It’s a tough question to answer. Before yesterday it was probably, Nathan himself, which is also doubtful, and the English. There is no love lost between him and Jrod. No one knows if even his mom likes him. And apparently, Ricky and Australia, who had been talking up the young fella doesn’t fancy him either.
Let’s be honest, Hauritz is not that a good bowler. But average bowlers have done well in cricket before.
Hauritz did not bowl well yesterday though. He was too short at least 2 balls per over and Collingwood and KP were playing him with ease. But there were a couple of times when he did look the business when he threw the ball up there.
Tim Nielsen says he was used as a support bowler for a holding job.
You don’t pick a full time spinner for a holding job. You have Katich and Clarke to do that.
Nielsen also says this ‘The wicket was spinning a lot so he was playing a supporting role for the fast bowlers’.
Which makes no sense to us at all. If the wicket was spinning at lunch on Day 1, we say get him some close in fielders and attack a bit more. Hearing those comments explains why Ponting had absolutely no attacking fields set for him.
It’s not exactly sending the right message to your no1 spinner is it. ‘Aw look Naths, the wickets spinning a lot so we aint giving you any close in fielders, just keep the runs down. Ok good talk’
It was weird watching an Aussie spinner bowl to such negative fields. In fact the entire Aussie team seemed to have switched off in that post lunch session. Weird.
And KP knows what he is doing when he says Hauritz bowled well, when he knows he didn’t. It would serve England more than Australia to keep the dude in the team. KP looked like he could have swatted him back to England if he wanted to. Instead he toyed with him and then got too clever for his own good.
19 overs for 67 runs on a wicket that was giving him a lot of assistance is neither here nor there. And it wasn’t entirely Nathans fault.