The selectors have killed Australian cricket

whats with the level of moderation on here of late?

It'd be nice if Clarke got one in a first innings though. If it's the start of consistent test bating, then great. Clarke can do it, and Australia needs him to. He'll be in the team anyway, so may as well score some runs while he's there.

Must be kicking yourself Clarke and Hughes got centuries.

Plenty of people bag Shaun Marsh. You can't read much cricketing media if you think he's untouchable, the armchair critics usually saying precisely the things you are about his inadequate stats. Besides, Shaun Marsh has never been set up as any golden child for Australia, it's those genre of players who really get it in the neck from all comers. He only got a chance because of Punter's expanding family. I'm willing Hughes to do well even though I don't like watching him bat. We need an opener who can score tons, I'm fed up to the gills with Watson's inability to go on with it.

Yet Shaun Marsh can't even average 40 in first class cricket and he never gets bagged. He only has 7 first class centuries from 62 matches and he's 28. His ODI average is 36.58 and his List A average is even lower at 35.67. His T20i average is a whopping 11.40 (from only 5 matchs.) His only average above 40 is Twenty20. Double standard much? The selectors were right to drop Hughes during the 2009 Ashes campaign but that doesn't mean he should never be selected again. Remember what a failure Hayden was his first time around opening for Australia. And if Hughes struggles against South Africa and/or India I would hope the selector would put their egos and pride aside and select Katich if his playing for NSW and making runs.

man-hugging by two metros? It's that hard to believe?

I read that in Fitz files but as soft as they are can you really imagine Hughes and Clarke embracing after the sign was taken down...this one's garbage I'm afraid...

and I think Ponting was dropped on 0 by Aamer off Asif or vice versa in the shonkiest series of all time...

By the way how many of you saw this n the fitz files on the back page of the sports section of the SMH on Saturday? "TFF received a strange email this week, coming via a circuitous route from Australian cricket supporters in Sri Lanka who say that their mild banner declaring themselves part of the ''Simon Katich Stand'' was taken down - on day four, second session, Second Test - by security associated with the Australian cricket team. Worse, in a phone interview, one of those supporters, Matthew Dyktynski, said the removal of the sign appeared to be on the direct orders of captain, Michael Clarke, on the grounds it was offensive to the man who has Katich's spot, Phillip Hughes. That, at least was the way he and his friends interpreted it after watching Clarke glare at the sign, and then call for a runner. The runner returned to the dressing room, and shortly afterwards the two guards emerged, walked straight to the sign and took it down, after which Hughes and Clarke appeared to embrace. I find it hard to fathom why either Clarke or Hughes would be so precious, but these supporters certainly seem sincere in their belief that that is what happened."

It could be a career saving knock. What a ridiculous term "Hughes haters" is, though. Test match cricket is not, last time I checked, the place where you experiment with youngsters, or their didgy technique. If Hughes was shabbily treated in England, he then spent the next 18 months proving the selectors were correct in dumping him. And how did he go in the latest Ashes series and the first 2.5 tests too? I don't get the love affair - his batting is as ugly as an English front rower and he seems likely to get out on any ball, even when "set". I used the inverted commas as he never really seems set. It pays to be buddies with the skipper, though. Just ask Simon Katich.

An important second innings ton for Hughes

Tea, day four. Australia 2-127, P Hughes 78 not out. I wonder how many runs he will be need to quieten the Hughes-haters for a bit ?

batting is hardly our problem atm, have you noticed mitches outstanding bowling, check his series stats 5 at 50!

This is why I keep laughing whenever I read anyone talking about how we've got competition for places. Hardly anyone this year after four tests has a remotely respectable batting average apart from Hussey and Marsh (who has only played 2 innings). If we've got competition, it's for all the wrong reasons. One ot the three people last year who ended up with a batting average over 40 in test cricket got dropped. Our batting is in a right state quite frankly.

Agreed on his technique. And then, partly as a result of the footwork, he doesn't play straight. Not even in defence. Fix the footwork, and with it the backlift, and he would be much more reliable. However, while criticism of Hughes and of the selectors is valid, the article does so in some rather unnecessary (and wrong at times) ways. Hughes should not have been on the tour - Katich should be captain in my view - but given the make-up of the touring party there aren't really any alternatives available. With a new selection panel, its unlikely he wil go to South Africa.

I think everyone is missing the point on Phil Hughes, he currently is not equipped with a good enough technique to play test cricket. The theme is clear with most of his dismissals, he does not move his feet and body in behind the ball, playing away from his body

Phil Hughes remains basically because there isn't another opener on the tour. Warner has gone across, to cover for Ponting's absence in the second Test, but nine first class games even with a good record (after relatively easy runs for Australia A against a Zimbabwean XI) isn't really going to cut it. Personally, I don't believe Hughes shold be i the side right now but Australia lacks openers and I'm struggling to find a replacement. 12 months ago I may have said Ed Cowan, but he didn't set the world alight last Shield season either. As for Ponting, "If Ponting had some serious batting problems the selectors wouldn’t give him a second look" simply isn't true. He has had severe batting problems for the better part of two years, and I would have kept Khawaja in and left Ponting out of this Test. (That said, Ponting did score runs in the first innings so maybe the selectors got that one right.) Over the last two years, in 18 Tests, Ponting has averaged around 36 and scored just one hundred - the double ton at Bellerive where he was dropped on zero. And if you want to judge by the last Ashes, as was done with Hughes, just 16.14 with a high score of 51*. Plus Ponting's biggest weapon, the pulls and hook shots, have led to an early exit on many occasions over that time and he hasn't learned to put them away. Now, you could claim NSW bias there, as Ponting lives in NSW now. Or you could claim Tas bias, with Boon and Cox both having been selectors until very recently. What you can not claim from those figures is that Hughes has had a better run than Ponting with serious batting problems.

well said Vas

this is an ordinary article. i've said this before, are there any other young openers apart from Huhges in domestic cricket coming through that average 45 plus. The answer: NO As for biased NSW selecting, that is complete utter crap BS.