How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[Richard]

Remind me how many times he's opened in serious Test cricket since then?

 

[Richard]

Also I don't think it's so straightfoward as to suggest that an out of sorts Hussey should be made to open because of previous success in that position when he was in form.

An out-of-sorts Hussey opening is no more or less likely to score than an out-of-sorts Hussey at four(\five). If you don't believe he could open, you don't have any excuse to believe he can bat four\five.

In any case I really don't think he is out-of-sorts TBH. As I've said quite a few times now, he made 143 (or something like that) a couple of weeks ago. If he was so badly out-of-nick, he'd not have been able to do that. Yes, the attack did include Sajid Mahmood, but he was just one.

 

[Athlai]

An out-of-sorts Hussey opening is no more or less likely to score than an out-of-sorts Hussey at four(\five). If you don't believe he could open, you don't have any excuse to believe he can bat four\five.

In any case I really don't think he is out-of-sorts TBH. As I've said quite a few times now, he made 143 (or something like that) a couple of weeks ago. If he was so badly out-of-nick, he'd not have been able to do that. Yes, the attack did include Sajid Mahmood, but he was just one.

Well a middle order batsman capable of opening would be more comfortable in the middle order right?

 

[Richard]

Not sure why you're directing this at me, I was advocating Rogers get the call up (IF HUGHES WERE DROPPED, before someone jumps me. I'm a huge Hughes fan, remember?). Just because I'm a huge Watson fan doesn't mean I automatically want him opening.

I probably should've quoted Ginger_Furball's post inside yours, to emphasise that I was merely saying that the idea of Watson opening ahead of Hussey if both were in the team was a stupid one. Not that anyone was actually suggesting Watson should open.

 

[Richard]

Well a middle order batsman capable of opening would be more comfortable in the middle order right?

All well and good, except that Hussey is actually an opener, not a middle-order batsman.

 

[Athlai]

All well and good, except that Hussey is actually an opener, not a middle-order batsman.

I know but he isn't at Test level, just like Katto is now a Test opener.

 

[Richard]

I know but he isn't at Test level, just like Katto is now a Test opener.

Hussey is an opener; Katich is a number-three\four. Whatever they've been doing most recently at Test level, they remain what they have been for the overwhelming majority of their careers.

A batsman is one thing or another - you don't become a different thing just by stepping up a level.

 

[Athlai]

Hussey is an opener; Katich is a number-three\four. Whatever they've been doing most recently at Test level, they remain what they have been for the overwhelming majority of their careers.

A batsman is one thing or another - you don't become a different thing just by stepping up a level.

I disagree pretty emphatically, batsman develop their games and these two are testament to that.

 

[pup11]

Let's be fair to Watto here, it was Tim Nielsen who started all this comment, I heard him in an interview the day after the test finished waffling on about there being no problem if they needed a replacement opener because Watson could cover all positions 1-6 if necessary.

Meh, didn't knew about this, if that's the case, then Neilsen is extremely stupid to think like that.

 

[pup11]

I disagree pretty emphatically, batsman develop their games and these two are testament to that.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think the idea to make Hussey open is the brightest one, at present he is far more likely to score runs batting at no.4.

 

[Athlai]

Yep Hussey should stick to number four. Hughes shouldn't be dropped, if he is somebody fly Smitteh over there to inform the selectors that Rogers is nearby and better suited to opening than Hussey or Watto.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hussey is an opener; Katich is a number-three\four. Whatever they've been doing most recently at Test level, they remain what they have been for the overwhelming majority of their careers.

A batsman is one thing or another - you don't become a different thing just by stepping up a level.

With Athlai here too. Hussey was a middling FC opener (and before anyone quotes his FC stats, take a gander at his record for WA and which English FC teams he scored heavily against) but is an outstanding Test middle-order bat. JL was a decent FC/Test top-order bat but an outstanding opener, Katto now outstanding Test opener, etc.

All this serves to show is that labelling players as 'top-order', 'opener' etc. serves as much practical purpose as labelling a bowler who bowls 135Km/h as 'fast-medium' or 'medium-fast' i.e. not much. The labels mean pretty much nothing, I reckon.

 

[Richard]

There is no way Langer was an outstanding Test opener - a decent one yes, same way he was a decent Test number-three for 3 years beforehand. Hussey as a Test middle-order batsman has funnily enough been exactly as he was as an opener for WA or Northants (or anyone else in fact) - someone who had lengthy purple-patches and lengthy ruts. Katich is certainly not an outstanding Test opener based on a year of pretty good performance.

What determines what a batsman is is what he spends most of his career doing. As you've noted before now, however, a good batsman can sometimes bat anywhere without terrible failures. But Hussey's an opener; Langer and Katich are number-threes. And nothing will ever change that, to my mind. Yes, the definitions are no more or less than that of a bowler as "fast\fast-medium\medium-fast\medium". That's precisely the point I'm making.

 

[four_or_six]

There is no way Langer was an outstanding Test opener - a decent one yes, same way he was a decent Test number-three for 3 years beforehand. Hussey as a Test middle-order batsman has funnily enough been exactly as he was as an opener for WA or Northants (or anyone else in fact) - someone who had lengthy purple-patches and lengthy ruts. Katich is certainly not an outstanding Test opener based on a year of pretty good performance.

What determines what a batsman is is what he spends most of his career doing. As you've noted before now, however, a good batsman can sometimes bat anywhere without terrible failures. But Hussey's an opener; Langer and Katich are number-threes. And nothing will ever change that, to my mind. Yes, the definitions are no more or less than that of a bowler as "fast\fast-medium\medium-fast\medium". That's precisely the point I'm making.

No way?! Over 5000 runs @ 48 with 16 centuries is way more than a 'decent' opener.

 

[Pigeon]

Not sure why you're directing this at me, I was advocating Rogers get the call up (IF HUGHES WERE DROPPED, before someone jumps me. I'm a huge Hughes fan, remember?). Just because I'm a huge Watson fan doesn't mean I automatically want him opening.

I don't think they can call up anyone to the squad in the middle of a tour other than for replacing an injured member. I thought you were joking initially. (Still do)

 

[BoyBrumby]

All this serves to show is that labelling players as 'top-order', 'opener' etc. serves as much practical purpose as labelling a bowler who bowls 135Km/h as 'fast-medium' or 'medium-fast' i.e. not much. The labels mean pretty much nothing, I reckon.

Yeah, in agreement with this. When one selects the All-Time England XI there's no way Hobbs, Sutcliffe & Hutton aren't all going to be there despite them all being best known as openers.

In any event the old-fashioned opener is, if not quite extinct, then on the critically-endangered list. In the past decade we've seen test teams play arguably their most attacking bats as openers (Hayden, Sehwag, Smith, Gayle, Trescothick, etc).

 

[Richard]

No way?! Over 5000 runs @ 48 with 16 centuries is way more than a 'decent' opener.

Not in the age of flat decks and popgun bowling attacks it isn't, as I've argued hundreds of times before.

Langer was no better an opener than a three AFAIC - though he was a much quicker scorer. The change was in decks and attacks, not an upping of his own game.

 

[Richard]

In any event the old-fashioned opener is, if not quite extinct, then on the critically-endangered list. In the past decade we've seen test teams play arguably their most attacking bats as openers (Hayden, Sehwag, Smith, Gayle, Trescothick, etc).

Yes, in the age of flat decks and popgun bowling attacks it makes sense to attack at the top of the order. However, in circumstances that have defined most of the history of Test cricket - ie, the new ball doing plenty with quality bowlers sending it down in good areas and usually sharp TSTL speed - almost all of the best openers have been stonewallers, because you have to be a very unusual specimin (Michael Slater for example) to have success attacking quality bowlers with a new ball. Most who try it will and did fail dismally. So therefore the only approach that worked at the top of the order was a careful one.

There's no reason to believe the old-fashioned opener is extinct - as long as flat pitches and less-than-outstanding new-ball bowlers last, the current approach too will. If we ever return to normal, however, it will have to be curbed sharpish, else one hell of a lot of scoreboards will read ~12-2 with one hell of a lot of regularity.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not in the age of flat decks and popgun bowling attacks it isn't, as I've argued hundreds of times before.

You say that like it should mean something other than you've argued it hundreds of times before.

Langer was no better an opener than a three AFAIC - though he was a much quicker scorer. The change was in decks and attacks, not an upping of his own game.

Credit where it's due, eh? Langer's scoring arc for a lot of his career was between 3rd man and point with the occasional pull if he was really feeling good. Since opening, we saw flashing cover drives, slog sweeps and, in general, just a faster scoring rate. Pitches have been flatter, sure, but I don't buy that the turn-around in his numbers was totally down to that. Certainly don't subscribe to the argument that we saw a downturn in bowling quality, either but that's my personal opinion.

 

[NUFAN]

Langer was no better an opener than a three AFAIC - though he was a much quicker scorer. The change was in decks and attacks, not an upping of his own game.

Do you seriously think Langer didn't change his style throughout his career?

He was nuggety and a nurdler for most of his life at 3. It the last 3 or so years of his Test Career while opening he changed his ways and looked to score more, especially early on in his innings, his game got better as his confidence did.