Hard to believe, but Hauritz is winning me over
Columnist By Brett McKay, 12 Jan 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Nathan Hauritz, Test cricket
Australian bowler Nathan Hauritz celebrates dismissing Pakistan's Mohammad Aamer. AAP Image/Julian Smith
There’s no two ways about this. This is a column I never would have dreamt writing not all that long ago. I’m sure I’m not the first person to admit that I’ve never been a big fan of Nathan Hauritz as a spin-bowling option.
Just as I maintain about Cameron White now, I also used to think Hauritz was missing the little thing that might make him a useful tweaker: the ability to spin the ball.
So when suddenly Hauritz was taken to India in 2004 instead of Stuart MacGill, the general feeling among my cricket discussion circle was that he was the token “work experience” selection, much like Dan Cullen going to Bangladesh a few years later.
“Surely he won’t get anywhere near the Test team…” we all assumed at the time.
Of course it’s history now that Hauritz is the owner of Baggy Green no.390, having made his debut in the Fourth Test of that Indian series. Taking five wickets for the match, his scalps included the prize wickets of VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar in the second innings.
But reality is a funny beast, and Hauritz copped a harsh lesson in it, where by the end of the following summer, he’d lost his spot in the Queensland side. It got even worse after the 2005/06 summer where having played only a few limited overs state games, Hauritz took a massive gamble and headed south to New South Wales with no state contract and well behind the likes of MacGill and the also just-relocated Beau Casson.
The move payed immediate dividends with Hauritz playing a few First Class matches for NSW in 2006/07, but more so in the limited-overs game, where his form was quite solid. This continued the following season, and suddenly Hauritz found himself back in Australian contention for the first time since 2003.
Hauritz kept plugging away for NSW, and after a whirlwind period following the retirements of Shane Warne, MacGill and Brad Hogg, the Australian spin bowling ranks went into a flat spin.
Suddenly, it seemed that any spinner in the country showing any degree of form was in contention, and we saw Casson, White, Jason Krejza, no-one, Hauritz, Krejza again, Hauritz again, Marcus North, and Bryce McGain playing the part in Tests.
Hauritz by this point was a fixture in the one-day side too, and was starting to emerge as the answer to the nation’s proverbial and literal spinning puzzle. When the squad for the 2009 Ashes series was named, Hauritz was the sole spinner.
But still, something about Hauritz didn’t sit well with me. From the very first moment he made his international debut in a one-dayer in South Africa in 2002, the sight of Hauritz in Australian colours just didn’t look right. The side just had a weird appearance about it, much like when a P-plater puts modern chrome wheels and low-profile tyres on a 25 year-old BMW.
You knew he could do the job, but it was very rarely a smooth ride.
Even when I wrote my early Ashes series column, “Is Hauritz the answer to Australia’s spin woes?” I still wasn’t that convinced. I was happy for him to be the sole spinner in England, and I was happy to support him, but I had lingering doubts.
His Ashes series in the end was quite reasonable I thought, given the amount of doubt and negative comment that surrounded him, both by the public, and the selectors. Perhaps the ultimate compliment for his place in the side is the now widely-held belief that his omission was a major factor in not winning the Fifth and deciding test at The Oval.
Since the Ashes series though, Hauritz’s demeanour and attitude about his cricket has been really refreshing. Where once he came across as having a sense of entitlement, now we see him in media interviews as relaxed and even nonchalant, and leading the way in self-deprecation, almost as if to beat anyone else to it.
And you can see it the field too. Hauritz seems to lead the way in laughing at himself, and picking the difference between his reactions to going for a boundary and taking a wicket can be quite difficult.
Yet this also washes over the real story here, which is the meteoric rise in Hauritz’s bowling. His bowling this summer is light years ahead of what he used to serve up. His lines, flight, and even his much-derided turn have all improved markedly, and have been exactly what you want from a front-line off-spinner. He’s quickly become the perfect foil for the Australian quicks.
His patience is becoming a feature too; no doubt a result of an over-hyped chat with Shane Warne. Whenever a batsman is going after him, you can see he just keeps on with his job, waiting for the breakthrough to come like it inevitably does.
His response to selection Chairman Andrew Hilditch’s demand that he show he can bowl teams out was perfect: back-to-back five-wicket hauls in Melbourne and Sydney.
23 wickets at a decent average and economy, his first and now second Test five-wicket innings, career-best figures, a couple of Test fifties with the bat; it really has been a Boy’s Own summer.
And he’s winning me over to boot.
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Nathan Hauritz, Test cricket
January 12th 2010 @ 12:33pm
Realism said | January 12th 2010 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
In the words of the two groundskeepers in Major League…”He’s still shitty”
January 12th 2010 @ 2:45pm
vinay verma said | January 12th 2010 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Offy,this post is about Hauritz and not Murali. I picked four great offies whose averages were close to Hauritz’s and pointed out he compares favourably. I see your post rubbishing Hauritz and that is your opinion. To put your mind at ease I would rate Murali in my top ten list. Tayfield would also be there. I do not think Murali is the greatest offie but then that is my opinion.
But lets come back to your opinion of Hauritz, someone like Murali would not be as dismissive as you are. In fact Hauritz has a lot of support from people that matter. Like Ashley Mallett and Greg mathews. Hauritz is not blessed with the special attributes Murali has but he is making a good fist of a very difficult art. Anyone can bowl rubbish offspin. But to bowl it well takes talent,practice and dedication. Hauritz is not great but is becoming good and it now depends how much farther he wants to go. He can improve.
January 12th 2010 @ 5:04pm
Brian said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Speaking of support from those that matters Hauritz seemed to have very little faith when it came to bowling on the 5th afternoon in Cardiff or playing the 5th Test at the Oval.
Nonetheless he is the current spinner, he has done better than I thought but I am not convinced. He was lucky to get his 5 wicket hauls and he struggled in the 2nd Innings in Adelaide. My main problem with Hauritz is that against batsman with patience (something Pak & WI have always lacked) he would struggle to bowl teams out. The current attack is highly reliant on Johnson and I would prefer the selectors would try and develop more potential match winners like Smith or Krejza
January 12th 2010 @ 5:22pm
vinay verma said | January 12th 2010 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Brian,that I believe was an error of judgement of the Team Leadership group. And perhaps Hauritz was not confident himself. It is all presumption. But he has improved and it will be interesting to see his progress over the next two or three years. Self belief,that I keep harping about is also sometimes tenuous. Take KP for instance,a man with enough self belief for a whole team,is struggling at the moment. Is he carrying an injury? Ponting in the last two Tests has been handicapped. But I back both these players to come good sooner rather than later. And what about Haddin? He is a different keeper to the one we saw in England. All to do with confidence and a sense of belonging and belief. I am happy as long as we see the improvement. For players out of form we need to be patient.
January 12th 2010 @ 7:27pm
sheek said | January 12th 2010 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
Brett,
Can we say Hauritz has you in a spin???
Vinay,
Confidence is everything (almost). I have read so many cricketers, especially Aussie cricketers, say their performance improved dramaticalay from the moment they felt they “belonged” in the national team. This can vary from player to player but obviously, confidence is the key.
Especially the confidence derived from the acceptance of your peers.
January 12th 2010 @ 7:52pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2010 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
ha ha!! Today’s Pun of the Day goes to Mr Sheek!!
Interesting you mention “belonging” Sheek, because I think Hauritz is starting to believe he truly belongs in the 1st XI, and it’s showing this summer..
January 12th 2010 @ 7:44pm
vinay verma said | January 12th 2010 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Sheek,what,sometimes fans forget,is that elite sportsmen,including cricketers,are like you and me as far as emotions go. Their training and discipline sees them through tough situations. In a Test match batsmen dont get a second chance(evening out now with the referrals) Bowlers can still regroup if they have the confidence and this comes from game time. You cannot simulate a match situation in the nets. People talk of bowlers having miles in the legs. I would suggest miles in the mind is just as important. And this comes from executing in pressure situations. Haddins catch was a case in point. As was Hauritz’s caught and bowled. Watson’s catch at deep point running backwards. Ponting keeping Hauritz on after Akmal had hit him for four fours. This was Ponting showing faith and hauritz responding.This is what I mean when I say that these players want to play for Ponting. If this side stays together and there are not too many injuries they will be more than competitive. I have a good feeling about cricket generally and this year will see some sanity coming into the balance of the three forms.
January 12th 2010 @ 8:13pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2010 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Great post Vinay – you’re making it very hard to disagree with you!!
January 13th 2010 @ 9:11am
sheek said | January 13th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Vinay,
On a slight tangent here, but Haddin had one of the toughest jobs in the world following Gilly. However, he’s handled it exceptionally well.
While Haddin will never be in Gilly’s class as a batsman, he is doing wonderfully well all the same. And I would now say he is a better keeper behind the stumps. It’s Gilly’s batting that carried him into the stratosphere as a keeper-batsman, but purely as a keeper he was competent rather than brilliant.
January 13th 2010 @ 9:38am
Brett McKay said | January 13th 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Sheek, you’re quite right about Haddin following Gilchrist, much in the same way Gilchrist was going to struggle with the gloves following Healy.
Haddin has quickly become his own man with the bat, but is still prone to the stupid shot when it’s not needed, such as what Vinay and I watched in Sydney with a beer in our hands on Day 1.
And his ‘keeping seems to be up and down. He’s been quite good this summer, on the whole, but in England, I have no doubt he played the 4th and 5th Tests because he didn’t want to give Manou an extended chance to shine.
Make of this what you will about Haddin’s ‘keeping, and the bowling to which he’s ‘keeping to: only one stumping in 24 or 25 Tests…
January 12th 2010 @ 8:16pm
jameswm said | January 12th 2010 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Oddly enough, for a while I was one of the rare people saying Hauritz was a good bowler, when he wasn’t considered up to scratch. His use of flight, dip and speed were underrated and Dan Vettori and Anil Kumble have shown that you don’t have to be a huge turner of the ball to be a successful test spinner.
However, I never really thought he was any more than a stopgap in the test team, because he just couldn’t do any damage in a 4th innings. And, ironically, since his successive 5-wicket bursts, rather than saying I told you so, my opinion hasn’t changed. I still think he’s a solid bowler, as I always did, but from what I saw (or mainly heard, on ABC radio) of the last test, he wasn’t chucking bombs down at them. He’s filling the spot, and pretty well, until someone better comes along, I’m afraid.
January 12th 2010 @ 8:54pm
Brett McKay said | January 12th 2010 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
well Jameswm, realistically, everyone is just holding a spot until someone better comes along. Some hold theirs for longer than others, some even longer than they should. I think the expectation is that Smith is the annointed one, but I’d still like to think he’s a little way off yet. Of course, this time next year, I might be writing “Hard to believe, but SMITH is winning me over”!!
Either way, judging from comments here, you’ve got a few extras with you in the Hauritz camp now, and I’m happy to say I’m one of them..
January 13th 2010 @ 9:56am
sheek said | January 13th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Vinay,
Another tangent. In response to Chris, you said Murali was a great off-spinner, but not the greatest. You suggested (Erapally) Prasanna was the best followed by (Sonny) Ramadhin. You further suggested (Shane) Warne was the greatest spinner – all types – in the history of the game.
Not disagreeing, but throwing some more thought into the mix. Are you influenced in your decision by the controversy surrounding Murali’s bowling action? I guess the answer is an emphatic “yes”!
Australia has never produced a better off-spinner than Hugh Trumble, & he retired from test cricket in 1904! SA’s Hugh Tayfield rarely gets the credit he deserves. Statistically, he outstrips many other high-profile off-spinners, like Jim Laker & Lance Gibbs.
Geoff Armstrong, in his book ‘The 100 Greatest Cricketers’ claimed Arthur Mailey to be a superior leggie to Clarrie Grimmett. He even gave compelling evidence to back up his claim. I found his claim illuminating, although I find it hard to overturn supposed truths I have grown up with.
Gary Sobers claimed Subresh Gupte to be the best spinner – all types – he faced. Gupte was a leggie, & I think Sobers further added that Prasanna was the best offie he faced.
Richie Benaud is an interesting topic. How much does a player’s off-field stature influence his selection in all-time teams??? Benaud was also a bowling all-rounder which helps him climb a few places when considering all-time teams. Not to mention his captaincy credentials.
But purely as a leggie, he is behind Warne, O’Reilly, Grimmett & Mailey. Also Trumble was much superior. And you might also consider Mallett & MacGill to better spinners from a purist’s viewpoint.
I do find it intriguing how some players are moved up & down the merit order by factors other than cricket. Don’t get me wrong, Benaud was an outstanding cricketer & is an outstanding Australian. Just fascinated at how “other” influences are often at play, to which we are all prone to submit to.
Just thought I would throw these comments & questions into the arena for your digestion…..
January 13th 2010 @ 10:24am
sheek said | January 13th 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Vinay,
(Sorry Brett, off tangent – again) Geoff Armstrong’s judgement may need to be called into question. Here is his selection of spinners in his book ‘The 100 Greatest Cricketers’.
1ST XI – Shane Warne
2ND XI – Muttiah Muralitharan
3RD XI – Bill O’Reilly
4TH XI – Jim Laker & Wilfred Rhodes
5TH XI – Richie Benaud
6TH XI – Bishan Bedi & Bhagwat Chandrasekhar
7TH XI – Johnny Briggs & Monty Noble (ocasional offie)
8TH XI – Hugh Trumble
9TH XI – Arthur Mailey
No Prasanna, no Gupte, no Kumble, no Abdul Qadir, no Ramadhin, no Valentine, no Gibbs, no Tayfield, no Faulkner, no Shwartz, no Vogler, no Blythe, no Verity, & no Grimmett! Not even Vettori…..
Not suggesting all these spinners should have been included, but there are some very good ones missing the list.
January 13th 2010 @ 10:40am
Brett McKay said | January 13th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
..and no Hauritz!! Obviously, I jest…
Sheek, your historical tangents are always welcome on my columns – you give an insight into the sporting past that should be taught in schools!!
let me put something to you though: if we think of Australian off-spinners of my era (so let’s say post-WSC onwards), how would we rate them, how close to the top would Tim May be, and how close would Haurtiz be to this group??
January 13th 2010 @ 11:08am
Jameswm said | January 13th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Brett
I always considered Hauritz an underrated bowler. he was accurate, controlled his flight well and seemed to have a good temperament. Not a great bowler, but solid.
My point was though that since those 5 wicket hauls, I don’t think he’s any better. In fact, I think he’s bowled more tripe this home series than usual. I’d still like to see Krejza given a go at some stage.
I’m sort of reversing the trend.
January 13th 2010 @ 11:18am
Brett McKay said | January 13th 2010 @ 11:18am | Report comment
James, you’re definitely reversing the trend!! Around the same time I would never have dreamt writing this column, I too would have said Krezja was the one to go with, but just as Hauritz is winning me, Krezja is losing me. I know you can’t take a lot from T20 cricket, but that’s all I’ve seen and Krezja hasn’t impressed me at all this season. Xavier Doherty has had his measure in the Tassie lineup so far.
Hauritz is doing a good job currently, and to be honest, I’m not seeing any challengers around the country. Smith is there, but he’s not challenging per se…