Who will be Australia's next number three batsman?

[BoyBrumby]

No mention of Chris Rogers yet?

Sure, age isn't his friend, but ditto Hussey jr. Rogers does at least have the opening pedigree vic mentioned.

Can't believe he isn't mentioned more. He have BO or is he a massive **** or something?

 

[social]

No mention of Chris Rogers yet?

Sure, age isn't his friend, but ditto Hussey jr. Rogers does at least have the opening pedigree vic mentioned.

Can't believe he isn't mentioned more. He have BO or is he a massive **** or something?

The reason we dont mention him any more is that it is an exercise in futility - he's had his card marked for whatever reason and no amount of runs will change it apparently

 

[hazsa19]

This type of **** annoys me so much.

It is such a myth that your best batsman has to bat three, or what you've said, players 'get away with' batting lower down the order.

Hussey has been very successful batting where he does, so you want to throw him up the order which could reduce his effectiveness and bring in someone who is not as good as Hussey in that number 6 role?

I'm not even Hussey's biggest fan, but how he bats with the lower order is exceptional, I have no idea why anyone would want to jeopardise that.

There's a surprise. And yes of course it's **** because it's not your opinion.

I'm not denying Hussey isn't successful at 6, but he's needed at 3 from what i've seen of Australia lately. All too often they rely on his lower order runs to reach a respectable total. If I were Australian; I would be crying out for some stability at the top of the order.

As an England fan, i'm not too fussed when I see him walk to the crease at 6. A lot of the time our bowlers are already on a role.

 

[benchmark00]

Well you haven't seen much of Australia lately then. Not surprising, they haven't played England for a while.

 

[hazsa19]

Well you haven't seen much of Australia lately then. Not surprising, they haven't played England for a while.

brilliant

 

[Burgey]

Hilf. We'll lose a wicket late in the day and he'll come in as night watchman.

 

[Red]

There's a surprise. And yes of course it's **** because it's not your opinion.

I'm not denying Hussey isn't successful at 6, but he's needed at 3 from what i've seen of Australia lately. All too often they rely on his lower order runs to reach a respectable total. If I were Australian; I would be crying out for some stability at the top of the order.

As an England fan, i'm not too fussed when I see him walk to the crease at 6. A lot of the time our bowlers are already on a role.

I'd imagine it'll be Watson at 3 this summer.

But moving Hussey up the order isn't a completely bad idea, it's just robbing the bottom order of some stability in order to hopefully get some at the top. I think if Hussey is going to move, it might as well be right to the top, so he can bat with Cowan. What I'd consider would be:

1. M. Hussey
2. E. Cowan
3. D. Warner
4. S. Watson
5. M. Clarke
6. U. Khawaja/P. Nevill
7. Wade


Harsh on Ponting, but I think one of either him or Hussey should go now. Not sure we should carry two guys that old. We need to blood a new batsman at 6, and whoever it is should have time to establish themselves without the pressure of being our number 3.

My other (preferred) option would be to drop Watson altogether, but that won't happen. If Watson cannot contribute with the ball, he should be dropped....

Warner looks a perfect number 3 to me. Nice tight technique and aggressive.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Has Usman ever batted as low as six? If his technique isn't up to the job up the order it's only a problem deferred if he comes in lower on.

Two things also mitigate against moving Hussey from #6 as well:

1) He's one of the very best batsmen at marshalling runs from the tail;

2) As saggers (Where the **** is Gelman, btw? Surely being an ad exec can't take up all his life?) observes, Hussey does get bowled a heck of a lot for a top batsman. Not sure him against a swinging red pill is necessarily the best idea, regardless of his FC opening.

 

[uvelocity]

Has Usman ever batted as low as six?

2 tests

 

[Mike Filroy]

Nice post...interesting

 

[benchmark00]

2 tests

Nice post...interesting

Gun spammer

 

[pup11]

The problem with Hughes is that he doesn't learn. After the 'c. Guptill b. Martin' series, he's continued to play in exactly the same way. In domestic cricket, you can get away with it, but if he gets put up against a Steyn or an Anderson playing in Tests, he'd get murdered.

If Hughes was simply 'getting out', then he might have been kept on. But when you nick behind off Chris Martin in four consecutive innings, doing exactly the same thing, then you have a serious technical issue, and no right to a place playing for your country.

Cowan may not be scoring more runs than Hughes would be if he were playing, but at least he gets undone by good balls, not hitting the same ball to the same fieldsman every innings.

As I said before when an aggressive and unorthodox player like Hughes gets out it just looks bad, whereas players like Khwajha, Cowan who have a steady approach to the way they play won't look half as bad as Hughes when they get out despite having numerous holes in their technique.

The real problem are the selectors because if we had this same bunch back in 2001 then its very likely that a guy like Ponting too would have struggled to cement a test spot after that horrible series he had in India, these selectors in one moment are willing to end careers of likes of Hayden and Katich to give opportunities to Hughes but very shortly he finds himself behind the pecking order to guys like Cowan and Marsh.

This sort of treatment has stagnated Hughes' career and made him an easy target for both the media and the fans alike, this despite of him performing better than any other bloke who has come into the side after his debut.

 

[Dan]

As I said before when an aggressive and unorthodox player like Hughes gets out it just looks bad, whereas players like Khwajha, Cowan who have a steady approach to the way they play won't look half as bad as Hughes when they get out despite having numerous holes in their technique.

The real problem are the selectors because if we had this same bunch back in 2001 then its very likely that a guy like Ponting too would have struggled to cement a test spot after that horrible series he had in India, these selectors in one moment are willing to end careers of likes of Hayden and Katich to give opportunities to Hughes but very shortly he finds himself behind the pecking order to guys like Cowan and Marsh.

This sort of treatment has stagnated Hughes' career and made him an easy target for both the media and the fans alike, this despite of him performing better than any other bloke who has come into the side after his debut.

The difference between Hughes and Cowan, for example, is that Hughes has one gaping hole in his technique that can be exploited quite easily by Test-class bowlers. If we add the short ball to the mix, it becomes two large holes. He may be good everywhere else, but every international team knows to a) angle one across him outside off or b) bounce him, and he's gone quickly.

Cowan, on the other hand, probably does have more technical faults (in terms of number), but his are decidedly harder to exploit, smaller and thus easier to go through and fix. He doesn't have to re-jig his entire technique every six months because he keeps nicking the first ball angled across him.

Hayden was in shocking form when he gave up, and Katich was dropped by Hilditch and co. Invers then came in and basically said to screw all that, you pick your best XI and develop your players through the A-team, Shield cricket and ODIs. Completely different selectors, and a different selection methodology.

Hughes is almost like Mendis, in some ways. He came in with an unorthodox style, was successful, but eventually got worked out. And though his stats look pretty nice compared to those around him, if he were picked again there's no guarantee he'd be even the slightest bit effective.

 

[NUFAN]

I think Cowan is just as easy to fault, he's not so flash against spin for instance.

Also, despite Hughes performing badly he still averages above Cowan. One of the thing that annoys me most about Hughes is when he is in the field, he just doesn't really look like he wants to be there while Cowan is sharp.

 

[uvelocity]

facts:

hughes got screwed around a bit
hughes was atrocious and absolutely had to be dropped the last time
hughes maybe can come back and be successful. scoring runs as he is, is the best way to do it.

 

[Spikey]

blowing our load and bringing hughes back over half a season would just be repeating past mistakes ftr

 

[Dan]

Yeah, he's not the best player of spin going around, but at least he doesn't hit the first ball angled across his stumps to third slip. Every innings.

I think Hughes will become a very, very good Test match batsman - and I've said that since he came onto the scene at 19. He just needs some time in FC cricket to work out how to avoid nicking everything to third slip.

 

[pup11]

The difference between Hughes and Cowan, for example, is that Hughes has one gaping hole in his technique that can be exploited quite easily by Test-class bowlers. If we add the short ball to the mix, it becomes two large holes. He may be good everywhere else, but every international team knows to a) angle one across him outside off or b) bounce him, and he's gone quickly.

Cowan, on the other hand, probably does have more technical faults (in terms of number), but his are decidedly harder to exploit, smaller and thus easier to go through and fix. He doesn't have to re-jig his entire technique every six months because he keeps nicking the first ball angled across him.

Hayden was in shocking form when he gave up, and Katich was dropped by Hilditch and co. Invers then came in and basically said to screw all that, you pick your best XI and develop your players through the A-team, Shield cricket and ODIs. Completely different selectors, and a different selection methodology.

Hughes is almost like Mendis, in some ways. He came in with an unorthodox style, was successful, but eventually got worked out. And though his stats look pretty nice compared to those around him, if he were picked again there's no guarantee he'd be even the slightest bit effective.

If Hughes was like Mendis then how could he have comeback into test cricket and scored a hundred in Sri Lanka and 88 in South Africa, because if he has such big holes in his game then he won't have stood a chance against these teams that too in their backyard.

You gotta take into account that its not like Hughes has failed at the international level when every one else around him have filled their boots, he has played tests against some pretty good attacks in bowler friendly conditions where pretty much the whole batting line-up went down in a heap, but in batting friendly conditions he has always made his starts count.

You might personally not rate Hughes but there is no denying that the kid is a special talent, and like all special talents he too needs to be nurtured which unfortunately hasn't happened thus far.

 

[pup11]

I think Cowan is just as easy to fault, he's not so flash against spin for instance.

Also, despite Hughes performing badly he still averages above Cowan. One of the thing that annoys me most about Hughes is when he is in the field, he just doesn't really look like he wants to be there while Cowan is sharp.

Not sure where you developed that perception, from what I have seen of him in the coloured clothing for NSW he seems a pretty good fielder all around the field, doesn't have the greatest of throws though.

Anyways I don't think he is one of those blokes who shows much emotion, still remember him bringing up his century in Sri Lanka and rather than jumping in joy like a 22 year old who brought up his first test hundred after wait of two years, he just half-raised his bat and continued batting.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, he's not the best player of spin going around, but at least he doesn't hit the first ball angled across his stumps to third slip. Every innings.

I think Hughes will become a very, very good Test match batsman - and I've said that since he came onto the scene at 19. He just needs some time in FC cricket to work out how to avoid nicking everything to third slip.

I'm looking forward to seeing Hughes Shield average next year at home and away because he wont prove the doubters wrong until he scores good runs away from Adelaide.

Not sure where you developed that perception, from what I have seen of him in the coloured clothing for NSW he seems a pretty good fielder all around the field, doesn't have the greatest of throws though.

Anyways I don't think he is one of those blokes who shows much emotion, still remember him bringing up his century in Sri Lanka and rather than jumping in joy like a 22 year old who brought up his first test hundred after wait of two years, he just half-raised his bat and continued batting.

Yeah perhaps it was a bit harsh on Hughes in the field, its not as though he's a complete liability or anything but Cowan does seem like he wants to be there more.