2nd Test - Australia v New Zealand Hobart Dec 9 - Dec 13 2011

[Fast Eddie]

I don't know about rolling India....wouldn't be that confident of that.

 

[BunniesMan]

We don't play fat players. No Doug, ever. We've finally got young talent on the scene. Last thing we need is an old chubby fast bowler who breaks down every few tests and HE HAS A RUG. Seriously, someone that vane isn't suited to test cricket.

 

[Twizzle]

We don't play fat players. No Doug, ever. We've finally got young talent on the scene. Last thing we need is an old chubby fast bowler who breaks down every few tests and HE HAS A RUG. Seriously, someone that vane isn't suited to test cricket.

so I guess you never heard of Shane Warne ?

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

We don't play fat players. No Doug, ever. We've finally got young talent on the scene. Last thing we need is an old chubby fast bowler who breaks down every few tests and HE HAS A RUG. Seriously, someone that vane isn't suited to test cricket.

Jacques Kallis and Shane Warne played with hair hats you dopey merkin

 

[Twizzle]

The end result was the same as Johnson, but I agree - looked promising - got swing in the first innings, the action looks like he'll get that more regularly than Johnson...

With Cummins and Pattison, thinks look ok for the next few years for you... Khawaja too... still hate what I see from Hughes, he will not be able to score consistently at test level with that approach - and the evidence is there now, regardless of what he does in Hobart, or in first class cricket... he'll score centuries relatively regularly, but I suspect you'll be 1/20 much more often than you'd like...

Has Bollinger been consigned to the Katich 'never to play tests again' category?

I tend to agree on Hughes, I've seen enough of him to know what he can do and he would not be in my future plans when there is Oozi, Warner and Marsh in the fray.

With Watson and Marsh injured, he'll get a run for now and I would not be too swayed by how many runs he makes in Tassie.

 

[African Monkey]

Williamson is a long term #3... he had a poor test, and looked out of sorts... he's young, and playing Aust in Aust is the biggest occasion for us, and it looks like it's gotten to him... he's got character, so I'd expect him to be better in Hobart, but if not in a few years he'll have developed to being a very good test batsman...

To me the openers and the captain are bigger issues... Ryder also had an appalling test... I think Watling is the only other batsman on tour, and I am guessing Daniel Flynn is hurt... Watling seldom strengthen's any side he's in, so we're left with an unchanged lineup, unless they decide top play Boult... a bit of discipline wouldn't hurt, the Australian attack didn't ask too many questions, even Pattinson's excellent spell should probably only have resulted in 2 wickets (McCullum and Guptill) with a sensible and determined approach by the batters...

Overall, we were lame... we rolled over and beat ourselves, be disappointing if there's not more fight in Hobart, but I think Guptill and Taylor are fair-weather cricketers, and Ryder seems to be short of cricket...

Daniel Flynn's a strange one. He was a real defensive middle order bat in his first stint in test cricket but since then he has become a real attacking strokemaker for ND. If he gets selected again I would like to see how he approaches things with the bat.

 

[Fast Eddie]

He's not going to get selected again for a while unless injuries hit though. As much as this batting lineup cops it who do you drop in the near future? Brownlie has locked down the only available spot, which is good to see and pretty much the only positive to come out of this test.

 

[BunniesMan]

so I guess you never heard of Shane Warne ?

Jacques Kallis and Shane Warne played with hair hats you dopey merkin

Doug bloody Bollinger isn't Shane Warne. Shane Warne is the exception that proves the rule. And Shane Warne is Shane Warne, if he wanted to play in a pink frilly skirt, we'd let him.

I tend to agree on Hughes, I've seen enough of him to know what he can do and he would not be in my future plans when there is Oozi, Warner and Marsh in the fray.

With Watson and Marsh injured, he'll get a run for now and I would not be too swayed by how many runs he makes in Tassie.

There we go, one of the Hughes Haters brigade literally saying no matter what he does it isn't good enough.

You've seen enough of Hughes and don't think he's good enough? Wtf has Khawaja done in comparison?

I don't understand how people don't think 3 100s and 3 50s in 16 tests is good enough, but 1 50 in 5 tests at a lower average is incredibly impressive.

Phil Hughes = the Lebron James of Cricket. Very talented but no matter what he does, a large section of the public will always think he's a failure.

 

[mozza91]

Doug bloody Bollinger isn't Shane Warne. Shane Warne is the exception that proves the rule. And Shane Warne is Shane Warne, if he wanted to play in a pink frilly skirt, we'd let him.

There we go, one of the Hughes Haters brigade literally saying no matter what he does it isn't good enough.

You've seen enough of Hughes and don't think he's good enough? Wtf has Khawaja done in comparison?

I don't understand how people don't think 3 100s and 3 50s in 16 tests is good enough, but 1 50 in 5 tests at a lower average is incredibly impressive.

Phil Hughes = the Lebron James of Cricket. Very talented but no matter what he does, a large section of the public will always think he's a failure.

Phil Hughes = Struggles against the short and moving ball, sure he's not as bad as alot make out but Khawaja has a much more sound technique.

 

[African Monkey]

Well the fact that he has an average of 36 for starters. For a NZ batsmen that would be good enough but not for the aussie side. By your logic BM, Marcus North should still be in the aussie side because he had 9 scores of over 50 in 21 tests yet did f**k all in between and only ended up with an average of 35.

 

[BunniesMan]

Well the fact that he has an average of 36 for starters. For a NZ batsmen that would be good enough but not for the aussie side. By your logic BM, Marcus North should still be in the aussie side because he had 9 scores of over 50 in 21 tests yet did f**k all in between and only ended up with an average of 35.

Marcus North was the height of averageness. He got every ounce of talent out of himself for that average of 35. He was never getting any better. He was already 30 or so, he was at his peak.

Phil Hughes has the talent and potential to be so much better than an average of 35. He needs to be persevered with.

Steve Waugh averaged 30.53 after 26 tests with ZERO centuries. And look what became of him (in the next two tests he scored 2 100s and never looked back). The selectors at the time saw something special in him and kept going with him.

Phil Hughes has that something special too.

Marcus North, batting at his absolute best, was a 35 at test level. Phil Hughes, has the potential to be a 50+ avg batsman over the longrun.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I don't think he does. Have always maintained since he started playing Tests despite the wanking over him that he could end up being a pretty good opening bat averaging maybe low 40's to mid 40's at best.

 

[BunniesMan]

Phil Hughes = Struggles against the short and moving ball, sure he's not as bad as alot make out but Khawaja has a much more sound technique.

That magic technique has got Khawaja less runs at a lower average since he's been back in the team. In that same period Hughes has 2 innings higher than Khajwajas best.

Like I've said before, they should both be kept in the team over the longrun. They are both in my 11 now and for the forseeable future. They should be our openers for the next 10 years. But if one of them gets dropped, Hughes cannot be dropped first.

 

[African Monkey]

Marcus North was the height of averageness. He got every ounce of talent out of himself for that average of 35. He was never getting any better. He was already 30 or so, he was at his peak.

Phil Hughes has the talent and potential to be so much better than an average of 35. He needs to be persevered with.

Steve Waugh averaged 30.53 after 26 tests with ZERO centuries. And look what became of him (in the next two tests he scored 2 100s and never looked back). The selectors at the time saw something special in him and kept going with him.

Phil Hughes has that something special too.

Marcus North, batting at his absolute best, was a 35 at test level. Phil Hughes, has the potential to be a 50+ avg batsman over the longrun.

I'll buy that.

The guy however does have a lot of technical problems. He nicks out defending a lot off the back foot. He needs to leave on length a lot more than he does especially early on in his innings or learn to go back and across and use the crease more as opposed to just going across whether that's in domestic or international cricket. I think he'd be better off having another spell in domestic cricket but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Phil Hughes is the Lebron of cricket smh bunnies derp just go away please

 

[BunniesMan]

The guy however does have a lot of technical problems. He nicks out defending a lot off the back foot. He needs to leave on length a lot more than he does especially early on in his innings or learn to go back and across and use the crease more as opposed to just going across whether that's in domestic or international cricket. I think he'd be better off having another spell in domestic cricket but we'll have to wait and see.

I agree with every word of the first three sentences. I'm his biggest fan and even I won't argue his technique is flawless. He has things he needs to work on and he knows that.

But I disagree with the last sentence, he went back to shield at the end of last summers tests and went straight back to hittings tons. He's too good for that level.

Like Poker players advise you should always play against players slightly more advanced than you because you learn nothing beating up on your inferiors, it's the same here. At shield level he dominates. The only place he will improve is at test level.

Hopefully in Friday he smashes a huge century, doesn't look like nicking all day and shuts up the critics...for another 2 tests.

 

[beads6]

I'd prefer Hughes to make f**k all because I think Khawaja need to stay in the side and I fear if Hughes makes runs then Khawaja and Warner make way for Marsh and Watson.

 

[African Monkey]

I can only see Hughes scoring a big century now with all this talk of him being dropped and Taylor saying that he would love for him to play.

 

[Twizzle]

I'd prefer Hughes to make f**k all because I think Khawaja need to stay in the side and I fear if Hughes makes runs then Khawaja and Warner make way for Marsh and Watson.

stop making sense, we're not used to that in here

I really dont think Marsh is a long term answer either, he may be good for a year or so but his back injuries mean he cannot play out a full season, much like Harris

 

[yappy]

Hughes clearly has to sort out the shortish one over over stump, been saying it for months. But he will sort it. I have no doubt he'll end up with 10,000 test runs at a lot closer to 50 than 35. The only question is whether he can sort it out before he gets another spell in the Shield or not. He has to score big in Hobart. A 60-70 won't save him I don't think unless he backs up the same in the second dig. He needs another ton. I wouldn't bet against him either. He'll then need to back it up with runs against the Indians or he won't see out the summer.

It's a case of will he be a Waugh or a Hayden? Both had great hopes invested in them early but struggled. Waugh was stuck with for a very long time before being dropped before coming back not too long after and going off, whereas Haydos got the axe pretty early on and spent years churning out massive Shield runs before getting his recall. Whatever happens eventually Hughes will click at test level and make a ton of runs.

The hullabaloo over the 2nd Innings is a bit ott. The dropped catch was an absolute jaffa. Angled across and then hitting the seam and going further away. It wasn't short so he had to play and pitching outside leg as it did he had every right to be trying to play it towards mid on. That ball deserved a wicket and I bet plenty of left handers were watching that thinking :thank f**k he wasn't bowling that to me". The next ball however was a rank wide long hop. We needed 8 to win ffs, you don't go after those then what's the point of having a bat? It was there to hit and he went after it. Didn't play it well, but that happens. Nothing wrong with the intent, and he went hard at it as you should. Just needed to get it up, or hit it down. It's a risk you run every time you play the cut though.

The point being the first innings dismissal, like the dismissals in SA was a case of him falling to the technical issue he has with the shorter ones at off stump that he should be dropping the hands to and letting go. Second innings was not the same thing at all, despite being caught in the gully. But Hughes is suffering from this mythology growing around him so that every time he gets out it's somehow always the same problem. It's so ridiculous that in today's paper he somehow miraculously got out to outside edges 5 times in the 09 Ashes despite only playing 3 innings and one of those wickets was a strangle down the leg side. People are just piling on and sprouting whatever shit that comes to their heads.

He has to end his run of cheap dismissals, that's a given for any test batsman (yes Mr Watson even you), but I haven't seen so much bullshit written about another player ever.