Why isn't Phil Hughes opening against the West Indies?

Although I firmly agree that Phillip Hughes should not have been axed by the selection panel in England, it was not a surprise to me when it happened, although I expected that he would be given at least one more test to prove himself. The most logical explanation for the axing is the "critical nature" of the Ashes. To Ricky Ponting and the selection panel, the Ashes is the most important cricket series, and beating England is the most important goal of the Australian team, so much so that Ponting wants to participate in the 2013 Ashes series (although he is a great batsmen, a fitting end to his career would be to lose the 2010 Ashes, and the 2013 Ashes; at least that way he will realize that despite having a poor captaincy record in the Ashes, he can win against higher ranked teams). In fact, to Ricky Ponting, beating South Africa isn't that important compared to beating England, even though South Africa is a much better team, and have an attack consisting of the No. 1 bowler in the world (Dale Steyn), which recently destroyed England in a test match (an innings defeat). So, in Ponting's and Hilditch's mind, it's more important for Phil Hughes to play against Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson (ranked below 20), than against Steyn and Morkel. This also explains why Marcus North remains in the test team despite averaging less than 37 - he could hit two centuries against England. However, everyone knows he can't face Steyn, averaging 40 against South Africa, and he can't face low ranked teams like Pakistan and West Indies. If Hughes has problems with his technique, then doesn't Marcus North as well? He consistently gets out to quality spin and seam, and can't get over the 20 run mark (whereas Hughes gets at least between 30-40, and if higher than 40, either 70-80, or even a ton). Axe North and bring in Hughes. Phillip Hughes may have years ahead of him, but he has the highest first class average in the country (nearly 60); talk about bringing in Shaun Marsh (Sos), George Bailey and Callum Ferguson (Walt Disney) doesn't make much sense because they average 36, 40 and 35 respectively. At least Hughes will score runs; he averaged 52.44 at the time of his axing.

The test team has settled for the moment after a period of instability, or in my opinion indecisiveness, from the selectors. There wont be a place for anyone for a while, we have established bowlers in reserve like bollinger and hilfenhaus to step in for Lee, Johson and Siddle if there is an injury. Weve found our allrounder in Watson after the pretender Symonds was finally silenced. Husseys or Katichs retirement will be the next opportunity for players like Hughes and Marsh to get a crack. I look forward to the next round of great players and I hope they get a Test spot earlier than Hussey or Katich did in their respective careers.

Heard Hughes made 60 today in the Shield. Watson made ZERO in the Test.

Good article Rickety, with a bit of luck somebody from the ACB will take notice and get rid of Hilditch who seems to be at the centre of the problem. I am for Katich as Captain - the sooner the better.

Ahhh James, Why do you need a brain when you are cool, part of the in-crowd, & have Lara hanging off your arm..... !

Katich for skipper - agreed. And he should bat at 3. But it's a boys club of simple-minded knockabouts.

Are you a fan of the Who, MyG? I've been saying for yonks that Katich should be our test skipper. McGill and SClark's problem is they have a brain.

good post with two v. good examples of the two different paths on offer to hidditch and co.

Considering Shane Watson's high ratio of dismissal by LBW (50%) and bowled (22%) versus Phil Hughes(1 LBW, never bowled in 9 test innings), I'd question which one has an issue with technique. At least Hughes can get his bat on the ball and knows where the stumps are!

Ratings for day 1..Im guessing its average for the day Total: Sydney, Melb, Bris, Perth, Adel 27 FIRST TEST - AUSTRALIA V WEST INDIES Nine 417,000 125,000 138,000 77,000 42,000 35,000

Mark, you're right about being mates with the "right blokes" and I think the right blokes is Ricky Ponting who clearly loves Watson just as he destetsed the "smart arses" MacGill and Clark. If the 'selectors' persist with Watson as opener perhaps Hughes could replace Hussey and bat at 6 or 7. I'm sure his style is suited there also. A Hughes-Johnson fireworks display would be something to see.

Yeah - Phil Jaques It won't do Hughes any harm at all to play Shield cricket for the next couple of years. Jaques is mentally tough, tighter in technique and cracks the ball. Phil Jaques - 19 tests, 11 innings, 0 not outs, 902 runs, HS 152, ave 47.47, 3 hundreds and 6 fifties first class average is 53, with 35 centuries and 55 fifties. Scored a ton in his last test. He's 30 and has 4-5 years of good cricket left in him. Rogers is 32. Hodge is nearly 35. Hussey didn't answer any questions yesterday.

Rickety, imagine my shock and dismay in August when, after being in the US for two weeks, I arrive in Leeds and find out Watson is our new opener. Even my wife was astounded! Hughes showed that, like alot of Aussie cricketers, sound technique doesnt always equate to runs. On our fast wickets, its all about hand-eye coordination. Yes, we do produce players who may tend to play of the backfoot more than others, but it generally works. I would rate the Stha frican bowling attack as slightly better than the Pommy one, and Hughes did ok against them, didnt he. Hes the kind of bloke that even though he may fail a few times, he will give you 2 centuries in a 5 game series. What is disappointing is that he hasnt been shown the same saloon ride that Watson has. Watson is our most under-desrving cricketer. I dont mean that he cant play, or that he's not test class. I mean that he continually breaks down, and unlike everyone else in the team, he gets put straight back into the squad. Starting with his Test debut at the SCG a few years ago against the Paki's, he hasnt really deserved to be there over some other people. ever since Freddy Flintoff rose to prominence, we seem to have the need (or the selectors rather) to have one of our own, despite the fact that our allrounders have been keeper/batsman (and a pretty good one in Gilly), plus bowlers who have been handy at times. Selectors of late seem to be thinking of only their tenure in charge. Remember when selectors used to roll the dice and back young players. Craig McDermott, Ian healy, Glenn McGrath, the Waughs, Ponting all made their test debuts with little first class experience, and they ended up doing ok.

I think we all agree Hughes has talent. Will his career be ruined by being dropped at this stage? Hardly. We know how that generally works out with a player like him. The issue at hand is definitely about selection though. Chris Rogers continues to monster bowlers both in Shield and County matches and is currently the best performed opener in Australia. He's clearly not mates with the right blokes though because he can't get a look in. Phil Jaques was incredibly unfortunate with injury but if he'd been given the sort of look in some others have had post injury he'd have been facing up yesterday morning. Which brings me to the greatest insult of all - Watson the opener. I'm not sure that he even warrants being in the team as Watson the all rounder given the flogging his bowling has received in the test arena. Watson the number 6? Maybe, but I still think there are other more deserving players around the country. So I do agree that the selectors are confused but what do we expect? Hilditch was a mediocre batsmen playing in a mediocre team and his mindset is clearly still that losing not too badly is as good as winning. He has to go. Now. This is not the Australian way.

Some years ago, around 1996, the selectors of the day thought it would be a good idea to drop Michael Slater, & teach him a lesson about his cavalier batting style. It created a chain reaction of almost devastating effect. It messed with Slater's mind from which he never really recovered; it messed with his team mate & captain's mind (Mark Taylor) which saw him enter into a batting slump form which he never really recovered (even allowing for a 300); & it destabilised the team as a whole for a time. It seems the same is happening with Hughes. It also happened with two other batting prodigies that I know of off the top of my head - Doug Walters (mid 60s) & Norm O'Neill (mid 50s). Both these guys were somewhat unorthodox, but with a quick eye & quick feet. The do-gooders tried to change them into something they weren't. The best they did was mess with their minds, & make them slightly less effective batsmen than they should have been. There was another - Don Bradman. His batting technique didn't suit the purists, but he remained true to himself, with stunning results. Hughes should say to Hilditch & co - "just pick me on the number of runs I score. That's the only criteria." BTW, when a test batsman in the mid-80s, Hilditch was dropped for possessing a fatal flaw for the indiscriminate hook shot. Maybe he harbours resentment over that, & is looking to pass on the misery to others???