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

[War]

Watching the New Zealand test series, especially the recent 2nd test as Ross Taylor assaulted Hauritz in the first innings. Then in the second innings when Clarke managed to do a very steady job as spinner. As a fierce critic of Hauritz use in the test side since he was recalled vs South Africa 08/09, i still remain unconvinced that Australia need to play him or any spinner in a test match at all. But rather adapt a 4-man pace attack for all tests - except when they tour the sub-continent (or home tests @ Adelaide or SCG) where having a spinenr really becomes a must.


The role of any normal spinner (who aint Warne, Murali or O'Reillly) is on the 4th or 5th day wearing wicket is to bowl his side to victory. Watching Haurtitz bowl in the past year in such circumstances againts opposition of quality or who where playing hard cricket (Windies & New Zealand):

- Cardiff 09

- Adelaide & Perth 09

- Wellington 09/10


NOTE: The 5 wicket hauls he took againts the Pakistan team in turmoil dont count.

In these respective second innings. The opposition batsmen basically sat on Hauritz & played him quite comfortably in conditions where Haurtiz really should be causing havoc if he worth his salt as test match off-spinner. But he didn't all he was was accurate, while ocassionaly getting a bit of sharp/big turn out of the rough patches. But overall he was not very penetrative in this 3 innings. Theirfore if he can't do this role effectively, then he should not have a regular place in the test side.

Since if Australia play 4 seamers when all are fit in Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Johnson/Sildde + Watson as back-up. In those same 4th & 5th day conditions in Hilfy & Siddle/Watson we got fast-bowlers who can reverse swing the old ball @ pace which makes up for the lack of a front line-spinner to exploit the rough patches quite well. Plus Johnson with his raw pace even on flat pitches will test batsmen always.

Some may may say that the 4 seamers may cause a problem with the overate. But if Clarke & North are in the team, depending on the state of the match you can bowl them to fill in some overs. Of course it may not be ideal since they could go for runs while doing so - but so would Hauritz in such a situation as Taylor showed in the recent test.

Nathan Hauritz is to Ricky Ponting now, what Peter Taylor was the Allan Border in the early 90s. A solid ODI bowler, but a below quality test spinner. 70-80% time in the post Warne/MacGill era of aussie spin talent (or lack of spin talent), Australia can & should go in to test matches without Hauritz or the forgotten man Krejza.

BEST AUS TEST XI:

Watson
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger

I think Watson should do like Steve Waugh & limit his bowling output in test matches especially (although in ODIs & T20 he will be needed). Although since the Ashes he has basically had one injury & has looked very fit. I still think the more he bowls he risk getting injured alot, especially now that his role as an all-rounder in all forms of the game as become so important.

 

[Banno]

But rather adapt a 4-man pace attack for all tests.

Going into the 5th Test at the Oval with Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Clark without a spinner pretty much cost Australia the Ashes. Marcus North was Australia's best bowler I seem to recall and taking in a frontline spinner, in this case Hauritz although in the future it could be Krejza or someone else, was vital on that pitch.

 

[War]

Going into the 5th Test at the Oval with Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Clark without a spinner pretty much cost Australia the Ashes. Marcus North was Australia's best bowler I seem to recall and taking in a frontline spinner, in this case Hauritz although in the future it could be Krejza or someone else, was vital on that pitch.

Nah thats all nostalagia. Australia had just won the 4th tests by an innings playing an all-pace attacks Hauritz not playing in the Oval test was not the reason AUS lost that final test & the Ashes. It was Australia ridiculous 1st innings batting collapse in their first innings of the Oval test (which has been a trademark of Australia in this post McGrath/Warne era since Ashes 06/07). Thats what cost them that tests, since they couldn't play catch up from such a position after digging themselves into such a hole.

The pitch was even turning that much on the 4th & 5th days even though North took 4 wickets. Swann didn't exactly spin out Australia in their 2nd innings either.

Hauritz playing wouldn't have spun out England. Since in the 1st Ashes test @ Cardiff & other test since the Ashes when he had chances to do major damage on wearing 4th/5th day surfaces he didn't step up.Opposition batsmen played him fairly comfortably.

 

[sifter132]

I think you know my position on this I think 20 overs of Hauritz + 10 overs of Watson is better than 20 overs of Siddle + 10 overs of Clarke. What would possibly be better is 20 overs of Siddle + 10 overs of Steve Smith. But Smith would have to wangle his way into the top 6 somehow and after North's efforts in NZ that will be difficult.

Agree that the batting collapse cost us the 5th Test, but you must acknowledge that the 4 seamers didn't do their jobs near as well as had been done at Headingley. And that had a lot to do with the pitch. 4 seamers could work sometimes, but in places like India, West Indies, Sri Lanka I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot without a spinner.

In all fairness it should come down to form. During the summer I thought Hauritz was bowling better than Siddle was, hence the 4 quick argument seemed stupid. Maybe Hauritz will fall away again and then I'd be more willing to drop him. But I don't think one assault from Ross Taylor should ruin his last 6 months of respectable work. Most of the time in NZ he did his job: keeping it quiet. His economy for the series was still 2.8 even after Taylor's assault and he bowled plenty of maidens. That's what Krejza couldn't do and why Haury got the #1 spinner role.

 

[aussie1st]

Johnson, Bollinger Harris and Hilfenhaus would be a better 4 seam attack. Siddle has been pretty average so far, maybe he'll be better after his rest but Harris has done everything asked of him so far.

Looks like Smith will have to step up his spinners now as the batting spot is unlikely until some retirements.

 

[drainpipe32]

Look at South Africa. They played without a spinner for years, and couldn't reach the next step. The bring in Harris, a spinner that's a bit similar to Hauritz and it's helped a lot. We eed him, at least till one of the younger blokes improves.

 

[War]

Look at South Africa. They played without a spinner for years, and couldn't reach the next step. The bring in Harris, a spinner that's a bit similar to Hauritz and it's helped a lot. We eed him, at least till one of the younger blokes improves.

Not really. SA had better spinners than Harris in the 90s like Symcox, Boje, Eskteeen (spell check) & Adams.

South Africa in the 90s & early 2000s played without those spinner a lot yes & didn't win in Australia & England most famously. They couldn't beat Australia mainly because of of the presence of Shane Warne, since many times i can remember Donald & co would run through the AUS top-order, but their batsmen (most famously Cullinan) just couldn't deal with Warne.

The three series they lost to England in 1994, 98, 2003 was a mixture of alot of things. In 1994 England where lucky to draw that series, SA made a few mixtakes. In 1998 that was fluke series win i remember that vividly, i still don't know how England managed to win that series 2-1, since that same England team the next year in 1999 lost to New Zealand are where herald the worst test team on the planet. While in 2003 it was a South African & English teams in transitions battling that drew 2-2.

But they managed to win in India & PAK though in the 90s thanks to their past pace attack though which is something AUS up until 2004 couldn't do. Overall that SA team was great, definately superior to the ones they have now, if AUS wasn't that strong in the 90s they would have been the best team in the world during the 90s.



The impact of Harris for South Africa in their 5-man attack, has been useful in aiding them between 2006-2009 where they where unbeaten in tests until they lost in SA to AUS in 09. But one MAJOR thing Harris has over Hauritz in Australia 5-man attack is that Harris (although he is nothing special) has proven he can do real damage on 5th day wearing tracks & take 5 wicket hauls for the Saffies - Haurtiz to date hasn't.

 

[War]

I think you know my position on this I think 20 overs of Hauritz + 10 overs of Watson is better than 20 overs of Siddle + 10 overs of Clarke. What would possibly be better is 20 overs of Siddle + 10 overs of Steve Smith. But Smith would have to wangle his way into the top 6 somehow and after North's efforts in NZ that will be difficult.

It depends which Siddle your talking about to be fair my firend. Siddle of the Australian summer was indeed average given he was playing most of the summer injured. But if Sidvicicous comes back strong & regains his bowling mojo of vs SA 09/10 & some parts of the Ashes. I'd say

20 overs of that Siddle (pre 2009/10 AUS summer) + 10 overs of Clarke+ North is better than 20 overs of Haurtiz + 10 overs plus Watson.

I think the selectors like North alot for someone reason & he repayed their faith. So if he is in the team, his bowling + Clarke (now that his back issues seems to be gone) you dont need Haurie most of the time.

Agree that the batting collapse cost us the 5th Test, but you must acknowledge that the 4 seamers didn't do their jobs near as well as had been done at Headingley. And that had a lot to do with the pitch. 4 seamers could work sometimes, but in places like India, West Indies, Sri Lanka I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot without a spinner.

Word. The selectors just would have to know where they can play Hauritz. Playing a spinner in the sub-continent especially in IND & SRI is a must. I dont think Hauritz would trouble those batsmen (Sehwag & Gambhir vs Hauritz...he will surely die :laugh), but you got pick him still. Plus in basically every home test @ Adelaide & SCG as i mentioned b4.

In all fairness it should come down to form. During the summer I thought Hauritz was bowling better than Siddle was, hence the 4 quick argument seemed stupid. Maybe Hauritz will fall away again and then I'd be more willing to drop him. But I don't think one assault from Ross Taylor should ruin his last 6 months of respectable work. Most of the time in NZ he did his job: keeping it quiet. His economy for the series was still 2.8 even after Taylor's assault and he bowled plenty of maidens. That's what Krejza couldn't do and why Haury got the #1 spinner role.

That assualt from Taylor to be overshadowed any respectable work he did to be fair. Since for me it just confirmed by belief that good players of spin should be very comfortable againts him, while if they want should be able to attack him without worrying too much.

As i mentioned before. Hauritz main role in the test team is when we get to 4th & 5th day he has to spin through opposition sides when he gets those rough patches like what Swann has been able to do for England. To date when he encountered such conditions all he been able to do is be accurate & not really penetrative which really isn't good enough for a test spinner to be a regular member of a test XI.

What really is the use on a 5th day turner, a spinner taking 35-10-90-2 (Hauritz). Instead of 35-5-100-5 which someone like Swann would do in such conditions.

 

[pcfan123]

I think its a waste to play a "spinner" unless he is a pure specialist spinner who can attack and bring results. Hauritz is no way near being a true spinner, more like a part-timer whose not a mug with the bat

 

[drainpipe32]

Gosh Hauritz cops so much more than he deserves. What has he done wrong to deserve a dropping? Average of 29, SR of 64? That's 4 and 13 better than Vettori!

An economy rate of 2.97, what he does is tighten up the opposition batting line-up, and helps the quickies take wickets. Plus he takes 2-3 himself. Job well done.

 

[Num]

I think Hauritz is playing his role well in the Australian team. In my opinion, playing five pace bowlers simply (the main four plus Watson) with North and Clarke as our part time spinners is simply too much of a risk, even on non-subcontinental pitches. The fact that part time spinners such as North and Clarke perform well when they do come on to bowl is due to the fact that they are part time spinners, I believe that the more you use them (such as making them your main spin options), the less effective they will become.

Hauritz' economical bowling is also complementary to Australia's attacking and sometimes expensive pace bowlers. Yes, sometimes Hauritz can be expensive at times as well, but that is the case with almost all spinners. As a finger spinner, being underrated is not necessarily a bad thing either.

 

[sifter132]

It depends which Siddle your talking about to be fair my firend.

Exactly. That's why I mentioned form later on. Siddle from the Ashes onwards has been damn ordinary IMHO. He couldn't keep it tight, or bowl to a plan. He got no movement unless it this weird bobble he gets after it goes past the bat. He's had a few good spells where he's hit 150 and bowled with fire, but he's injured himself half the time because of it

I think he needs more domestic cricket to be honest. I'd have Johnson, Hilf, Bollinger, Harris, McKay and Lee ahead of Siddle right now if I were picking a Test team. And Lee's retired

As i mentioned before. Hauritz main role in the test team is when we get to 4th & 5th day he has to spin through opposition sides when he gets those rough patches like what Swann has been able to do for England.

I really don't think that's his job. I think it's a bonus if he can take 4th and 5th day scalps. But if they wanted a spinner to do job specifically they'd have kept Krejza. It's the pacemen's job to pick up the wickets now. Shane Warne has long retired mate, and to be honest there are maybe 2 spinners in world cricket at the moment who can run through teams. Swann and Murali. Vettori and Harris are no better than Hauritz at running through teams. Harbhajan can on his day but I wouldn't bank on it.

 

[irottev]

I don't think he's very good but he'll do for now. It's not like Australia has anyone knocking on the door. Smith seems ore a batsman who bowls. If his bowling improves then probably replace Hauritz.

 

[TumTum]

Hauritz is awesome.

 

[angryangy]

That assault from Taylor to be overshadowed any respectable work he did to be fair. Since for me it just confirmed by belief that good players of spin should be very comfortable againts him, while if they want should be able to attack him without worrying too much.

Sure, Taylor got dropped twice off Hauritz, then he suddenly felt really comfortable! All I ask is why Bollinger's bad match didn't overshadow his career too? Not only did he get slogged by Taylor, but also Tim Southee.