Are Middlesex right in taking on Phil Hughes?

[PhoenixFire]

I was having a discussion with a cricket-interested friend and talking about how well Phil Hughes is doing for Middlesex. He said that he thought that the ECB should have done all in their power to stop Australian Test players 'getting their eye('s) in the English conditions before an Ashes Test series, as it would have a negative influence on the English chances of winning the Ashes.

I disagreed, saying that if counties have the chance to sign top players like Hughes, then they should be allowed to do so, as if benefits the County Cricket scene, as well as benefiting younger player coming through.

Thoughts?

 

[James_W]

Of course they're right. Counties should do whatever it takes to win, then worry about the national team.

 

[Polo23]

I don't think Hughes county stint will count one jot once the first test starts. Completely different ball game. Better quality opposition and i'd imagine the frame of mind will be entirely different also. I'm looking forward to seeing him for the first time

 

[superkingdave]

Yeah, Middlesex can do what they want.

 

[pskov]

Unless the ECB imposes a rule whereby players in international contention for teams touring England cannot be signed up to play county cricket that same summer I have no problem with what Middlesex did. But even if there were such a rule in place I'm not sure it could have been enforced in this case anyway, as when Hughes committed to Middlesex over the winter he hadn't yet made his debut and was not centrally contracted to Cricket Australia.

 

[Oasisbob]

They have every right to employ him. I just hope that England have taken full advantage and had somebody watching him closely to try and spot any weakness. The trouble is from what I've seen so far, his only weakness seems to be his inability to get to 200...

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

No reason why they shouldnt of. He was on the free market. Most stars were playing IPL so its not like there was much to choose from.

 

[andruid]

They can sign whomever they want whenever they want, that is available and has legal right to play in England

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

If, on the other hand, someone like Pietersen or Flintoff was going to play Australian domestic cricket before an Ashes I wouldn't be at all disappointed. Would rather beat the English when they are fit and firing and not completely undone; not sure if that's the same on the other side of the pond, though.

I voted yes for this reason.

 

[Manee]

I think the outcome is not ideal for England, but Middlesex are in their rights to choose whoever is available as an overseas player, as long as it is within the rules, which it is.

 

[fredfertang]

The whole argument rather strikes me as people looking for an excuse in advance to cover the possibility that England might lose

I'm with Polo23 on the specific point raised - as all too many Englishmen have found out cheap runs in the CC, and when all is said and done Middlesex are a distinctly average second division side at the moment, are no guarantee of success on the international stage

There's a world of a difference between the Burnley Express on an overcast morning in front of a packed and partisan crowd and a County journeyman on a chilly May morning in front of half a dozen pensioners

 

[Woodster]

A few points I'd like to make on this -
We know that there are no rules that stop such signings, so it's not a case of that, it's a question of how much impact it will have in the upcoming Ashes. In this case, I'm against it, I understand it's Middlesex's prerogative, but it is short sighted and I would have been happier had they not signed Hughes. He's a young player that will have had limited experience of these conditions, now he is aware what to expect.

Of course it may not matter at all, he may lose form, Andrew Strauss, who will have seen plenty of him now, may have spotted one or two weaknesses from the other end, who knows. However, it's not a move I would be fond of if I was at the ECB.

Also, of course it's going to be very different when he plays in the Ashes, for the reasons suggested, however, his knowledge of the wickets etc over here will have been enhanced, so will his confidence/familiarity having played at three of the Test grounds being used for the Ashes.

The Stuart Clark one is worse for me. His moving to Gloucester just before the Ashes, to obviously sharpen up and press his case for inclusion in the opening Test, but he'll play only 2 Championship games. Gloucester cannot even justify the signing by suggesting how good he'll be for the younger players as he won't be there long enough to help bring any of them on. A definite short-sighted selfish gain, but again it us up to the club, and they are entitled to make such acquisitions. It's more a moral obligation to English cricket, imo.

 

[Smith]

Nothing wrong. ECB does not compensate Middlesex for not using their resources

 

[pasag]

To paraphrase Ricky Ponting, where any poms complaining when James Anderson was getting match practice with Auckland ahead of the series in NZ?

 

[Manee]

To paraphrase Ricky Ponting, where any poms complaining when James Anderson was getting match practice with Auckland ahead of the series in NZ?

Hypocracy noted and I am on your side, but it is because comparitively very few people really cared about the England in New Zealand Test series.

 

[rivera213]

As long as if our players want to play state cricket before the 2010/11 Ashes, CA allow them to do so then there isn't a problem.

Like Polo said, it's 1 thing facing mediocre county bowlers (and Middlesex are in Division 2 so even poor quality for county level) to facing Anderson, Flintoff, Swann etc with the pressure of the Ashes.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, my head says I have no problem with it. In theory I can see why people would be more irked by the Clark one, but still, counties need to look after themselves, bowlers of that quality don't come along every day

 

[Woodster]

To paraphrase Ricky Ponting, where any poms complaining when James Anderson was getting match practice with Auckland ahead of the series in NZ?

No, and I don't suppose there'll be any Australians complaining either. I don't blame Australia or Hughes for trying to get some first-class practice in English conditions, they'd be to blame if they didn't try. I just don't think we should give them the chance. I was very pleased Anderson got a chance for some competitive match practice, it was very accommodating of NZC, although when he removed New Zealand's complete top 5, I'm sure one or two question marks were hanging around as to whether that was the right thing to do.

 

[FBU]

I don't mind South Africans and New Zealanders coming and playing before a series because they are prepared to let our players into their domestic game but the Australians don't.

 

[GIMH]

I'm sure there was talk of Flintoff playing grade cricket before the last Ashes, not sure whether it was conjecture or whether one or both of the parties vetoed it though