Caesar
Member
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection
I intend to make use of this adjective in the future.Thumbs up;378406 said:Hussey-ing
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I intend to make use of this adjective in the future.Thumbs up;378406 said:Hussey-ing
Caesar;378432 said:The issue is that Jacques is an established Test batsman with an excellent average at the top level, who hasn't done anything to merit being dropped. If he shows he's made a full recovery and gets back to playing well in the Shield then he will logically have the inside running for any spots that may open up. Hughes is the future, Rogers can't compete with that.
Rogers and Jacques is probably the best example I can think of about Test selection being a cutthroat business. Both failed on debut, but Jacques was lucky enough that circumstances and good timing with first-class runs gave him a second chance. He siezed that chance and has now put himself in a position where he's got a very clear, and hard to overcome, advantage over Rogers for future selection. Lets not add Jaques and Hughes to that list
When things are so tight, it can just come down to who has a good match at the right time. Hardly fair, but that's how it goes.
Caesar;378579 said:But do you think that they'll put Hughes back in the Test team so soon, when he hasn't really fixed the problem he was dropped for? My feel is if they need a new opener this summer, it won't be him.
If I was Jacques I'd be fancying my chances a lot more now. Prior to the Ashes he looked locked out of the team, with the Hughes/Katich partnership working well and Watson, Ferguson and Hodge champing at the bit for any middle order spots that might arise.
But now, two of those batsmen have fallen at the wayside, Hughes is out of favour and Watson is hardly secure at the top of the order. He could be dropped or (more likely given a bit of a dearth of middle-order batmen at the moment) if a vacancy lower down pops up he could well be demoted so they can bring in a form opener.
Thumbs up;378627 said:Seriously get a grip. My comment was intended to be slightly comical but you have to let go of a couple of things;
1 Watson (like lance klusner) is no test bowler no matter how effective he is in the shorter forms of the game.
2 North is much safer than Hussey.
3 If we demand to have another opener in the side send Hussey up to sink or swim.
4 Harden up and don't be so precious.
It would be a good idea to accept that the selectors see the bowling stocks as acceptable at the very least. There is no need or reason to be relying on part-timers in a series against a very weak team. Watsons contribution to the bowling was handy but not game breaking nor was it necessary.
If it were deemed that bowling was the problem and not batting then a more bowling oriented all rounder could be selected. The reality is there is no need to change anything.
We can easily afford to let Watson make ducks all summer. Think about the trade off you are proposing... bringing in an out of form technique poor opener to replace a performing and reliable middle order batsman.
Caesar;378644 said:Let's all calm down. Disagreeing is fine but there's no need to be insulting.
Boris;378647 said:It's all good. I like disagreements, allows for the happy medium to be the right decision.
What is the happy medium.
Hughes or no Hughes?
Thumbs up;378654 said:go half way, pick him as a bowler