How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[Richard]

Anyway, from the highlights on Sussex TV he's not quite as bizzare and outrightly incorrect as Chanderpaul, yet Chanders has a history of making a mockery of bowling.

Fix'd.

 

[Burgey]

That's a new one.

Anyway, frey is old news - first showed-up in about March 2007 or summat. Fortunately, as you can see, he's not been what you'd call a regular visitor.

Then you and others will have no trouble ignoring him, right?

I won't, but history shows that the chance of everyone ignoring a not-worth-attention poster is zero.

Well none of your posts have ever been constructive, as evidenced by the fact that just about every single one contains multiple Laugh smilies, the fact you can't even put the quote before the reply like everyone else does, and the fact that most are very confrontational - such as the last one in reply to Gelman's post.

Hence, my somewhat groan response every time you return.

 

[Richard]

"Have no difficulty" =| "will always do".

 

[simmy]

Zero.

Anderson to own him in the first 3 tests, he will be then be dropped for the 4th and 5th test.

Maybe not this....

But I predict zero with him becoming Flintoffs rabbit against the bouncer. He looked very very ordinary today.

 

[social]

Maybe not this....

But I predict zero with him becoming Flintoffs rabbit against the bouncer. He looked very very ordinary today.

Averages 70 vs Steyn and he'll become Flintoff's rabbit?1?

 

[rivera213]

Averages 70 vs Steyn and he'll become Flintoff's rabbit?1?

Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist never faced Steyn TBF.

Either way, predicable knee-jerk reactions from predictable quarters after Hughes messed-up against one short delivery. Let's wait and see whether he does it regularly, hey?

 

[King Pietersen]

Two. He copped one on the helmet in Harmison's first over.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bradman was said to flinch against the short stuff too. Therefore Hughes = Bradman.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think it was proven in SA when Steyn and co vowed to get stuck into Hughes with the short stuff that it has to be very good short stuff to cause him any trouble. The same as any other batsman. If he starts getting hit on the helmet against short balls that are two feet outside off-stump he has a problem.

 

[andruid]

A "Jewie" is a fish

Cheers mate - glad you cleared that up for me.

Jewie = Jewfish.

Perhaps consider asking first next time.

Now I know


*runs off and hides*

 

[Burgey]

Now I know


*runs off and hides*

No dramas mate.

 

[Richard]

Two. He copped one on the helmet in Harmison's first over.

Justin Langer copped one on the helmet or somewhere on the body in most innings' he played. He was nonetheless a very good player of the short delivery, however.

 

[Golaxi]

hughes can't even handle harmison. 0 centuries, sorry

 

[jondavluc]

hughes can't even handle harmison. 0 centuries, sorry

 

[King Pietersen]

Justin Langer copped one on the helmet or somewhere on the body in most innings' he played. He was nonetheless a very good player of the short delivery, however.

Well Hughes didn't play that 1 delivery very well at all. Was short, but not bouncer length, Hughes just read the length wrong completely and tried to duck out of the way when he should definitely been up on his toes playing off the back-foot. It definitely wasn't a matter of just taking a blow because it was a good short one, just played it poorly.

It was early in his innings though, so I'm not reading too much into it, and I've heard talk that he's actually quite a good player of the short ball normally, so hopefully England won't go completely 1 dimensional at him and try and bowl constantly back of a length, especially Jim, he never looks threatening enough when bowling back of a length.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

 

[Richard]

Well Hughes didn't play that 1 delivery very well at all. Was short, but not bouncer length, Hughes just read the length wrong completely and tried to duck out of the way when he should definitely been up on his toes playing off the back-foot. It definitely wasn't a matter of just taking a blow because it was a good short one, just played it poorly.

It was early in his innings though, so I'm not reading too much into it, and I've heard talk that he's actually quite a good player of the short ball normally, so hopefully England won't go completely 1 dimensional at him and try and bowl constantly back of a length, especially Jim, he never looks threatening enough when bowling back of a length.

Absolutely. He played it poorly, which everyone does with all sorts of deliveries, pretty regularly. Mostly, playing a short ball poorly won't get you out - this time it did.

Most batsmen benefit if bowlers wrongly start to think they have a weakness against short bowling, because they then get preoccupied with that and fail to attack their real weaknesses. England spent over a decade doing that with Stephen Waugh. Let's hope the treatment isn't repeated with Hughes, or anyone else.

 

[Redbacks]

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

there were enough pies at the other end to keep the pressure off. Onions or Flintoff can bowl a negative line whilst they bounce him from the other end. He played ****house in the first innings not even looking like punishing a half-volley, whereas in SA anything on his leg side he was hitting for 4, England can just throw out a leg side sweeper if he has two main scoring areas, whereas SA didn't because they didn't have a decent plan against him.

 

[GIMH]

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

Better, yes, twice as good? Not even close. Jimmy & Freddie say hi.