Phillip Hughes’s first ever test innings was in Johannesburg against the mighty South Africans. He survived three balls until:
0.4 Steyn to Hughes, OUT, super start for Steyn, and a duck for Hughes on debut! Short delivery just outside off stump, rises up off the surface and Hughes jumps at it, trying to slash it over the slips, but can only succeed in getting a faint under-edge through to a gleeful Boucher, who springs up and takes the offer
PJ Hughes c †Boucher b Steyn 0 (1m 4b 0×4 0×6) SR: 0.00
However, he rebounded superbly with a well made 75. He went on to make a whopping 415 runs at an average of 69.16, including 2 centuries and 1 fifty in the whole series – which is most runs by any batsmen in the series. Keep in mind that this was just his first ever series playing in the white Australia uniform. That was when critics compared Hughes with the greatest batsman of all time, ‘Sir Donald Bradman!’ Have the critics possibly spoken too soon?
He is in his second series and has started to expose his weakness, the short balls. We can all thank Mr Freedy Flintoff for exposing that, dismissing Hughes 2 out of the 3 times that Hughes has been dismissed so far during the Ashes series 2009. Just a reminder of the dismissals:
14.6 Flintoff to Hughes, OUT, got him! Flintoff wins the battle with a ball that perhaps moves in a touch and Hughes, trying to punch it through off, gets the thinnest of inside edges behind to Prior
PJ Hughes c †Prior b Flintoff 36 (61m 54b 5×4 0×6) SR: 66.66
9.2 Flintoff to Hughes, OUT, gone, got him, gone! Is he? Hughes edges it to Strauss at first slip who claims this low, scooping catch. Ponting sends Hughes back, asks Strauss if he caught it. Koertzen’s given him though. This will run, and run, and run…
PJ Hughes c Strauss b Flintoff 17 (46m 34b 2×4 0×6) SR: 50.00
Hughes has managed just 36, 4 and 17 at Sophia Gardens and Lord’s, and posted scratchy innings of 10 and 68 in the most recent tour against Northamptonshire.
As a consequence, he has been dropped for the 3rd test and Shane Watson has brought in to replace him. It has been reported that it was the ‘fundamental flaws in his technique have prompted the selectors to act.’ The selectors have brought in a player boasting a batting average of 19.76 and who has never batted higher than No. 6 in the five-day game. One fact that might go in his favour are the quickfire 84 and 50innings he made against Northants. Wise move? We will just have to wait and see…
Some reactions to the axing of Phillip Hughes…
NeilCameron (July 30 2009, 06:05 AM GMT)
Hughes does have a problem with the short pitched ball but this weakness has yet to really dent his form. Granted, his form so far in England hasn’t been great, but it is only two matches. As other comments here have pointed out, some players in the top side seem to find it harder to be dropped than others. My gut feeling regarding Hussey was to give him one moretest to score runs before dropping him, but this is what I also applied to Phil Hughes as well. I don’t think Watson is a good choice as an opener but he is a better batter than bowler so I would prefer him at no.6 and bring Hussey, who has experience opening, in to partner Katich. Nevertheless I am quite annoyed thatHughes has been treated so poorly after such a great start to his career – other players (eg Steve Waugh) were given a lot more leeway early in their careers.
79KAH79 (July 30 2009, 03:23 AM GMT)
Terrible decision, the Australian selectors continue to amaze me. Hughes is one of the most sumpremely talented young batsman I have seen in years. He has only had one bad game and wasn’t even out in the secondinnings at Lord’s. His confidence and brashness is refreshing at the top of the order and has the potential to quickly change games. I don’t have a problem with Watson but Hussey or North should have gone beforeHughes. Granted, Hughes has lookes a little uneasy against Flintoff but he needs to be given more than two games. Flintoff has bowled awesome but these are foreign conditions forHughes , he should have be given a chance to hit back, learn and develop further as a player. I honestly think that the Australian selectors get worried when a young player is hyped as much asHughes. They are sometimes OVERPROTECTIVE. He will be back more hungry just like Clarke did before. I’m bitterly disappointed that I won’t be able to watch the Hughes/Flintoff rematch at Egbaston.
Rusty_1 (July 30 2009, 02:51 AM GMT)
What a disgrace! The selectors had better come out and make a strong statement as to why they have perpetrated this act of madness! Watson had also better back them up with a century in bothinnings & 5 for. What’s the rationale behind his inclusion? Is it the same as in India? He is a handy bat & he might take a wicket or two, so throw him in? Did we learn nothing from India? What must Stuart Clark be thinking? Here is a man with atest bowling avg of 22….. 22 and he can’t get a run on? For mine, the batting line up was strong as it was (certainly strong than the English), it was the bowling that needed assistance. Johnson is off form, Siddle is trying to hard & not effective & Hauritz & Hilfy are only in theirtest infancy. Why not drop North, move Haddin to 6 & include Clark?? Or replace North with Watson at worst? Looks like the “be like Flintoff” curse has struck the Aussie selcectors once again after his heroics at Lords.
0 comments:
Post a Comment