Phillip Hughes

[Jakester1288]

Is overrated. I know he is rated by every man and his dog, but he is actually very overrated. I like him, but I reckon when he gets found out, he won't be the player everyone has hyped him up to be.

That said, he could average 100 until he retires.

 

[Flem274*]

Welcome to Sparta's Bottomless Pit Of Death.

 

[NUFAN]

I give this thread 1 star.

 

[Hoggy31]

Good thread, nothing to lose all to gain for yourself.

 

[Noble One]

I wouldn't class Phillip Hughes as overrated. The kid has had two stunning seasons of first class cricket and backed it up with a beyond expectations debut test series. The common opinion is that Hughes may well be a star for the future, how is that overrating the player?

If you have a hunch he will be "found out", then fair enough. But after the dominating start to his cricketing career, it is very unlikely for his game to fall away dramatically. If anything, his technique is only going to improve with experience and more coaching.

 

[Athlai]

 

[oitoitoi]

I actually agree that Hughes is overrated, I think he's a very good player at a young age, however there are a few too many holes in his technique for him to be consistent in all conditions right now. There's no questioning his success so far however we're yet to see him face quality spin and to see how he copes with slower surfaces where the ball doesn't come on to the bat. Also it has to be mentioned that the South Africans bowled absolute tripe for 3 out of the first 4 innings of this series.

His rather devil-may-care temperament won't help either but one can expect him to settle down after a while. I think the most interesting phase in his career may come a bit later on, when Ponting decides to finally hang up his boots, there'll be a few others going around that time too, Hussey, Katich, Lee, Johnson will be over 30, Clark will probably be gone, there aren't too many ready replacements knocking around Aussie cricket. Batting at the top of what may well be a fairly weak Aussie side (He and Clarke will be the mainstays) will put a huge amount of pressure on him to keep his wicket, it will be interesting to see if he can keep it going.

 

[Fidel Castro]

I actually agree that Hughes is overrated, I think he's a very good player at a young age, however there are a few too many holes in his technique for him to be consistent in all conditions right now. There's no questioning his success so far however we're yet to see him face quality spin and to see how he copes with slower surfaces where the ball doesn't come on to the bat. Also it has to be mentioned that the South Africans bowled absolute tripe for 3 out of the first 4 innings of this series.

His rather devil-may-care temperament won't help either but one can expect him to settle down after a while. I think the most interesting phase in his career may come a bit later on, when Ponting decides to finally hang up his boots, there'll be a few others going around that time too, Hussey, Katich, Lee, Johnson will be over 30, Clark will probably be gone, there aren't too many ready replacements knocking around Aussie cricket. Batting at the top of what may well be a fairly weak Aussie side (He and Clarke will be the mainstays) will put a huge amount of pressure on him to keep his wicket, it will be interesting to see if he can keep it going.

Hughes is going to be a good opener for Aussies, and might end up averaging in the middle to late 40s.

 

[adharcric]

Let's see him score big runs against quality bowling before getting too excited ... SA bowled mainly crap throughout his tons in this series. Exciting prospect but a bit overrated perhaps.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Let's see him score big runs against quality bowling before getting too excited ... SA bowled mainly crap throughout his tons in this series. Exciting prospect but a bit overrated perhaps.

It's funny and painful to see so many Aussie upcoming players horribly overrated and consequently flounder in the past few years. David Warner takes the cake, Shaun Tait takes the runnerup spot, now who? Hughes? I hope for Australian cricket sake, no.

 

[Xuhaib]

Will have Sehwag type career imo.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

It's funny and painful to see so many Aussie upcoming players horribly overrated and consequently flounder in the past few years. David Warner takes the cake, Shaun Tait takes the runnerup spot, now who? Hughes? I hope for Australian cricket sake, no.

No one rated Warner bar the tabloids.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Let's see him score big runs against quality bowling before getting too excited ... SA bowled mainly crap throughout his tons in this series. Exciting prospect but a bit overrated perhaps.

You've obviously been decieved by how well Hughes has batted. Apart from the first innings of the First Test, the Australian batting has looked all at sea when Hughes hasn't been at the crease.

 

[Uppercut]

You've obviously been decieved by how well Hughes has batted. Apart from the first innings of the First Test, the Australian batting has looked all at sea when Hughes hasn't been at the crease.

Yeah, this is certainly true to an extent. In his first test, second innings he scored 75 out a team total of 207. Then he made a century in a game when his side lost their last five wickets for four runs.

But adharcric, were you watching the games? Steyn's bouncer barrage to him was a fantastic spell of sustained quality fast bowling in useful enough conditions, and Hughes got through it. Is the South African bowling defined as bad just because Hughes was better than it? Because their attack is in fact excellent, and i'm not willing to accept that they bowled crap to Hughes exclusively then well to everyone else.

 

[TT Boy]

Let's see him score big runs against quality bowling before getting too excited ... SA bowled mainly crap throughout his tons in this series. Exciting prospect but a bit overrated perhaps.

Such as?

 

[The Sean]

Will have Sehwag type career imo.

I'd be absolutely ecstatic if that turns out to be the case.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, this is certainly true to an extent. In his first test, second innings he scored 75 out a team total of 207. Then he made a century in a game when his side lost their last five wickets for four runs.

But adharcric, were you watching the games? Steyn's bouncer barrage to him was a fantastic spell of sustained quality fast bowling in useful enough conditions, and Hughes got through it. Is the South African bowling defined as bad just because Hughes was better than it? Because their attack is in fact excellent, and i'm not willing to accept that they bowled crap to Hughes exclusively then well to everyone else.

Yeah this. Just because someone bats well against a team, doesn't follow that the team bowled crap. Not as if Hughes just got through Steyn's spells and punished the rest, either.

 

[Julian87]

Let's see him score big runs against quality bowling before getting too excited ... SA bowled mainly crap throughout his tons in this series. Exciting prospect but a bit overrated perhaps.

That's funny. Apparently three months ago Steyn was unplayable.

 

[adharcric]

But adharcric, were you watching the games? Steyn's bouncer barrage to him was a fantastic spell of sustained quality fast bowling in useful enough conditions, and Hughes got through it. Is the South African bowling defined as bad just because Hughes was better than it? Because their attack is in fact excellent, and i'm not willing to accept that they bowled crap to Hughes exclusively then well to everyone else.

Such as?

That's funny. Apparently three months ago Steyn was unplayable.

SA's pace attack is just about as good as it gets these days, but I was commenting more on the lines they bowled in those Hughes tons. Steyn bowled some menacing spells but the overall attack, especially Morkel, drifted wide or on the pads far too often. Hughes still played very well during the difficult spells, but the SA attack fed him far too many boundaries in that first ton. I'll admit I probably didn't watch enough of the second ton so I may have missed something. I'm excited about his talent and I'm not saying that he won't be a great cricketer for Australia, but it's not accurate to say he scored two tons against the best attack in the world, because they certainly didn't bowl like the best attack in the world.

 

[DaRick]

Is it unreasonable to call him a batting prodigy? I don't know.

He's only 20 (scarcely older than I am) and he's only played FC cricket for 1 or 2 seasons and yet he batted very well in South Africa. Sure, the SA attack was below its best at times (indeed, they were fairly dire in the Durban first innings), but being the youngest player to score twin centuries (in fact, 100 and 150) in the same match is not an achievement to be taken lightly, especially against an attack which could've potentially been so difficult to overcome.