*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[Bun]

Hughes is apparently averaging 25 from 8 first class innings or so this season? How does that make him an automatic replacement?

 

[morgieb]

Hughes is apparently averaging 25 from 8 first class innings or so this season? How does that make him an automatic replacement?

Because he averages > 50 in FC & test cricket. Form is temporary, class is permanent, etc.

 

[silentstriker]

So you're going to bring in a guy in ****ty form into an Ashes series you're 1-0 down in hopes that he'll find his form sometime before they go down 2-0?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

So you're going to bring in a guy in ****ty form into an Ashes series you're 1-0 down in hopes that he'll find his form sometime before they go down 2-0?

Which was exactly the same argument used to convince me yesterday that Phil Jaques wasn't worth a go! You know, there's always Brad Hodge...

 

[Ruckus]

I reckon shield form is kind of overrated. As long as the player doesn't have any fitness issues, which Hughes doesn't, I don't think there should be much of a problem. Johnson had good shield form with both ball and bat before the Gabba test and he failed miserably in both facets of the game. Bollinger has excellent form in the shield game prior to the Adelaide test and he also failed miserably. It's not like Hughes hasn't shown any form as well - he scored 80-odd in a recent OD match and 80 odd in the Aus A game against England.

 

[Ausage]

Which was exactly the same argument used to convince me yesterday that Phil Jaques wasn't worth a go! You know, there's always Brad Hodge...

Difference being Hughes has merely had a poor couple of games, but was good against England in the Aus A match and is seen to be a long term opener for the team. Jaques has been poor since his injury over a longer period and is also the wrong side of 30.

 

[TumTum]

Ponting said Hughes is first in line, does that mean he will get the spot irrespective of how he performs in the lead up games?

 

[howardj]

He averages over 50 in Tests mate, that not enough?

 

[Bun]

Rubbish. The shield is for a reason. There is no reason why an international novice like Hughes should be above it. It is not as if he's a hundred test veteran to judge him based on class alone.

 

[howardj]

Rubbish. The shield is for a reason. There is no reason why an international novice like Hughes should be above it. It is not as if he's a hundred test veteran to judge him based on class alone.

He just got 80 odd against them in a tour game.

Geez.

 

[howardj]

If you wait around for somebody to tick every box:

- great FC average
- young
- red hot recent form

...you'll end picking nobody.

Young guy, averages 50 in Tests, made a couple of scores this summer....that's good enough for me.

 

[Ausage]

- great FC average
- young
- red hot recent form

More to the point, do any of the other candidates come any closer than Hughes to ticking all those boxes?

 

[howardj]

More to the point, do any of the other candidates come any closer than Hughes to ticking all those boxes?

Exactly,

And why should candidates have to tick all these boxes when the incumbents probably haven't been ticking any boxes all Summer.

You end up retaining underperforming incumbents (like North) if you go looking for the perfect replacement.

There's holes in everybody's CV.

 

[pup11]

Hughes is a match-winner and he should be there in the team and any argument against it is just ridiculous, he is competing mainly with Cowan and Marsh who are neither as young as him nor do they have the numbers to match his performances over the seasons.
Anyways Haurry has now scored more runs in one FC innings than North what has managed through the Ashes, so I guess we have found our replacment for North....

 

[morgieb]

Difference being Hughes has merely had a poor couple of games, but was good against England in the Aus A match and is seen to be a long term opener for the team. Jaques has been poor since his injury over a longer period and is also the wrong side of 30.

My point exactly. There's really no other options, apart from Marsh, who'll probably be just as bad as North, and Khawaja, who isn't seen as an opener. Jaques and Rogers are out of favour (and Jaques has been meh post-back injury) and they seem reluctant to go Klinger for whatever reason.

 

[GotSpin]

Not playing Hughes would be ridiculous. So would Khawaja for that matter. Do they need to play FC cricket for 10 years before they're deemed good enough to replace the repetitive failures in our test team

 

[social]

I've heard a few pundits talk of Bresnan being a very real option if the incoming bowler is likely to bowl a number of his overs into the Fremantle breeze. I don't know how the pitch is expected to play, and while it has lost much of its pace and bounce of years gone by, surely there will be more pace and bounce than in Brisbane or Adelaide ?

If so, Tremlett you would think is ideal for the pitch. It may depend how both bowlers go in the next tour match in Melbourne aswell, becuase if one of these, or Shahzad, go round the park it's unlikely they'll get the nod, similarly if one of them has an 8-10 wicket match, you'd expect them to replace Broad.

Tremlett is the more exciting option, he has the potential to bowl quickly, get a lot of bounce and trouble the Aussies, and is more likely to make a match winning performance and contribution. Bresnan we know is reliable. He'll relish the hard work into the wind, will try and swing the ball, both conventionally and reverse, and will always be at the batsman. He does give us a like for like in terms of batting, but that should only be a passing consideration.

Will be interested to see how Tremlett goes in Melbourne, because against Australia 'A' he looked a little down on pace, and probably needs overs in his legs to get his sharpness up.

I view Broad as a big loss for England

He may not be the best in the world or produce the greatest figures but he does a job abd does it very well

On the other hand, I have no such faith in his replacements

Bresnan is a pretty average cricketer and whilst it is "like for like", it's a definite step down in quality

Shane Warne and Stuart, both of whom have played with Tremlett, were both dismissive towards him (Clark gave him 1.5/10) in their pre-series ratings and basically implied that he was very soft. Given that they were very generous in their praise of others, I certainly dont think it was some sort of psychological ploy on their behalf

Shahzad is probably the best bowler amongst them but, from what I've seen, is an attacking bowler and may not be able to provide the control that Broad has done

 

[Julian87]

If Hauritz is in the team, why would you have Smith over Khawaja?

Because Steve Smith bowls leg spin and England have been refusing to declare twice in one match.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

Watson
Mussey
Ponting
Khawaja
Clarke
Dussey

?????

 

[Julian87]

- He does not average over 45 in First Class Cricket..
- Yep one 50 from 4 attempts. That would be an okay return if we managed to look semi decent in his 3 other innings. He didn't look good at all and he was batting down at 8!
- Great fielder for sure, probably the best in the country.
- Yeah he's leggie's might be okay for a few overs, but at Perth against this English attack, I don't think so.
- The buzz is not warranted, that's my whole point.
- My next negative is that he's averaging under 25 this Shield Season with the bat.

He did bat well against the England XI though IMO. I thought he bowled ok for periods in that game too. Yeah he copped some stick but ideally he'd be the second spinner. His bowling hasn't been bad of late tbh.