Phil Hughes and Reselection

Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

I thought you were talking about current Australian openers. I didn't think that made senes because Katich scored 92 in the last Test. Oops.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.

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.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

Hughes may have to do as Hayden did and wait another 4 years until selection again, especially if Jaques starts averaging above fifty for this season.

Hayden was no failure so Hughes should not be put off by this.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.


Irrespective of previous performance Jaques will struggle, and rogers has all but no chance. There is clearly an intent to get Hughes back in the side and the selectors are probably happy with Watsons spectacular start to the summer in which his cup should runeth over ...

Jaques should be required to be batting in similar fashion to his form prior to his last selection. There are too many instances of players who are out of form being picked for the national squad based on history (Symonds, Watson...)
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.

I agree but don't see the Selectors urgency in selecting a new opener this summer. There is plenty of time and they would have to make a call they seem unwilling to make... Watson or Hussey out of the team! So I still think there is a strong chance of no change supported by the "We can only beat the teams we play" mitigation of the deplorable test opposition.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

You have to remember that the strongest team has to be played at all times, even though it is the West Indies and Pakistan coming up. They have done this in the ODIs very well, but the Tests is a different story.

Don't bring in Hughes if his technique isn't fixed.
If Watson doesn't keep up with the bat then there is an issue because he is bowling better than the full time bowlers.
Hussey has scored 140 and 66 in his last two innings, after averaging 70+ throughout the last year in ODIs. Looking better and may have given him a lifeline for the Pakistan series.
Clarke is the fifth best batsman in the world as the rankings go, so he is in the team if it not for injury.
North is going very well, not bowling as I would like that position to be, but batting very well.

Watson is the only one to drop. But his bowling is very good. I hate to say it, but if the choice was to be made today for the next Test tomorrow and a full time opener was brought into the team (Hughes), I would have to say North would have to step aside for Watson for at least that game only.

It's no use having an opener that scores as a number 6 should. Watson's bowling has been great though, and with some wayward unpredictable bowling coming since the tour of India a long time ago, any consistency is needed in that department. It's either that or have Watson be dropped and risk having North as the next best choice.

I stress this is if it were for the NEXT Test.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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.

One thing you have to do in Test cricket is remember to play the best team at all times. Prepare like this next match against the Windies is against South Africa. The team has to be sorted and set for the next Ashes, the next big challenge.

In the changing world of cricket there has to be an all rounder. There needs to be part timers to let the actual bowlers do what they have to do, apply or add pressure at the other end and act as something different.

As a stupid little example, look at what Hussey did in the last Test, that is what they are there for.

I know you know this already because it is simple team planning that everyone knows, but just reiterating.

Is North that all rounder? I don't think so, he is a batsman. The selectors picked him as an all rounder though, and had him bowl a lot with not much achievement. Now they have stopped bowling him completely. They have Watson there. But Watson is temporary, which seemed like their obvious plan.

These are contradictory, maybe hedging on the fact that Hussey will be going soon. I see Hussey continuing this small amount of form through this series and into the next. What happens then? No more Hughes or Jaques or Rogers?
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

Caesar;378644 said:
Let's all calm down. Disagreeing is fine but there's no need to be insulting.

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?
 
Re: Phil Hughes and Reselection

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?

go half way, pick him as a bowler:D
 
Phil Hughes didn't do much against South Africa in the Australia A team, making only 5 runs before being bowled and 1 not out, in his two innings. He will have fallen down in the selectors pecking order.

Looks like he might need to go back to domestic cricket and work at it from there.
 
Back
Top