How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[GIMH]

fixed

I don't see anything wrong with hoping an opposition batsman fails tbh, I'm certainly hoping he scores **** all

 

[Richard]

Steyn is a better bowler but not purely on swing.

Steyn's 93mph outswingers > Anderson's 88mph outswingers.

However, there's a fair bit to say about that. Anderson seems capable of swinging more cricket-balls than Steyn does; however, when the ball swings for them both, Steyn is capable of bowling the fast outswinger much more regularly, and pitching it in a dangerous spot more, than Anderson. If the ball is swinging properly for any bowler with any old seam-position I'll have Steyn over Anderson in a heartbeat.

Anderson, however, is a much better containing bowler currently than Steyn and also has the ability to bowl the inswinger, which Steyn doesn't. Anderson is also a far, far, far better bowler to left-handed batsmen than Steyn is - Steyn against LHBs can of times look very average. Anderson however has all the tricks - inswinger, outswinger, over-wicket, round-wicket, the 'ole kaboodle.

So under some circumstances I'll have Anderson over Steyn without too much thought - but both are bowlers reliant entirely on swing for their potency.

 

[Redbacks]

I don't see anything wrong with hoping an opposition batsman fails tbh, I'm certainly hoping he scores **** all

just question the legitimacy of people using comments from external sources to say essentially that.

 

[Uppercut]

Steyn's 93mph outswingers > Anderson's 88mph outswingers.

However, there's a fair bit to say about that. Anderson seems capable of swinging more cricket-balls than Steyn does; however, when the ball swings for them both, Steyn is capable of bowling the fast outswinger much more regularly, and pitching it in a dangerous spot more, than Anderson. If the ball is swinging properly for any bowler with any old seam-position I'll have Steyn over Anderson in a heartbeat.

Anderson, however, is a much better containing bowler currently than Steyn and also has the ability to bowl the inswinger, which Steyn doesn't. Anderson is also a far, far, far better bowler to left-handed batsmen than Steyn is - Steyn against LHBs can of times look very average. Anderson however has all the tricks - inswinger, outswinger, over-wicket, round-wicket, the 'ole kaboodle.

So under some circumstances I'll have Anderson over Steyn without too much thought - but both are bowlers reliant entirely on swing for their potency.

It's Steyn every time for me. Fuller lengths, more dangerous lines, greater speeds- the results are there for all to see. James Anderson has never had a single year in which he averaged less with the ball than Steyn does over his whole career (not even especially close, in fact).

Take your point about the lefties though. Definitely not half the bowler he is to right-handers.

 

[Athlai]

Yes, he did very well but again, it was only 3 tests.

Once bowlers and coaches work out his weakness and bowl to them, we'll see how good/bad a batsman he is.

If he plays even 80% of those 3 Tests in the first 3 of the Ashes he'll have a stellar series.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ha ha.

Yep.

It'll be good for his development since he seems like a ****y bastard.

He hasn't face swing bowlers the quality of Jimmy Anderson yet.

Not from what I've seen of him. But maybe he's appeared more on your TV's since he started his county stint. I think some people confuse ****y with confident though. If he wasn't confident he wouldn't be there.

 

[andyc]

Ha ha.

Yep.

It'll be good for his development since he seems like a ****y bastard.

He hasn't face swing bowlers the quality of Jimmy Anderson yet.

How is he ****y? He was saying yesterday that he was hoping to be in the Ashes squad, ffs.

Edit: As above.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, he did very well but again, it was only 3 tests.

Once bowlers and coaches work out his weakness and bowl to them, we'll see how good/bad a batsman he is.




Not after 6 innings.

After 25-30 averaging 69 with 10 centuries then maybe, but not 1 series.

South Africa isn't the terror it was during the Donald era.

Given South Africa talked up his perceived weaknesses and then got punished it'll be interesting to see what England comes up with.

6 innings in test cricket is too early to make predictions about how good he'll be, but he's started very well and that's all he can do. There have been quite a few good domestic players come up and get sorted out immediately in test cricket, in comparison Hughes had adapted remarkably well.

To be fair, England isn't a patch on the SA attack now, let alone in the Donald era.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Ha ha.


He hasn't face swing bowlers the quality of Jimmy Anderson yet.

Plus, I forgot to mention, Hughes hasn't faced a spinner the quality of Swann either and isn't great against spin from what I've seen.

He may not have faced the "quality" of these (english)bowlers, but he has performed in almost every match he has ever played; and most of these matches were played against Australian bowlers. Is my memory a little hazy or has it not been proven again and again and again and again over at least 20 years (and for most of the last 100 years) that Australian bowlers are of a higher "quality"?

 

[Uppercut]

He may not have faced the "quality" of these (english)bowlers, but he has performed in almost every match he has ever played; and most of these matches were played against Australian bowlers. Is my memory a little hazy or has it not been proven again and again and again and again over at least 20 years (and for most of the last 100 years) that Australian bowlers are of a higher "quality"?

By and large, not the ones Hughes played against. But more importantly, it's generally much easier to bat in Australia, even allowing for their better bowlers.

 

[Richard]

It's Steyn every time for me. Fuller lengths, more dangerous lines, greater speeds- the results are there for all to see. James Anderson has never had a single year in which he averaged less with the ball than Steyn does over his whole career (not even especially close, in fact).

Take your point about the lefties though. Definitely not half the bowler he is to right-handers.

That's because Anderson was 100% hopeless until last summer and hasn't exactly been the most fortunate bowler you'll see since then. Steyn of 2005/06 onwards is clearly better so far by miles but there are circumstances under which I think the Anderson of summer-2008-onwards could possibly now outdo him. Those circumstances, however, are going to be relatively rare ones, thus meaning overall Steyn is likely to continue to be overall more effective.

 

[GIMH]

100% hopeless? Bit harsh. He was inconsistent but still bowled brilliantly on occasion (Mumbai 06 for example).

 

[Richard]

Is my memory a little hazy or has it not been proven again and again and again and again over at least 20 years (and for most of the last 100 years) that Australian bowlers are of a higher "quality"?

No, it hasn't. There have been more Australian bowlers of higher quality but there is nothing inherant about that - it's just the way the cookie has crumbled. Being brought-up in Australia doesn't make you a better bowler than being brought-up in England.

Australian bowlers aren't simply of higher quality than English ones purely because they're Australian.

 

[Richard]

100% hopeless? Bit harsh. He was inconsistent but still bowled brilliantly on occasion (Mumbai 06 for example).

He had about 3 decent Tests in 5 years. That's near to 100% hopeless, for my money.

 

[GIMH]

You should look up 100%

 

[Richard]

By "100% hopeless" I don't mean "hopeless in every single over of every single spell of every single game" TBH. That'd be near-impossible.

 

[GIMH]

I reckon i could achieve that!

What do you mean by 100% hopeless?

 

[Richard]

Just dreadful far, far more often than good\decent TBH.

And I probably should've said "who takes the art of bowling seriously".

 

[GIMH]

Well I still think that's a bit harsh. It's not like he always went at 7 and over and wicketless. He's always been capable of taking wickets, it's just that used to spray it round a lot more

 

[Richard]

In most of his Tests he was completely harmless and only produced a wicket-taking delivery like once per game.