*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Matt79]

Not sure I agree with that. Hughes has simply succumbed to plans that were set for him, to which our opening bowlers should get a lot of credit. Johnson on the other hand has just looked all over the place, rather than batsmen working out a way to counter his bowling he has simply bowled poorly. My kid brother barely knows a thing about cricket and said after the second Test, "that Johnson's rubbish isn't he?"

That being said, I think part of the logic is that in cricket people generally seem to be prepared to give batsmen more of a chance than bowlers.

Also, I think if there was someone like Jaques in the squad, Hughes being dropped for him wouldn't be greeted with such outcry. The impression I'm getting is that people are happy to see Watto in the side but not at the top of the order.

Well Mitch has taken 8 wickets in two matches AND scored a half century. Hughes has scored a streaky 37 and looked completely at sea against a plan that an opening batsman
should be able to deal with (shock, horror, they're bowling bouncers at me!! ).

I'm not really saying that Mitch has bowled that well - he was average in Wales and bad in Lords, but pointing out that people want to give Hughes time to get right because
of what he did in SA, whereas they aren't willing to do that for Johnson.

 

[sephiroth123]

Well we will soon see what sort of state the outfield is in, hopefully it is drying very nicely.

However looks like a shower is incoming in the next hour which means a delayed start maybe almost certain regardless.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not really saying that Mitch has bowled that well - he was average in Wales and bad in Lords, but pointing out that people want to give Hughes time to get right because
of what he did in SA, whereas they aren't willing to do that for Johnson.

It's because

a) The batting looks more capable of carrying Hughes while he's not performing,
and
b) The "alternative option" to Johnson is Stuart Clark, a million miles more appealing than the alternative to Hughes.

 

[GIMH]

(to Matt) Yeah, I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying at all, but I also don't really hold much regard of the numbers in Johnson's wicket tally, I mean he has taken more than Freddie or Jimmeh as far as I can remember and I don't think even stfu ben would claim that he had bowled better than them.

Bowlers generally get less time though, both with selectors and fans, that's another reason why I'm surprised at that. At the end of the day, one batsman failing can be covered for more easily than an erratic bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

2-3 hour delay according to David Lloyd.

 

[GIMH]

Oh FFS

 

[Woodster]

After hearing the rumour last night of Shane Watson replacing Phil Hughes, I shrugged it off as an over enthusiastic journalist looking for an alternative story. Then this morning I realise it actually seems true and am staggered. Like GIMH says, there wouldn't be as much disbelief should an opener replace him, Chris Rogers you would have thought would have been no.1 candidate, Phil Jaques, depending on his fitness and how much cricket he's played, but Shane Watson ? Hughes has showed deficiencies at the top, no question, but was he not deserving of at least another Test, a show of faith ?

On the other hand, if changes are deemed necessary, best to do them now than after the series has gone (I'm not suggesting that will be the case for Australia). Yes Watson adds an extra seam bowling option, but an opening batsman ?? I don't get it.

There must surely be thoughts of pushing a Hussey up the order, and having Watson fit in at 6, which would not be as bad, But not one recognised natural opener in the ranks (despite Katich's impressive re-invention of his role), Jimmy and Freddie will be rubbing their hands when they get the new ball.

 

[Matt79]

@ uppercut - That's an exaggeration - at worst I'd back Watson to score as much as Hughes would, but hopefully do better than that PLUS be able to bowl a bit. Ie he's a decent enough replacement.

Clark IS a more appealling option but not by the margin you suggest. Still think Clark might be a late inclusion.

 

[iamdavid]

Bowlers generally get less time though, both with selectors and fans, that's another reason why I'm surprised at that. At the end of the day, one batsman failing can be covered for more easily than an erratic bowler.

I think Johnson's form may have a fair bit to do with Hughes being dropped as well, with Watson in the side they still have three other seamers to cover if Johnson keeps bowling pies. Whereas at Lord's it was only Hilf and Siddle, with Hauritz being injured.
I think if Johnson had been bowling well Hughes would've likely played this test as the case for Watson would not have been as strong.

 

[mat]

Who is their to replace Hughes? The team would benefit from a specialist opener like Hughes.
Whereas there are bowlers lining up to replace Johnson, Clark being the obvious one.
The stats do not do the two justice. Hughes has rarely faced World class bowling and isnt expected to overcome such a dilemma as someone like Ponting could. On the other hand Johnson has taken his wickets from the rare good ball, that isnt expected to be bowled after facing over after over of poor bowling. Surely a line bowler in clark is a better option than changing the batting line-up, if a change is to be made to the side.

Mat

 

[GIMH]

Weather looks lovely so it must just be a case of this morning's rain damaging the outfield again after last night's work

 

[Uppercut]

He's batting in a different position FFS. It's not like he's being asked to play baseball. Five current players with 15+ matches there average over 45 at the top of the order- Gambhir, Katich, Smith, Sehwag and Gibbs. Three converted middle-order players, then. And Michael Vaughan misses out by a few weeks.

South Africa took a big decision recently to replace their out-of-sorts opener with a middle-order man of proven class, and Ashwell Prince hit 150 in his first innings opening the batting. And he hadn't even done it in OD cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

@ uppercut - That's an exaggeration - at worst I'd back Watson to score as much as Hughes would, but hopefully do better than that PLUS be able to bowl a bit. Ie he's a decent enough replacement.

Clark IS a more appealling option but not by the margin you suggest. Still think Clark might be a late inclusion.

I used the word "appealing" because that's how it is to most. Personally I completely agree with you.

 

[sephiroth123]

If we do get a 2-3 hour delay then that is a shame, but not surprising to be honest. Just got to hope the showers don't hang about too long either as they will be arriving in the next hour roughly.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, this. Plus he's a top order batsman - probably belongs 3-4. Makes no sense to stick him at six just cos he's an allrounder.

 

[GIMH]

Bowlers' run-ups not fit for play yet. Outfield still dodgy as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Very poor drainage indeed for a test ground by the looks of things.

 

[GIMH]

Botham reckons play starts at mid-afternoon, great.

 

[Uppercut]

It's a bit odd that Lord's has an intricate under-soil pipes system in conjunction with under-soil heating to drain water from the ground and outfield as quickly as possible, while Edgebaston have a little old man sauntering around putting spikes in the pitch to let the water fall through.

 

[Craig]

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 30 2009, 08:00 AM GMT)

Open with Michael Clarke. Flintoff has never got him out. They surely can't ask Watson to open and be a frontline bowler. How many overs do they want him to last? Even he has said he doesn't want that much workload and pressure.

ITSTL.