Changes for the 3rd Ashes Test

[Black Diamond]

As I've said, if somebody puts their hand up to replace Watson I'd be happy for it to happen, but Hughes doesn't do any better.

You have also scrapped the bottom of the barrel defending Watson.

Having said that, I'm a paid up member of the Watson critics club and even I have more faith in him than Hughes in the short term.

 

[Caesar]

Hughes is slowly but tangibly improving. His weakness against the short ball is gone. His improvement at playing spin between the India and England tours was significant. For all his problems he is a young guy who has no problem putting his head down, working hard at fixing his problems.

I can understand people who don't want him in the side, but I can't understand why anybody would prefer Watson over him. Watson, who is 10 years older and has been steadily declining for years. Watson, who is criticised as being a major problem with the team dynamic. Watson, who's had the same problems with fishing and planting his front leg for years and has made no efforts to improve them.

Unless he's bowling a significant number of overs and taking wickets (which again, he hasn't done in a long time) I have no idea what Watson offers that half a dozen other batsmen don't. Utterly mystifying that he still has supporters.

 

[iluvparis]

One positive of having Watson in the team is it gives us a dead set flog to pile all our crap on when we lose.

 

[melanChronic]

I can't stand how Hughes has been treated by the selectors.

The latest reason for dropping Hughes was a weakness against spin, right? Granted, he was all at sea for most of the Indian tour, but I thought he showed he could adapt his game when given time-- by the end of the series he had gotten a few scores and was looking to cement the no. 3 place down in the friendlier English conditions.

I remember last summer he looked very promising at number 3 against SL in the test matches and dominated the one day series batting largely in this position as well. Whilst it's dangerous to translate ODI performances to tests, I think the number 3 position is the perhaps the most similar in both formats- both require the ability to change momentum depending on the opening partnership/match situation, and with little need for "finishing" a number 3 still needs to be a classical strokemaker rather than a powerhitter/nurdler. The best test number 3s, the game changers, are almost always also the best ODI number 3s; see Amla, Ponting, Trott.

Fast forward to England though and inexplicably (Boof?) he is bumped down to 6 to fit the glut of obdurate openers squeezing into the side. I was horrified to see Cowan and then Khawaja jump the queue for the no. 3 spot even though they had not shown any ability to play this pivotal role-- they are blunters of the new ball, not strokeplayers, and only Hughes has shown the temperament to go on and make big, gamechanging scores.

Both Cowan and Khawaja were moved on soon after, but so was Hughes-- despite the gutsy 81* @ no6 in the 1st test he is dropped a test later to accommodate the returning Warner (also temporarily reincarnated as a middle order batsman). Not for the first time, I think Hughes was moved on before he was allowed to settle, and from memory received a few shocking decisions at Lords.

He has now gone back to the Shield and shown again he is too good for this level. It's a shame it seems he's given up on that no3 spot for now and has gone back to opening for South Aust, because I see him eventually being the man in that position. Even today in his century it was clear he preferred to face the quicks, but there's plenty of quality batsmen who made covered their weaknesses against certain types of bowling. Early in Ponting's career spin bamboozled him, and he was often selected as a "horses for courses" batsman to face the Windies or Saffers on quicker decks, whilst someone like Lehmann (!!) would come in for Adelaide or Sydney tests. I could see a similar scenario happening with Hughes and Smith if Smith doesn't grab his chance this summer; Hughes for South Africa, Smith in the UAE.

Regardless, I'm certain Hughes will be back, and there's a reason people get excited whenever he makes a Shield score. There is something about him, he's exciting to watch, he dominates bowlers, he knows how to make centuries. But most of all he's keen, and able, to learn and adapt his game, and this is why dropping him so quickly, what is it, 3 times now has been shocking management. I'm sure if he gets an extended crack in a set role, whether that be opening or no.3, he'll fit the mould. I hope we don't waste him, he could be the next Ponting.

 

[melanChronic]

Hughes is slowly but tangibly improving. His weakness against the short ball is gone. His improvement at playing spin between the India and England tours was significant. For all his problems he is a young guy who has no problem putting his head down, working hard at fixing his problems.

I can understand people who don't want him in the side, but I can't understand why anybody would prefer Watson over him. Watson, who is 10 years older and has been steadily declining for years. Watson, who is criticised as being a major problem with the team dynamic. Watson, who's had the same problems with fishing and planting his front leg for years and has made no efforts to improve them.

Unless he's bowling a significant number of overs and taking wickets (which again, he hasn't done in a long time) I have no idea what Watson offers that half a dozen other batsmen don't. Utterly mystifying that he still has supporters.

Although Watson's bowling is used very lightly by Clarke, it is also still highly effective. In both innings at Adelaide Watson was crucial in dismantling England's top order. He got Carberry out after tying him down for 20 odd dot balls, and then in the 2nd innings he bowled three maidens in a row which led directly to Siddle dismissing Pietersen. Both these wickets ended England's two highest partnerships-- even if used minimally, in the hands of Clarke Watson's bowling is still a great weapon to have.

What I don't get is the need to have him in the top order. Sure he likes the hard new ball, but his powerful style would also be useful lower down. Most of all he is too flaky to bat at the pivotal number spot. He hasn't even really been tried at 6 since his rejuvenation as batsman who can bowl; in his 1 test there in the last 5 years (4th ashes test this yr) he made 68.

If Smith or Bailey can't lay claim to a middle order spot soon, and Hughes is still banging down the door, I'd go with Hughes to 3 and Watson to 6.

 

[Caesar]

His bowling is useful, but at the levels he's currently used at it's a luxury. If you are just looking for an economical medium pacer who can take the odd wicket, then Henriques can do that job and he's got far more upside with the bat.

In reality, you don't need Watson or Henriques. The overs being bowled by Watson currently could be divvied up between the other guys quite easily. He doesn't add much that Siddle and Harris don't already provide. We don't need a fifth bowler in the team if he's being bowled like a part-timer.

 

[courtjester]

Happier with Watto rather than Hughes at the moment, but in reality I don't rate either of them. They don't produce when it's required against test quality bowlers.

While we're winning I'd stick with Watto. And rather than Hughes I'd be looking to bring in Doolan after this series if needed.

 

[Ashton Agar]

I can't stand how Hughes has been treated by the selectors.

The latest reason for dropping Hughes was a weakness against spin, right? Granted, he was all at sea for most of the Indian tour, but I thought he showed he could adapt his game when given time-- by the end of the series he had gotten a few scores and was looking to cement the no. 3 place down in the friendlier English conditions.

I remember last summer he looked very promising at number 3 against SL in the test matches and dominated the one day series batting largely in this position as well. Whilst it's dangerous to translate ODI performances to tests, I think the number 3 position is the perhaps the most similar in both formats- both require the ability to change momentum depending on the opening partnership/match situation, and with little need for "finishing" a number 3 still needs to be a classical strokemaker rather than a powerhitter/nurdler. The best test number 3s, the game changers, are almost always also the best ODI number 3s; see Amla, Ponting, Trott.

Fast forward to England though and inexplicably (Boof?) he is bumped down to 6 to fit the glut of obdurate openers squeezing into the side. I was horrified to see Cowan and then Khawaja jump the queue for the no. 3 spot even though they had not shown any ability to play this pivotal role-- they are blunters of the new ball, not strokeplayers, and only Hughes has shown the temperament to go on and make big, gamechanging scores.

Both Cowan and Khawaja were moved on soon after, but so was Hughes-- despite the gutsy 81* @ no6 in the 1st test he is dropped a test later to accommodate the returning Warner (also temporarily reincarnated as a middle order batsman). Not for the first time, I think Hughes was moved on before he was allowed to settle, and from memory received a few shocking decisions at Lords.

He has now gone back to the Shield and shown again he is too good for this level. It's a shame it seems he's given up on that no3 spot for now and has gone back to opening for South Aust, because I see him eventually being the man in that position. Even today in his century it was clear he preferred to face the quicks, but there's plenty of quality batsmen who made covered their weaknesses against certain types of bowling. Early in Ponting's career spin bamboozled him, and he was often selected as a "horses for courses" batsman to face the Windies or Saffers on quicker decks, whilst someone like Lehmann (!!) would come in for Adelaide or Sydney tests. I could see a similar scenario happening with Hughes and Smith if Smith doesn't grab his chance this summer; Hughes for South Africa, Smith in the UAE.

Regardless, I'm certain Hughes will be back, and there's a reason people get excited whenever he makes a Shield score. There is something about him, he's exciting to watch, he dominates bowlers, he knows how to make centuries. But most of all he's keen, and able, to learn and adapt his game, and this is why dropping him so quickly, what is it, 3 times now has been shocking management. I'm sure if he gets an extended crack in a set role, whether that be opening or no.3, he'll fit the mould. I hope we don't waste him, he could be the next Ponting.

This is a really good post, my feelings exactly. I just love the way Hughes goes about it, he is always ready to learn, listen and improve. He works so hard to improve his game, to get into the Australian team, even after being shafted time after time. We saw what Hauritz did when he got axed, he spat the dummy and cost himself any chance of ever being picked again, but Hughes has been nothing like that.

I think it's pathetic the way the selectors have handled him. The first time I still think was a bit premature, he'd hit back to back hundreds 3 tests ago, but I wasn't as worried about it because Watson came in and did really well at the time. Then he got called up to the squad for the Boxing Day test later that year as a reserve for Ponting, only for Punter to be fit, but again, I didn't mind because it was only the Big Bash he was being taken out of. The series after that home summer he went to New Zealand as a reserve batsman and played in place of Watson, scored a quick fire 89* but was still behind Watson. Then after a test or two in the 2010-11 Ashes series Katich got injured and Hughes replaced him, but again his performances were down. CA then decided to force Katich into retirement, leaving Hughes to continue what he started in the Ashes. After that poor Ashes he started the Sri Lankan tour slow as well, with pressure on again with Marsh coming in a hitting a debut hundred, before Hughes making a breakthrough hundred, so it seemed. He then had a couple of low scores in the first test against South Africa and the pressure was on again, before he and Watson both got out for 87 ( ) and he was given a bit of forgiveness again. Then our home summer started and he got out to Martin 4 times out of 4 c McCullum b Martin and got dumped for the second time in his career, and it was probably the right decision at the time, he had to go. He seemed to be going to be out of the team for a long time, but he took it well, moved to South Australia and worked hard on his technique and found himself in the runs for SA and was selected against Sri Lanka to replace the retiring Ponting, and performed alright, scoring several 80s but he couldn't get that hundred he really wanted. Then he got given and ODI debut and he became the first Austalian to score a debut hundred, a similar start to his test career. He then scored another hundred in that ODI series. Then he went to India and struggled big time against the spin (so did everyone), but he worked his heart out to improve and looked much better at the back end of the series. Then he plays in the 2013 Ashes in England, and gets shafted to 6, a position clearly not suited to his game. Despite this he scores a gritty 81 with debutant number 11 Agar. Then he gets shuffled around the order in the second test making 1 in both innings. Then he is dropped to bring Warner into the side, despite the fact Khawaja and Watson are still getting games. Khawaja fails miserably in that series and isn't expected to be seen for a while, but Hughes can't get into the side, as George Bailey gets the job for the home summer. He again goes back, dominates the Shield while Watson struggles and Rogers is on his last legs.

Please pick him and don't destroy him, I feel as if all this trouble he has had that I have written above comes down to that 2009 Ashes dropping. At the time he seemed like he had the talent to be the next Bradman, you don't drop a bloke that early in his career when he is that good!!! It would have most probably shattered his confidence. If we stuck with him I think he'd be on top of the ICC Batsmen world rankings, vice-captain of the Australian Cricket Team and our best batsman right now.

 

[HBF]

SEN ran a poll this morning asking if we should stick with the same XI or go all out pace.
An amazing 95% of respondents said we should go for all out pace!

Personally i'm 50/50 on this one.
Not really sure which way to go.

 

[Black Diamond]

This is a really good post, my feelings exactly. I just love the way Hughes goes about it, he is always ready to learn, listen and improve. He works so hard to improve his game, to get into the Australian team, even after being shafted time after time. We saw what Hauritz did when he got axed, he spat the dummy and cost himself any chance of ever being picked again, but Hughes has been nothing like that.

I think it's pathetic the way the selectors have handled him. The first time I still think was a bit premature, he'd hit back to back hundreds 3 tests ago, but I wasn't as worried about it because Watson came in and did really well at the time. Then he got called up to the squad for the Boxing Day test later that year as a reserve for Ponting, only for Punter to be fit, but again, I didn't mind because it was only the Big Bash he was being taken out of. The series after that home summer he went to New Zealand as a reserve batsman and played in place of Watson, scored a quick fire 89* but was still behind Watson. Then after a test or two in the 2010-11 Ashes series Katich got injured and Hughes replaced him, but again his performances were down. CA then decided to force Katich into retirement, leaving Hughes to continue what he started in the Ashes. After that poor Ashes he started the Sri Lankan tour slow as well, with pressure on again with Marsh coming in a hitting a debut hundred, before Hughes making a breakthrough hundred, so it seemed. He then had a couple of low scores in the first test against South Africa and the pressure was on again, before he and Watson both got out for 87 ( ) and he was given a bit of forgiveness again. Then our home summer started and he got out to Martin 4 times out of 4 c McCullum b Martin and got dumped for the second time in his career, and it was probably the right decision at the time, he had to go. He seemed to be going to be out of the team for a long time, but he took it well, moved to South Australia and worked hard on his technique and found himself in the runs for SA and was selected against Sri Lanka to replace the retiring Ponting, and performed alright, scoring several 80s but he couldn't get that hundred he really wanted. Then he got given and ODI debut and he became the first Austalian to score a debut hundred, a similar start to his test career. He then scored another hundred in that ODI series. Then he went to India and struggled big time against the spin (so did everyone), but he worked his heart out to improve and looked much better at the back end of the series. Then he plays in the 2013 Ashes in England, and gets shafted to 6, a position clearly not suited to his game. Despite this he scores a gritty 81 with debutant number 11 Agar. Then he gets shuffled around the order in the second test making 1 in both innings. Then he is dropped to bring Warner into the side, despite the fact Khawaja and Watson are still getting games. Khawaja fails miserably in that series and isn't expected to be seen for a while, but Hughes can't get into the side, as George Bailey gets the job for the home summer. He again goes back, dominates the Shield while Watson struggles and Rogers is on his last legs.

Please pick him and don't destroy him, I feel as if all this trouble he has had that I have written above comes down to that 2009 Ashes dropping. At the time he seemed like he had the talent to be the next Bradman, you don't drop a bloke that early in his career when he is that good!!! It would have most probably shattered his confidence. If we stuck with him I think he'd be on top of the ICC Batsmen world rankings, vice-captain of the Australian Cricket Team and our best batsman right now.

Last time he was picked he played 9 consecutive games. He hit four half-centuries and 463 runs at 28. Despite your excuse that he was moved too often those numbers are just not good enough. Your suggestion that Hughes would currently be world number one if he wasn't dropped in 2009, four years ago, is a joke.

 

[Ashton Agar]

Last time he was picked he played 9 consecutive games. He hit four half-centuries and 463 runs at 28. Despite your excuse that he was moved too often those numbers are just not good enough.

Those stats are clearly dented by that Indian tour though. I don't think that should count for much, because he improved significantly of that tour. India served up ridiculous turning wickets on which all our batsman struggled. Out of all the batsman on that tour, he improved the most. I think that despite his record looking poor for that tour, he deserved a pass mark for improvement.

Your suggestion that Hughes would currently be world number one if he wasn't dropped in 2009, four years ago, is a joke.

No, I believe he will be better than Ponting, and if he hasn't been dropped, he could already be smashing out hundreds here, there and everywhere.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I think a fair portion of our debutantes over the last 2 years have been treated poorly by the current selection panel. Hughes, Khawaja, Quiney amongst others.

 

[Black Diamond]

Those stats are clearly dented by that Indian tour though. I don't think that should count for much, because he improved significantly of that tour. India served up ridiculous turning wickets on which all our batsman struggled. Out of all the batsman on that tour, he improved the most. I think that despite his record looking poor for that tour, he deserved a pass mark for improvement.

His average was 46 against Sri Lanka which is decent, but even David Warner was better in that series. Frankly he was lucky to survive the Indian tour at all. Better players have been dropped for less poor results.

No, I believe he will be better than Ponting, and if he hasn't been dropped, he could already be smashing out hundreds here, there and everywhere

.
Similarly, if only we didn't drop Jason Krejza. 12 wickets on debut, he was going to be the next Murali...

 

[Slax]

A lot of forgetful memories on here, our batting line up is still a collapsing mess when clarke gets rolled cheaply.

No changes at this stage but the pressure is still on

Clarke got rolled for 1 in 1st innings in Brisbane and we still posted 295 which proved to be a very good score. In 2nd dig in Adelaide we also looked good despite Clarke scoring 22. So far this summer no proof that we are totally reliant on Clarke as we were last few years and hopefully we aren't, but it definitely has been a problem in the past.

Pressue is still definitely on a few of the batsmen, Smith, Bailey & Watson are all still in need of runs. Warner & Haddin are the two who have really stood up so far and shown they have what it takes.

 

[peternorth]

smith needs a score. but i feel his position is safe for the rest of the summer, which isnt a bad thing (stability = good). handy leg spin, energetic in the field.

he's also been mentioned as a future captain in dispatches. really wish certain parts of the countrys media would stop anointing already

 

[Ashton Agar]

His average was 46 against Sri Lanka which is decent, but even David Warner was better in that series. Frankly he was lucky to survive the Indian tour at all. Better players have been dropped for less poor results.

Yes, I thought Hughes would get dropped after a couple of tests as well, didn't agree with it, but thought it was happen. He was just lucky that homework-gate happened when it did. And then he went okay in that match. But then in England started off with an 81* in an unfamiliar position and amid another Australian batting collapse.

Similarly, if only we didn't drop Jason Krejza. 12 wickets on debut, he was going to be the next Murali...

Yeah but Krejza is shite, and Hughes is not. And that's the general consensus.

 

[Black Diamond]

Yeah but Krejza is shite, and Hughes is not. And that's the general consensus.

Completely missed the point. You are basically saying that if Hughes wasn't dropped four years ago he would now be on the way to becoming as good as Ponting, arguably our second or third best ever. That is ridiculous. Krejza also got dropped early after a good performance. Who knows, maybe that dented his confidence indefinitely. I just happen to think Krejza could have been the next Murali if we didn't scape goat him...

 

[Ashton Agar]

Completely missed the point. You are basically saying that if Hughes wasn't dropped four years ago he would now be on the way to becoming as good as Ponting, arguably our second or third best ever. That is ridiculous. Krejza also got dropped early after a good performance. Who knows, maybe that dented his confidence indefinitely. I just happen to think Krejza could have been the next Murali if we didn't scape goat him...

Krejza got absolutely carted while getting those wickets. I think it was 12/315 or something similar to that. I don't even know how he got to selection. I know we were playing in India but sheesh, it shows the strength of our spin bowling at the time. His FC bowling average is 45 I think!

Hughes had dominated a South African attack consisting of Steyn, Morkel and Ntini(??)

Krejza is a complete flog, and probably couldn't give two hoots that he isn't up to it. Hughes is a really nice fella who wants it like anything, and keeps working hard to get it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Hughes has had a bundle of chances. Watson seems to get unlimited chances. As far as this match is concerned there will be no change as Watson will be the 4th quick.
Don't get to carried away with the WACA wicket. It has been a belter to bat on this season. I had a good look at the wicket yesterday arvo and it looks like it will be a belter as well. Lots of grass on it now but that will be shaved off. Will be quick and bouncy but little sideways movement. If you get in on this track you can score huge and quickly. The outfield is like a bowling green. I think it will have some moisture day one in it as we have a heatwave on our way for this test and it will need some to hold together.
Whoever wins the toss will bat I would think. It won't bother Australia though if we lose the toss and unleash on them. Personally i hope we are bowling on day one but that is a bit bias as I prefer to watch good bowling than batting.

 

[Caesar]

It is true that Hughes has had a lot of chances, but in general the way has been managed is atrocious. He has been picked at times he shouldn't have been picked, kept in the team at times he should have been dropped, and dropped at times he should have been kept in the team. Not to mention being batted all over the place in the order.

I am impressed he has kept focused and motivated enough to keep scoring first class runs and improving his game, given how much he has been dicked around.

 

[baz_machine]

Hughes is next in line if / when Watto gets injuried.

End thread/

 

[baz_machine]

Or if the selectors drop Bailey (which I don't think they should), shuffle Watto to 6 and Hughes to 3.

 

[Ashton Agar]

Or if the selectors drop Bailey (which I don't think they should), shuffle Watto to 6 and Hughes to 3.

Bailey > Watson.

 

[Bugglz]

Or if the selectors drop Bailey (which I don't think they should), shuffle Watto to 6 and Hughes to 3.

Wouldn't mind seeing this, but it wont happen as I think we'll need Watto to ball in Perth. Also Lyon is safe, even though Perth is a pace friendly wicket we still need the spin option to fall back on and Lyon will like that bounce. And for those of you who are saying Smith and Warner could cover for Lyon, they are completely different ballers, Lyon can ball a lot of overs and build press which is what we are all about at the moment, Smith and Warner are far too loose, ok for a a few overs if you need a breakthrough but no more then that. If we were to pick another seamer over Lyon it would mean Clarke would probably have to ball in Lyon's place and I can't that happening.

 

[Kyptastic]

Probably going to go in unchanged according to Lehmann.