and i do expect he'll get a few 5 wicket hauls against the top side soon enough.

 

[Num]

I was thinking of McDonald again today - I bagged his selection at the time, but I thought he did quite well. He may be a good choice especially if we play Smith at #6, as there may be a need for a little more depth in the batting in that case and also we'd need someone who could keep it quiet and get through some overs while the main quicks rest/fire from the other end - that is often Hauritz'z job. So if Hauritz/North fail badly this summer, I might support a Smith/McDonald combo to replace them. A guy like John Hastings might also be a candidate for that job if McDonald doesn't have the form behind him. Or maybe Magoffin.

I quite like the idea of Smith at #6 and McDonald at #8, though not quite yet of course, because I want to see Hauritz given a longer run in the Test team to see if he can establish his spot in the team. Smith at #6 and McDonald at #8 should allow Australia to get through overs in due time and provides us with really good batting depth, with Johnson at #9.

 

[lethalhughes]

I quite like the idea of Smith at #6 and McDonald at #8, though not quite yet of course, because I want to see Hauritz given a longer run in the Test team to see if he can establish his spot in the team. Smith at #6 and McDonald at #8 should allow Australia to get through overs in due time and provides us with really good batting depth, with Johnson at #9.

I don't really like that idea at all.McDonald is a useful bowler but it would be better if we're going without a frontline spinner that we pick four specialist quickies.If we don't have confidence in Smith at 6( FORGET HIS BOWLING FOR A WHILE ) then we shouldn't weaken our batting cause he's a spinner.Picking McDonald at 8 in theory would cover for having Smith at 6 buT in reality it hardly works out .I believe in picking your best 6 bats, unless you have an all rounder who is very very good at one discipline and useful in the other, like Watson( who right now is one of our best 6 bats).Hughes is a better bat than Smith and so is Ferguson in my opinion so if North is drop one of those should come in.North was pick cause of his useful offies although there were quite a few bats in domestic cricket better than him eg.David Hussey, and we saw how that turn out.Test cricket is about picking specialist , unless you have an all rounder that you just watch and ''you say wow'' for example,kallis,Imran, Sobers.

 

[Symptom_Control]

Would the selectors be brave (or foolish) enough to move Watson down the order and bring Hughes in to open? Hard to mess with a formula that works but surely its only superstition to think that Watson couldnt keep his form down the order?

I like Smith and think he will make it at test level but I would prefer a more solid No 6 right now given the overall sketchy form of the middle order

Having said all that it could also be a good time to go with youth, provided the selectors give them time to come good. Hughes certainly will get there, perhaps with a few more hiccups on the way. Ferguson looks like future captain material (touch wood, dont want to jinx the poor bloke)