Hazlewood is very much like Mcgrath

[Cricketics]

He is better than Starc unlike what most feel here.

 

Have been noticing for a while now. Consistent line and putting pressure on the batsman to play shots and give an edge like how Mcgrath used to do.

 

Mcgrath was pretty good at testing the batsman's off stump game and bowling wicket to wicket line and bowling an odd short ball.

 

Hazlewood also does not give too much pace for the batsman to play late cuts, like Mcgrath.

 

This is flat track and the others have been too in this series against Pakistan, and he has clearly out performed Starc and all.

 

I know there are many Starc fans out there on this site who feel he is the main threat for us in the Indian series but they are all wrong, Flat track or whatever, Hazlewood is a bigger threat than Starc. He is the deal.

 

Starc has good cameo spells just because of rush of blood etc, but Hazlewood is spot on every time. He cuts the runs at the same time keeps a very good line through out his spell. 

 

Best test bowler to have toured India in a while. Biggest threat to India in the Feburary series.

 

 

 

 

[Bleed-Blue]

Top Quality bowler.More consisent than Statc but cant destroy line ups like Starc can on his day.

[Cricketics]

11 minutes ago, Bleed-Blue said:

Top Quality bowler.More consisent than Statc but cant destroy line ups like Starc can on his day.

Starc is great to watch and right up there with other best bowlers though little bleow than Hazlewood for me.

 

The simple reason is because Starc destroys lower order more than top order and also often loses his line and can go out of place. The good pace he bowls at, he often has hard time controlling the ball when its swinging big. That control of swing is tough for any bowler who bowls at such pace and Starc is like them too, so it is not a draw back in his bowling just that he can't be termed the best over Hazlewood.

 

He will have little sparks compared to Hazlewood, who would be bowling and testing batsmen all day. 

[Bleed-Blue]

24 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Starc is great to watch and right up there with other best bowlers though little bleow than Hazlewood for me.

 

The simple reason is because Starc destroys lower order more than top order and also often loses his line and can go out of place. The good pace he bowls at, he often has hard time controlling the ball when its swinging big. That control of swing is tough for any bowler who bowls at such pace and Starc is like them too, so it is not a draw back in his bowling just that he can't be termed the best over Hazlewood.

 

He will have little sparks compared to Hazlewood, who would be bowling and testing batsmen all day. 

Yh u have summed it up pretty well, i think Starc lacks patience and goes for the magic ball when compared to Hazlewood.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Bleed-Blue

[Cricketics]

52 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

He is more Stuart Clark than McGrath

Stuart Clark was good too but Mcgrath was more consistent and Hazlewood seem to have similar run up and leaves the ball from much higher like Mcgrath and seems to be generating similar pace and bounce.

[Cricketics]

52 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

He is more Stuart Clark than McGrath

Stuart Clark was good too but Mcgrath was more consistent and Hazlewood seem to have similar run up and leaves the ball from much higher like Mcgrath and seems to be generating similar pace and bounce.

[Sajid_Rana]

Lol. He is decent and good control of his line and length Thats it. He is bowling to poor batsmen right now on pitches he grew up bowling on. Let him tour India and UAE and bowl out of his comfort zone. Would like Kohli to destroy him this year.

[BeautifulGame]

Stuart Clark was good too but Mcgrath was more consistent and Hazlewood seem to have similar run up and leaves the ball from much higher like Mcgrath and seems to be generating similar pace and bounce.

Perhaps so.We have to see.

I am not sure he has the unerring accuracy.Mcgrath action so smooth , Hazlewood is more side on.

He will definitely be successful in countries like Australia/SA/England but can't see him making much impact in subcontinent.

[Mosher]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

Stuart Clark was good too but Mcgrath was more consistent and Hazlewood seem to have similar run up and leaves the ball from much higher like Mcgrath and seems to be generating similar pace and bounce.

Hazlewood is much quicker than Mcgrath. He can bowl 135+ all day and hit 143-144K on his effort deliveries. Starc is the enforcer pushing batsmen back and capable of running through the line ups on his day. While Hazlewood keeps bowling at the offstump channel all day with good pace, bounce and movement. Both Starc and Hazlewood are a very good team who compliment each other. Both will be dangerous for the Indian batsmen.

[MechEng]

Still, Hazlewood is not as scarily accurate as Mcgrath.

 

Just look at the video below, no seam movement just a subtle change in line and length on a flat pitch.

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

https://twitter.com/CricketAus/status/817561293519368192

 

How does one embed tweets over here?

Edited January 7, 2017 by Jimmy Cliff

[Cricketics]

47 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Still, Hazlewood is not as scarily accurate as Mcgrath.

 

Just look at the video below, no seam movement just a subtle change in line and length on a flat pitch.

 

 

Too early for Hazlewood to be compared but he does have lotnsinilarity. Mcgrath got better post 1998-99 even the the goods were scene earlier in his career. With time Hazlewood is going to get more lethal and only more accurate. 

[Texy]

How the hell does Aus manage to unearth so many young fast bowlers and we're stuck w/ the same bunch 

[Forever Indian]

8 hours ago, MechEng said:

Still, Hazlewood is not as scarily accurate as Mcgrath.

 

Just look at the video below, no seam movement just a subtle change in line and length on a flat pitch.

 

 

Pace is just 125 to 133 k this whole over. So much for pace hype in tests. Control over your line and length is the most important aspect in tests even on flat pitches.

[express bowling]

7 hours ago, Forever Indian said:

Pace is just 125 to 133 k this whole over. So much for pace hype in tests. Control over your line and length is the most important aspect in tests even on flat pitches.

More than pace, it is important to have the ability to hit the deck hard and get bounce and small seam movements.... along with accuracy and bowling to a plan. 

 

Guys like McGrath, Hazlewood, Walsh, Ambrose all had or have  this quality.

 

This is why I wanted  Ishwar Pandey and similar pacers to be tried for India.

Edited January 7, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

More than pace, it is important to have the ability to hit the deck hard and get bounce and small seam movements.... along with accuracy and bowling to a plan. 

 

Guys like McGrath, Hazlewood, Walsh, Ambrose all had this quality.

 

This is why I wanted  Ishwar Pandey and similar pacers to be tried for India.

Umm, Walsh is not in the same category, as Walsh had a tremendous in-swinger. He couldn't outswing/had it straighten off the pitch, but that guy could make in swingers swing almost a foot into a righty all the time.

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

13 minutes ago, express bowling said:

More than pace, it is important to have the ability to hit the deck hard and get bounce and small seam movements.... along with accuracy and bowling to a plan. 

Guys like McGrath, Hazlewood, Walsh, Ambrose all had this quality.

Also Height was a crucial factor for these guys

 

A video where Michael Atherton explain why he found Mcgrath n ambrose difficult to face- "Difficulty was they both were tall that it was difficult to get forward with that on the spot off stump line"

 

Many idiots here put Bhuvi in same category to Mcgrath, without even understanding the diff between them is like Chalk n cheese. These guys were way not just about Line n length, there was way more to them than that.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Also Height was a crucial factor for these guys

 

A video where Michael Atherton explain why he found Mcgrath n ambrose difficult to face- "Difficulty was they both were tall that it was difficult to get forward with that on the spot off stump line"

 

Many idiots here put Bhuvi in same category to Mcgrath, without even understanding the diff between them is like Chalk n cheese. These guys were way not just about Line n length, there was way more to them than that.

Um who ever puts Bhuvi in McGrath's category ? he isn't 1/100th the bowler McGrath was, in terms of effect. And they are completely different style of bowlers.

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Um who ever puts Bhuvi in McGrath's category ? he isn't 1/100th the bowler McGrath was, in terms of effect. And they are completely different style of bowlers.

 

Ull find many here saying Bhuvi is like mcgrath type bowler who keeps it tight. Hahahahaha

Mcgrath didnt even let the opp breathe

 

Exactly my point they are two diff bowlers in terms of skill and class both

[express bowling]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Umm, Walsh is not in the same category, as Walsh had a tremendous in-swinger. He couldn't outswing/had it straighten off the pitch, but that guy could make in swingers swing almost a foot into a righty all the time.

 

Walsh had a good inswinger....but I was talking about the ability to hit the deck hard and get steep bounce and seam movement...and do this with good accuracy and to a  plan....Walsh could do all this when swing was not on offer or as another weapon.

 

I was not talking about this being the only weapon in a bowler's repertoire.

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by express bowling