How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[vic_orthdox]

No issue for mine.

 

[Pigeon]

Mate he is just 20 years old, and I have no doubt his game would improve with time, he is unorthdox but he hardly has glaring technical glitches, he has just struggled against some very discplined and well planned bowling from English bowlers, but its hardly fair enough to write him off after just three bad knocks.

Are you serious? He has looked a dead duck against quality short pitched bowling. And that has been utilised to the T by the English bowlers. Yes, he is a nice prospect, but right now it is better to g back and improve on those. He has all the years in front of him.

 

[howardj]

Mate he is just 20 years old, and I have no doubt his game would improve with time, he is unorthdox but he hardly has glaring technical glitches, he has just struggled against some very discplined and well planned bowling from English bowlers, but its hardly fair enough to write him off after just three bad knocks.

I wouldn't right him off, but I do think he needs to improve his leg side play. It's natural for a batsman to favour either the leg side, or the off side. However, the point is that you must be able to play and score on both sides of the wicket. I think Hughes need to learn to get inside the ball, and play the Tubby Taylor tuck behind square leg. He seemed not just uncomfortable but very restricted (to the point that there didn't look to be much scope for improvement) against the Poms' body bowling.

 

[pup11]

I wouldn't right him off, but I do think he needs to improve his leg side play. It's natural for a batsman to favour either the leg side, or the off side. However, the point is that you must be able to play and score on both sides of the wicket. I think Hughes need to learn to get inside the ball, and play the Tubby Taylor tuck behind square leg. He seemed not just uncomfortable but very restricted (to the point that there didn't look to be much scope for improvement) against the Poms' body bowling.

I think his leg-side play isn't as ****e as many think, as you said he only has problems playing through the on-side when he gets tucked up, but he is dynamite if you pitch the ball upto his stumps on that line.

I think he should have been given one more test to see whether he manages to come with something to counter this ploy from English bowlers.

Yesterday, Aussie batsmen got bundled against swing and seam bowling, but despite Hughes's unorthodox technique, I think he is pretty good against that sort of bowling, the thing is, his game has hardly completely evolved yet, but still he has a lot more strengths than weaknesses, and on the basis of what we saw in RSA, he deserved an extended run
here.

 

[GIMH]

No issue for mine.

The Freddie-lover in me is inclined to agree, will CA?

 

[social]

The Freddie-lover in me is inclined to agree, will CA?

Selectors

David Boon - booze hound

Merv Hughes - ditto

Hilditch - test failure so no clue as to what it takes to be successful

Cox - never played so ditto

CA Board - look at their beer bellies

Thing that annoys me about CA is their hypocrisy and/or incompetence

 

[slippyslip]

Probably none now... fell into the trap good and proper. I honestly thought England's attack was nowhere near as good as South Africa's, and he did so well in English conditions for Middlesex, albeit against weaker attacks. It wasn't a terrible extrapolation from that base to expect him to do well.

Anyone with a slight grasp on the history of cricket would have realised that Hughes was going to be found out at an early. But unfortunately people keep making the same mistakes because they never look back and learn from what has happened before.

Two words: Damien Martyn. I remember Benaud lauding this guy as best batsmen since Bradman. It just wasn't Richie. He was talked about in awe ... without even having the opportunity to accomplish anything. Read Martyn's comments about his infamous performance against South Africa and the effect it had and how he wasn't ready.

Phil Hughes is a talented player but he only has 1 season for NSW under his belt. These days Australian team bowlers hardly play any sheffield shield cricket. Factor in the retirements and injuries there was a lack of good bowlers in the 2008/09 sheffield shield season. So basically Hughes beat up bowlers not good enough for test cricket.

During Hughes' stint at Middlesex the top English bowlers were playing West Indies/Twenty 20. Again he beat up on 2nd stringers.

Hughes did have a good 2nd innings in his 1st team and his performance in the2nd test against South Africa was brilliant and amazing. But since then he has only scored 122 in 5 innings at an average of 24.4.

Basically Hughes has been worked out and he needs to go back and play more first class cricket. I just hope he doesnt have the same problems as Martyn who lose 3-4 years of his career because he was selected for tests too early.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyone with a slight grasp on the history of cricket would have realised that Hughes was going to be found out at an early. But unfortunately people keep making the same mistakes because they never look back and learn from what has happened before.

Two words: Damien Martyn. I remember Benaud lauding this guy as best batsmen since Bradman. It just wasn't Richie. He was talked about in awe ... without even having the opportunity to accomplish anything. Read Martyn's comments about his infamous performance against South Africa and the effect it had and how he wasn't ready.

Phil Hughes is a talented player but he only has 1 season for NSW under his belt. These days Australian team bowlers hardly play any sheffield shield cricket. Factor in the retirements and injuries there was a lack of good bowlers in the 2008/09 sheffield shield season. So basically Hughes beat up bowlers not good enough for test cricket.

During Hughes' stint at Middlesex the top English bowlers were playing West Indies/Twenty 20. Again he beat up on 2nd stringers.

Hughes did have a good 2nd innings in his 1st team and his performance in the2nd test against South Africa was brilliant and amazing. But since then he has only scored 122 in 5 innings at an average of 24.4.

Basically Hughes has been worked out and he needs to go back and play more first class cricket. I just hope he doesnt have the same problems as Martyn who lose 3-4 years of his career because he was selected for tests too early.

Really not seeing the parallel's with Martyn at all. He wasn't found out technically, was essentially dropped for not being Steve Waugh and (unfairly, mind) for one shot in, given, a testing situation for the team after looking just fine in the first innings. Steve Waugh was beating the door down and had to be given a shot so someone had to go and it wasn't likely to be M Waugh, AB or Boon. Marto was likely to be dropped anyway because he wasn't scoring tons of runs for fun but I don't remember it having anything to do with any technical deficiencies, being found out, etc.

Personally don't have massive problems with Hughes' technique so much as his decision-making. Being so new to the top level of the game, it's fairly likely he just hasn't settled on which way to go (duck/sway or play a shot to the hip-to-heart deliveries), much like Steve Waugh early on. Once he does, reckon he'll be fine.

Dispute he feasted on weak attacks too; last season was definitely bowler-dominant. No disrespect to Kling but he played half his games on Adelaide which was a road all season. Similar Rogers. No-one else breached 1000 runs for the season, Hughes the only NSW-man who came close.

There werent any quick pitches, sure, but there was plenty of juice in them for most of the SS season. Hughes in particular did the job against Tas on a nightmare deck. The guy has the game for when the ball is moving around. This decision-making issue against quick bowlers, I'd hazard, won't last long.

 

[slippyslip]

Really not seeing the parallel's with Martyn at all. He wasn't found out technically, was essentially dropped for not being Steve Waugh and (unfairly, mind) for one shot in, given, a testing situation for the team after looking just fine in the first innings. Steve Waugh was beating the door down and had to be given a shot so someone had to go and it wasn't likely to be M Waugh, AB or Boon. Marto was likely to be dropped anyway because he wasn't scoring tons of runs for fun but I don't remember it having anything to do with any technical deficiencies, being found out, etc.

The parallel is that both players, while having a lot of potential, made their test debt 2 years too early.

Dean Jones after winning the previous series in Sri Lanka for Australia was dropped for Martyn. While Martyn recovered and continued on to have a successful career he was rushed into test cricket and paid the price.

Personally don't have massive problems with Hughes' technique so much as his decision-making. Being so new to the top level of the game, it's fairly likely he just hasn't settled on which way to go (duck/sway or play a shot to the hip-to-heart deliveries), much like Steve Waugh early on. Once he does, reckon he'll be fine.

Which is why he should have been left at domestic level for another year or two. Simply put 20 first class games is not enough matches for an opening batsmen. Especially when he didnt face many world class bowlers during that time.

Dispute he feasted on weak attacks too; last season was definitely bowler-dominant. No disrespect to Kling but he played half his games on Adelaide which was a road all season. Similar Rogers. No-one else breached 1000 runs for the season, Hughes the only NSW-man who came close.

Dont forget that MacGill, Warne and McGrath had retired. So they had to be replaced. Then Lee and Clark got injured. So they had to be replaced in the test team from guys playing in the Sheffield Shield. By the end of the 2008/09 domestic season all the top bowlers had been drained. 3 guys over 1000 runs is a lot. And Rogers plays his home games at the MCG. Since when has the MCG been a batsmen's paradise? Just because the rest of NSW non-test batsmen arent good doesnt mean Hughes was ready for tests.

There werent any quick pitches, sure, but there was plenty of juice in them for most of the SS season. Hughes in particular did the job against Tas on a nightmare deck. The guy has the game for when the ball is moving around. This decision-making issue against quick bowlers, I'd hazard, won't last long.

And Australian bowlers failure to swing the ball, especially in Australia, is well documented so that removes the "juicy" theory. And besides Hilfenhaus what class bowlers does Tasmania have? Geeves? Seriously ... And Hilfenhaus doesnt have the weapons someone like Harmison does. Its no surprise to me that when Hughes came up against Harmison, a guy who was fresh, not injured and hungry to earn a recall to the English team, he was found to wanting in a major way.

Yes, Hughes did well in South Africa against a very tired and jaded South African team. Dale Steyn was nowhere near as good as he was in the first two tests in Australia. But interestingly Paul Harris got Hughes out 3 times during that series which is a lot for a spinner against an opening bat. So obviously Hughes has a weakness against spin too. Or are you going to argue that spinners were "dominant" during the 2008/09 Sheffield Shield season? I mean, Australia has a lot of top quality spinners going around now [/sarcasm]

If you take out the 2nd test in South Africa Hughes has scored 197 runs in 4 tests at an average of 28.

And as for technique. Hughes has a very limited ranged for scoring, cutting short balls, which was always going to trouble him against any sort of quality bowling in English conditions. Sure he scored runs for Middlesex but a lot of bowlers in the English county competition would struggle to hold down a first grade spot in Sydney.

When I first heard Hughes had been selected for the South African tour to replace Hayden instead of Rogers I knew that Hughes would be found out and not ready for test cricket.

And guess what, I was right. Watson has already done a better far job than Hughes.

I think Pakistan and the West Indies are touring Australia 2009/10. So it might be a good idea to give Hughes a run at home against some of the weaker bowling attacks in test cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

The parallel is that both players, while having a lot of potential, made their test debt 2 years too early.

Dean Jones after winning the previous series in Sri Lanka for Australia was dropped for Martyn. While Martyn recovered and continued on to have a successful career he was rushed into test cricket and paid the price.

Believe me, as a massive fan, I froffed as much as anyone when Deano was dropped (winning the previous series in SL gives him just bit too much credit, though). But Marto came into the side, scored 40 or 50 (can't remember) in Brisbane and looked made for Test cricket. A season or two more would have just given him more runs to prove what everyone already knew; that he was quality. As it stands, he really was just squeezed out later because there was only one place for him in the line-up and he was holding it for Steve Waugh. Waugh was injured, so it's pretty likely Marto would have played in Adelaide had he not recovered in time. Again, had nothing to do with his 'readiness' for Test cricket.

Which is why he should have been left at domestic level for another year or two. Simply put 20 first class games is not enough matches for an opening batsmen. Especially when he didnt face many world class bowlers during that time.

I don't think it's possible to be so definite. He spanked the daylights out of most top sides in Shield cricket, scored a couple of tons against SA and looked a million bucks doing it. His runs for NSW demanded selection. Honestly, who else should have partnered Kat after Hayden went? He was the most credentialled opening batsman in the country. Chris Rogers was the only other one and since CA already reached their ranga/Victorian quotient for the Test side with McDonald, Hughes was it. There really was no-one else.

The Tas game was just an example anyway.

And Rogers plays his home games at the MCG. Since when has the MCG been a batsmen's paradise?

Might wanna re-examine that. Hint: St Kilda Oval.

And Australian bowlers failure to swing the ball, especially in Australia, is well documented so that removes the "juicy" theory.

Swing isn't the only way a ball moves. Seam movement, for example. Plenty of decent seam merchants in Aus bowling in favourable conditions last year. Seriously, did you watch any of the domestic season?

Yes, Hughes did well in South Africa against a very tired and jaded South African team.

haha, what? They'd had a break before the series! The press at the time was that they were under-done, not tired.

But interestingly Paul Harris got Hughes out 3 times during that series which is a lot for a spinner against an opening bat. So obviously Hughes has a weakness against spin too.

Or it could be that Hughes had batted so well against the pace he was still out there when Harris came on. As I saw it, he's no gun against spin but he was good enough on tracks which were turning to at least make Harris pay a fair bit for those wickets. Harris got him 3 times. So what? Hughes made a ton of runs before it happened.

Anyway, an opener who isn't great against spin is hardly unusual.

Or are you going to argue that spinners were "dominant" during the 2008/09 Sheffield Shield season? I mean, Australia has a lot of top quality spinners going around now [/sarcasm]

Not needed, wanted or accurate. Grow up.

When I first heard Hughes had been selected for the South African tour to replace Hayden instead of Rogers I knew that Hughes would be found out and not ready for test cricket.

And guess what, I was right. Watson has already done a better far job than Hughes.

Geez, ease up. Watto's only played in this Test so far. Bit early to say that.

 

[social]

The parallel is that both players, while having a lot of potential, made their test debt 2 years too early.

Dean Jones after winning the previous series in Sri Lanka for Australia was dropped for Martyn. While Martyn recovered and continued on to have a successful career he was rushed into test cricket and paid the price.



Which is why he should have been left at domestic level for another year or two. Simply put 20 first class games is not enough matches for an opening batsmen. Especially when he didnt face many world class bowlers during that time.



Dont forget that MacGill, Warne and McGrath had retired. So they had to be replaced. Then Lee and Clark got injured. So they had to be replaced in the test team from guys playing in the Sheffield Shield. By the end of the 2008/09 domestic season all the top bowlers had been drained. 3 guys over 1000 runs is a lot. And Rogers plays his home games at the MCG. Since when has the MCG been a batsmen's paradise? Just because the rest of NSW non-test batsmen arent good doesnt mean Hughes was ready for tests.



And Australian bowlers failure to swing the ball, especially in Australia, is well documented so that removes the "juicy" theory. And besides Hilfenhaus what class bowlers does Tasmania have? Geeves? Seriously ... And Hilfenhaus doesnt have the weapons someone like Harmison does. Its no surprise to me that when Hughes came up against Harmison, a guy who was fresh, not injured and hungry to earn a recall to the English team, he was found to wanting in a major way.

Yes, Hughes did well in South Africa against a very tired and jaded South African team. Dale Steyn was nowhere near as good as he was in the first two tests in Australia. But interestingly Paul Harris got Hughes out 3 times during that series which is a lot for a spinner against an opening bat. So obviously Hughes has a weakness against spin too. Or are you going to argue that spinners were "dominant" during the 2008/09 Sheffield Shield season? I mean, Australia has a lot of top quality spinners going around now [/sarcasm]

If you take out the 2nd test in South Africa Hughes has scored 197 runs in 4 tests at an average of 28.

And as for technique. Hughes has a very limited ranged for scoring, cutting short balls, which was always going to trouble him against any sort of quality bowling in English conditions. Sure he scored runs for Middlesex but a lot of bowlers in the English county competition would struggle to hold down a first grade spot in Sydney.

When I first heard Hughes had been selected for the South African tour to replace Hayden instead of Rogers I knew that Hughes would be found out and not ready for test cricket

And guess what, I was right. Watson has already done a better far job than Hughes.

I think Pakistan and the West Indies are touring Australia 2009/10. So it might be a good idea to give Hughes a run at home against some of the weaker bowling attacks in test cricket.

Sorry, but that's inaccurate, revisionary bs

Hughes hammered possibly the best attack in the world in good bowling conditions on their own door-step at 20 years of age

He then played poorly at Lords and that is it!

Watto, who I rank very highly, has played very well in PERFECT conditions for an opener against pretty average bowling - let's wait until we see how he reacts to a ball not going dead straight tomorrow before we get too carried away

Btw, if you check my posts, you'll see that I havent been surprised to see Hughes not replicating Bradman in 1930 but any attempt to downplay his performances in SA is simply nonsense

 

[vic_orthdox]

T_C, reckon Rogers would have only played don game (the final) at the Junction Oval this year.

 

[Top_Cat]

Heh, that's what I get for not checking.

 

[pup11]

Sorry, but that's inaccurate, revisionary bs

Hughes hammered possibly the best attack in the world in good bowling conditions on their own door-step at 20 years of age

He then played poorly at Lords and that is it!

Watto, who I rank very highly, has played very well in PERFECT conditions for an opener against pretty average bowling - let's wait until we see how he reacts to a ball not going dead straight tomorrow before we get too carried away

Btw, if you check my posts, you'll see that I havent been surprised to see Hughes not replicating Bradman in 1930 but any attempt to downplay his performances in SA is simply nonsense

Agree with this...

I think the kind of criticism that is being directed towards Hughes from all quarters is pretty unfair and uncalled for, everyone just seems be talking as if he has looked completely out of his depth on tour of England so far, but that's hardly the case from where I look at it.

He was batting quite well at Cardiff until Fred came and bowled that superb spell, at Lord's he was unlucky in the first innings to glove the ball to the keeper, and in the 2nd innings again was blown away by Freddie (though still think that catch was dodgy).

Its basically been Freddie and Harmison (in the England Lion's game) who have really troubled him on this tour, and tbf to Hughesy he isn't the only Aussie batsman who has had problem against them, so I don't too much fuss about this should have been made.

AFAIC, before the start of the tour the selectors too seemed to have enough confidence in the ability of Hughes to stick with him as the opener for all of the 5 tests, and three bad knocks shouldn't have made them change his views regarding him.

...And as you said eventhough Watto has done well as an opener in the third test, but don't think he has the technique to open the innings in test match cricket, he has looked good so far because the new ball hasn't done anything in the Edgbaston test, but the moment the new ball starts seaming or swinging, Watto would start looking vulnerable.

 

[slippyslip]

Sorry, but that's inaccurate, revisionary bs

Hughes hammered possibly the best attack in the world in good bowling conditions on their own door-step at 20 years of age

He then played poorly at Lords and that is it!

Watto, who I rank very highly, has played very well in PERFECT conditions for an opener against pretty average bowling - let's wait until we see how he reacts to a ball not going dead straight tomorrow before we get too carried away

Btw, if you check my posts, you'll see that I havent been surprised to see Hughes not replicating Bradman in 1930 but any attempt to downplay his performances in SA is simply nonsense

Since that test Hughas has failed 5 times in a row and only scored 122 runs at 24.4. What dont you understand about that? He's had 1 good, 1 average and 3 bad match, and the 3 bad matches have been the last 3. But it just wasnt hughes failing to score runs. He's not even looking like he's going to dominate this English bowling attack. He reminds me of Gooch in 1989. Unfortunately his blind cheerleaders believe he can do no wrong.

No, Hughes smashed a bowling attack that was tired and jaded. South Africa had been playing non stop for a long time. It was even obvious in the 3rd test in Sydney that Steyn was nowhere near his best. And dont forget South African pitches are the most similar to Australian conditions than any other country in cricket. English conditions can be quite different.

And since the 2nd test against South Africa Hughes has failed 5 times in a row. 1 match does not earn you an eternal spot in the Australian test team.

Watson has come in and already done better in 1 Ashes test than what Hughes had done in the previous 2.

Hughes' time will come. Barring injury I'm 95% sure he'll be opening the batting in the 2013 Ashes in England.

Simply put Hughes' time was not the 2009 Ashes and he was rightfully dropped.

 

[slippyslip]

Agree with this...

I think the kind of criticism that is being directed towards Hughes from all quarters is pretty unfair and uncalled for, everyone just seems be talking as if he has looked completely out of his depth on tour of England so far, but that's hardly the case from where I look at it.

He was batting quite well at Cardiff until Fred came and bowled that superb spell, at Lord's he was unlucky in the first innings to glove the ball to the keeper

Sorry, getting caught by the wicket keeper down the legside is not "unlucky". Unless you're using unlucky as a euphemism. No test class batsmen should be getting out in that fashion.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, Hughes smashed a bowling attack that was tired and jaded. South Africa had been playing non stop for a long time. It was even obvious in the 3rd test in Sydney that Steyn was nowhere near his best. And dont forget South African pitches are the most similar to Australian conditions than any other country in cricket. English conditions can be quite different.

Okay, so you didn't watch the series. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[slippyslip]

Okay, so you didn't watch the series. Glad we cleared that up.

So you're not watching the current Ashes series and watched Hughes put in Gooch 89 performances?

Glad we cleared that up.

Or didn't you see Watson perform better in 1 test than Hughes in the previous two. But lets pick the kid out of his depth instead of someone who will do better and score more runs.

Who said Australian sports fans were dumb bogans?

 

[Top_Cat]

So you're not watching the current Ashes series and watched Hughes put in Gooch 89 performances?

Glad we cleared that up.

Or didn't you see Watson perform better in 1 test than Hughes in the previous two. But lets pick the kid out of his depth instead of someone who will do better and score more runs.

Who said Australian sports fans were dumb bogans?

 

[zaremba]

So you're not watching the current Ashes series and watched Hughes put in Gooch 89 performances?

Glad we cleared that up.

Or didn't you see Watson perform better in 1 test than Hughes in the previous two. But lets pick the kid out of his depth instead of someone who will do better and score more runs.

Who said Australian sports fans were dumb bogans?

Mate, in all seriousness I reckon you've got some useful things to contribute but I think that you're going about it in the wrong way. Take a step back and don't get sucked into, or provoke, arguments like this and you'll find your p.o.v. gets a lot more respect.