Loading ...
equatorPhil Hughes has never gone out to a short ball off his gloves or any real variation of the ball that is his weakness at test match cricket.
Shane Watson has gone out LBW 6 out of his last 7 test innings, and has also gone out after a break 4 times during that period.
Who has the weakness?
Watson has a vastly superior looking technique than Hughes’ technique of looking like he is a glass doll being dropped from the second floor.
But Watson’s test average can’t even look up at Hughes’ average.
Watson has no test century, since coming in as opener he is yet to take a wicket in three tests, and keeps going out the same way.
Phil Hughes must be beside himself, and beside himself there must be Chris Rogers and Phil Jacques who are beside him who is… you know.
The Australian batting line up makes no sense. A middle order batsman and a number three open the batting, and an opening batsman at number four.
The one resource that Australia seems to have in reserve is opening batsmen, yet both their openers are manufactured. It just doesn’t make sense.
Hilditch may like to think of himself as some wacky experimental scientist mixing up random potions and hoping for a good outcome.
There are simple ways around this, swap Hussey for Watson, and see how that goes.
Or drop Hussey, bring back in a proper opener, move Clarke to 4 and Watson to 5. Watson doesn’t have to change the way he plays then.
Or drop Watson until there is a spot in the middle order where his bowling can actually be used, and bring in an opening batsman, there is a pile of them at the door.
What I expect Hilditch to do is bring in a second keeper in the place of North, open the batting with Mitchell Johnson, move Hussey to number 8 and wait for the magic to happen.
I just want to know what Phil Hughes thinks of all this, oh for the glory days when he was tweeting the inner workings of his mind.
Check out our newest book ‘ashes 2009: when freddie became jesus‘.
It’s working though isn’t it? They didn’t do that badly. But yeah, the only reason they keep Watson in the test team is because of his bowling. But I believe that will soon become ineffective.
CM, His bowling can only get more effective since he didn’t get a wicket in his last three tests. Also, being that batting collapses lost them their last series, and they have lost 3 out of their last 6 test series, working isn’t a word that comes to mind.
I meant against the Windies Jrod.
But little Philly was horrendous in the Ashes. Of course by that theory, Hussey was King of horrendous. Maybe one day Hilditch will write a tell-all to let us know why he wasn’t dropped.Or you can write one for him.
CM, They did ok, and the windies didn’t get much out of their best bowler. Horrendous in three innings…
The only reason they keep Watson in the Test side is because he’s Hilditch’s love child.
This West Indies attack looks good enough to induce a collapse at some time this series. Maybe even 2. It doesn’t actually take much to get one going for the Aussies these days.
Katich looked good though.
And meanwhile Kraze looks like taking more wickets this season than ritz has in his whole career.
Another three the other day. I’m tipping 4-5 in the second dig. If ritz doesn’t pick up at least four in this match he should be dropped.
Oh, and drop watson, he’s not an openers breakfast. Yes, he’d be fine in the middle order but theres a guy there by the name of North, Marcus North, who looks en route to his fourth century in 8 tests.
I thought that Watson was only opening during the Ashes as a stopgap, as (correct me if I’m wrong) he was the only spare batsman on the tour. Didn’t Ponting say he was cover for the whole top six when he was questioned about the lack of batting cover in the touring party.
I was under the impression that when you got back to Australia and had a full quota of players to choose from that a convential opener would be picked and that Watson would either be dropped or moved down the order.
Good looking technique is one thing, but opening is about survival and getting through the tough times, when you get to 50 you need to punish teams, not get out padding up.
Some tailenders have good techniques but you wouldn’t use that as an excuse to open the innings with them.
If it was a case of not changing a winning side I could understand the decision, but it’s not!
Cricket Betting Blog´s last blog ..Duncan Fletcher and Geoff Boycott on TMS
The logic is killing me. You are forgetting jut how good Watson looked padding up yesterday – it was a thing of beauty.
Jamie – put your hard earned on McGain eclipsing Krazy
Just to clarify, Hughes problem is that his footwork means that he struggles to play the pulllshot or the leg glance – that means that bowlers can bowl short of a length into his body and he has no answers. He’s been out to those balls consistently including punching the ball to slip or the keeper, swiping across the line getting edges and caught attempting a leg glance (latest of which just this wednesday).
No doubt Watson has an issue but lets give Jerome Taylor some credit. He’s bowled him six outswingers which beat him a couple of times and then tossed up the off-cutter 1st ball of the next over when Watson was definately expecting another outie.
Hewy, Hughes never got the chance to go out to them in test cricket, not leg glancing or caught in the cordon off the short one aimed at him. It was decided he had these problems, and he was dropped, others with worse records get a chance to prove themselves. I’m also not saying he should come in, I am saying any one of three qualified openers could come in. I give taylor alot of credit, and onions, and broad. All of them bowled well to exploit Watson’s flaw, if he went out to the short ball the way he has gone out to these LBs, he wouldn’t be opening now.
Yeah he did – leg glancing out of position, swiping across the line with feet out of postion. And obviously the tour games bookending the first two tests really highlighted the problem.
Right, I think we’re talking in circles here. I’m going to shut up about Hughes – except to say that from what I saw this week, he seems to be trying to make some changes to his technique. I hope it works because his offside play is probably some of the best in Oz.
CBB, that’s how it was put at the time – I really can’t understand how it’s all been forgotten!
Jonathan´s last blog ..FWT: A start of 480
Everyone forgets that Hilditch himself was a ‘manufactured’ opener. I remember watching him bat in the early eighties and he was clearly a natural number 9. Maybe 10. His stats will back me up here.
Hewy, good summary of what is going on with Hughes. But surely someone that young who clearly has that much talent (replace the word talent with ‘a good eye and determination’ if you wish – its the same thing) will find a solution to the problem sooner rather than later. And sooner still the better attack he gets to face. Then he will be a world beater.
Watson right now is as good as he is going to get. Hius ‘technical weakness’ is the ball bowled at the stumps. There is no getting over a flaw like that.
Ned, all I remember of Hilditch was that ugly hook shot he constantly got out to.
Watson seems to have a mental/concentration issue. These lbws and bowleds seem to occur very early or after a milestone or a break in play.
How come you say ‘gone out’? Does anyone else say ‘gone out’?
How come it’s ‘our’ book? How many of you are there? Why would you talk like there’s more than one of you? That’s mental.
Our vote’s for Phil Jaques, by the way.
King Cricket´s last blog ..Cricinfo article about variation in bowling and English leg spinners
KC, yes gone out does sound a bit archaic. It sounds like it ought to be said with a crack in the voice and a whistle in the teeth like an old guy whose falsies don’t quite fit right. Still, it is certainly more correct English than how I would say it, which is ‘gotten out’. I’m not sure ‘gotten’ is even a word and I did a creative writing course once where the teacher banned everybody from ever using the word ‘got’ in any context.
By the way, cheese crackers.