North should replace Hauritz as frontline spinner - MacGill

[The 18th Man]

Fact: That was years ago and his current form is sh*t

Since when does current form come in to it with Australian selectors? If "current form" was used as criteria we would have a vastly different team than the template used more often than not.

The tried and true cliche will again carry weight and Hauritz will be there for the First Test, after that, it's up to him.

 

[Twizzle]

I would rate Smith, O'Keefe and Doherty as better prospects

the best we can expect from Hauritz is a couple of wickets, if he is true to form it will be none for 150.

The other guys are a gamble as they are not ready, but playing Hauritz is a bigger gamble that I would not want to take either

You're probably right about our selectors picking him as all they do is cut and paste the same team all the time anyway, current form means nothing to these guys

 

[The 18th Man]

Fair call, out of interest how did Swann go in India??? Has he toured there yet?

Yes, 2008 his debut I believe.

Swann took 8 wickets at 39.50, b/b innings 3/122 (4/145 for the match).

 

[The 18th Man]

I would rate Smith, O'Keefe and Doherty as better prospects

the best we can expect from Hauritz is a couple of wickets, if he is true to form it will be none for 150.

The other guys are a gamble as they are not ready, but playing Hauritz is a bigger gamble that I would not want to take either

You're probably right about our selectors picking him as all they do is cut and paste the same team all the time anyway, current form means nothing to these guys

No one is asking for better prospects I guess, we are looking at the best option first up in an Ashes Series. You admit the other prospects are not ready, I agree, if that is the case, we go with the veteran who has performed at this level and especially when called upon in Australia. If he falters horribly, we look at asking one of the youngsters to step up.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Fact: Hauritz has 38 wickets in 9 Tests for Australia on home soil at 29.65 with two 5wkt hauls.

Fact: Hauritz took 10 wickets in 3 Tests (5 innings bowled) for Australia in England at 32.10. Respectable.

Fact: Swann in that same Ashes Series took 14 wickets (8 innings bowled or call it 6 as a couple innings were no more than 1 or 2 overs) for England at 40.50.

Nathan Hauritz will rightfully be given first crack at the Poms.

18 of the 38 wickets and both 5 wicket hauls were in 3 matches against a Pakistan team that has a massive question mark over them. Take out the dubious Pakistan series and it is suddenly 20 wickets from 6 matches @ 35 with a best of 3/17 against the West Indies at Brisbane when he cleaned up the tail.

 

[The 18th Man]

18 of the 38 wickets and both 5 wicket hauls were in 3 matches against a Pakistan team that has a massive question mark over them. Take out the dubious Pakistan series and it is suddenly 20 wickets from 6 matches @ 35 with a best of 3/17 against the West Indies at Brisbane when he cleaned up the tail.

Why take the wickets out? Dubious or not, the fact remains he got those 20 wickets in Australia against a Test playing Nation. I don't think that post strengthens any argument for Hauritz not to be there for the First Test, it only cheapens it as you feel the need to remove wickets from Hauritz to add weight to justify his non-selection.

Hauritz has compiled a respectable record for his Test career and against England. Respectable is the best we have the moment in terms of spinners records so let's hope he can continue that and more this series.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

He took 18 wickets against a test playing nation whose credibility and legitimacy has come under question due to a match fixing scandal.

 

[The 18th Man]

He took 18 wickets against a test playing nation whose credibility and legitimacy has come under question due to a match fixing scandal.

From what period does start and end then re: Pakistan? Alternatively, how long is a piece of string?

Fact remains, Hauritz did the job against Pakistan whether you want to cast doubt on it or not.

Q: Has there be any ruling suggesting that the Test Series in question is to be taken off the record books of all players who played?

A: No. The 20 wickets you wish to remove if only to strengthen your argument is void until such time someone rules that all statistics from that Test Series is to be removed from the record books.