[quote=“Manuel Zelaya”]I see Hughes is getting slated back in Australia for announcing to the world that he was dropped on Twitter. Not alone can he not bat very well, but he doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp of the traditions or etiquette of the game.
Dean Jones on TMS:
“Phil Hughes announcing he’s been dropped on Twitter is just wrong, he needs a good foot up the backside for that. He’s broken a team rule and he’s let the opposition know what’s happened before the game’s started.”[/QUOTE]
Dean Jones? Believe me, no one in Australia takes any notice of Dean Jones, and no one seemed to give a shit about the twittergate on morning TV here.
I’m disappointed for Hughes, he shouldn’t have been dropped. Watson, while he did well, is a liability in tests.
This match will be a draw.
RE: Phil Hughes, from Peter Roebuck, one of our favourite cricket journos (Evo has quoted him many times):
No logic in axing Hughes
Peter Roebuck
July 31, 2009
PHILLIP HUGHESS dumping is a setback for a fine young batsman with a lot of runs to his name at every level of the game.
His initial selection was no mere shot in the dark. It was not a question of promise or golden boy or NSW favouritism. It was not even entirely about youth or the selectors determination to stop the ageing of their team. He secured his place in the old-fashioned way, by weight of runs, by taking his chances, most notably in Newcastle where, with the touring party shortly to be announced in a few days, he scored heavily in both innings.
Every step of the way his promotion was the result of hard work and hard runs. And all those runs were made against the new ball, at the tough end of the list.
His ejection is a blow against youth and imagination. It is also a move made in defiance of logic and consistency.
The same selectors who were so confident about the doughty left-hander that they did not feel any need to include a spare batsman of any sort in their squad have in the space of a few admittedly sketchy innings lost faith in him so completely that he has been ditched.
A batsman whose audacity bemused and latterly impressed the Proteas suddenly finds himself wondering when another opportunity might come his way. Bear in mind that he did not poke around in those appearances, did not appear fazed. He succeeded in all three Tests in South Africa and failed a couple of times in England as the bowlers focused on his back foot game. After five Test matches he was performing beyond expectation. He averages 52.44 in Test cricket.
Certainly chinks had emerged in his game, not least in his tendency to give himself room to play back-foot shots. But he has not given much time to put them right. And others also have weak points, though they may not stick out like sore thumbs. He is a country boy, with a game that speaks more of backyards and bush than academies and convention.
Hughes stands his own ground. He is a born opener, and relishes responsibility, rejoices in the bumpers and a fresh attack. Certainly he is young and raw but that has not stopped previous generations of Australians. Nor has he been replaced by Arthur Morris or Bill Lawry or even Chris Rogers. His place has been taken by a worthy enough cricketer who has not opened the innings with any regularity, let alone in this company.
Australias desperation to get Shane Watson back into the side is puzzling. He has not scored many runs or taken many wickets in the highest company. To be exact he averages 19.76 with the willow and 35.57 with the leather. It is the wrong way around.
He does bring a stiff variety to the team and can serve as a fifth bowler but does anyone believe he will be opening for Australia in a years time? Or even for NSW. At this level he is a No.6, and an unproven one at that. His promotion says more about Australias desire to find a Freddie Flintoff than any revealed quality in an honest, capable cricketer.
In short, it is a short-term decision exposing confusion in official ranks. Admittedly, Simon Katich has made a fine fist of opening but he has plenty of experience high up, and anyhow is a redoubtable and skilful operator.
Most batsmen rapidly realise that Test openers are a breed apart. Any fool can open in the light-hearted formats, Test openers set the tone, take the shine off the new ball, instil confidence and survive whatever the fast bowlers hurl at them.
Far from dropping Hughes, the selectors ought to have backed him. Instead, the underperforming bowlers ought to be in the spotlight because rivals have reported fit. The omission of Stuart Clark compounded the mistake made in Hughess dropping. By all accounts, Clark was the sharpest of the flingers in Northampton.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion in these matters but its hard to believe axing Hughes is a step in the right direction.
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/07/30/1248546823575.html
