McKay: Australia has nothing to prove

At least that was more reasonable Frank. I disagree with you about boundary riding and Khawaja also often fielded closer in either side of the bowlers approach (thats how he got the run out). As for the 5% improvement, every player growing into the role needs at least 5% improvement. Hughes needs at least 5 % improvement in certain areas of his game, despite his creditable return to the big league. But generally those improvements occur when you are playing against the best at test level, and you gain confidence that your position is more secure. That's what raises your standards, not training. And playing ducks and drakes with the young kid (just as they did for a while with Hughes) is not good for the players confidence as Slater indicated when he criticised what they have been doing to Khawaja. Such action is more likely to breed mistakes because you are so conscious of the selection inconsistency. Hughes is there because he got that century and did well in the tests...and they made it plain that he was getting a period of time to prove himself. Khawaja is not being offered that chance. He has not yet been given TIME to prove himself As for the run out everyone is talking about, it was a mistake and that always happens especially when you're nervous about your position. I've seen Hughes do a couple, I've seen Cowan do a couple. In this instance I think both were at fault. But its secondary and quite frankly unimportant. What it is is the selection policy which is highly inequitable. Why of the batsmen was Khawaja the only one to be given only one game to prove himself (his first). Why wasnt he given the benefit of another chance given the run out,

The evidence hardly backs you up; at least PH knows how to ground his bat... Also, explain how you worked out the percentages for who was at fault in the runout. You can not say it was PH's fault that UK was run out, he clearly had time to get back, in fact he did, but through either laziness or lack of skill did not ground his bat.

I'd say boundary riding is an easy task then fielding in the circle, just my opinion. Whilst I've got nothing again Khawaja's batting talent, he's plenty good enough with the willow, I still feel another 5% improvement is needed. The run out was silly, but his fielding to run out Dilshan was fantastic. If he's capable of stuff like that, then it wouldn't be long until he's back.

Kev, I don't know too many batsmen who would be halfway down the track on a ball which is clearly going to be gathered by an infielder. Unless, of course, he had a death wish. When a fielder has the angle covered, as in this case, it may as well be considered to be 'directly to him'. He gathered cleanly and released quickly - and, as it turned out, accurately. The non-striker has every right to refuse the call if he thinks there's no run in it - even if it was hit in front of the wicket. Don't forget, Hughes refused quickly enough for Khawaja to get back in time. It was hardly Hughes' fault that Khawaja managed to get his bat two feet over the line but, somehow, not on the ground. Khawaja ran himself out.

Dish re " I was a bit surprised and disappointed that he was dropped, not least of all because I knew what was going to dominate the discussion on cricket articles! " - I laughed.

It wasn't hit directly to a fielder it was hit wide of a fielder who I will admit fielded well (and may have affected a run out anyway he was that fast), however by the time the ball was in his hand a good batting partner would have already been half-way down the pitch because they'd be backing up and reacting to their partner (i.e. the guy who hit the ball and the guy who's call it was) not watching the ball. You have no right to decline a call when (a) it isn't your call (in front of the wicket is the batsman's call, behind the wicket is teh non-striker's call) and (b) you don't do it immediately. Hughes had no right to react to the fielder in that situation, it is incumbent on the non-striker to react to his partner. You say Hughes would have been run out if he took the run, he would have but not because there wasn't a single there, but because he was not alert or backing up properly. Hughes hit that exact shot and took that exact single to get from 90-91 and if you rewatch the match you'll see it. You'll also see Bailey give a very good showing of how to back up and run on that sort of shot.

Firstly the batting first five line up they have chosen for the next two games Hughes, Warner, Clarke, Bailey, Hussey is pretty decent. The all rounders they are picking are wasted positions though. But not giving Khawaja, and for that matter Finch, more game time is just plain dumb. You cant determine a players ability on one or two games. And with Khawaja and how they've treated him in the test arena I'm wondering if he should leave Oz and go and play for Pakistan where I've no doubt he'd be a champion. I think these selectors are worried about selecting Khawaja because he is going to score a century some time soon and then they're trapped with having to explain why they're not giving him a chance. There's something very wrong here and its not about his fielding skill.

Kev, Like you I'm a Khawaja fan having first seen him playing for Randy-Petes before his NSW debut. Having seen him so early I have followed his career closely and hoped he would do well. Still do. However, that run-out was definitely Usman's fault, not Hughes. He hit it straight to an infielder and ran. I agree Hughes was ball-watching but he also would have seen it heading quickly to a guy who was no more than thirty metres from the bat. I wouldn't have responded to Usman's call either - other than to say "NO!!!!" Khawaja was not too far down the wicket - maybe not just two steps as The Dish suggested but not much more, maybe four or five metres. He was a bit slow to turn but he did get back in time. His technique, however, let him down. Instead of reaching out and sliding his bat in he chose to dive and gravity took over. His bat was edge down instead of blade down and his hand at the top of the handle pushed down as he dived and the bat pivoted on the shoulder causing the blade to lift off the ground. Despite his bat being almost two feet over the crease it was in the air - and he was gone. I'd suggest that if Hughes had responded to the call he would have been run out by two or three metres. I certainly don't blame Hughes for declining the opportunity. I'd also suggest that given both players were on ODI debut and neither had much of a score the call was made more from nerves and anxiety than common sense. If they had both been 40 or 50, and had confidence in each other's running, they might have tried it but then it would have been Hughes walking back. Chances are, though, Khawaja would not have called it in those circumstances. I just think think it was a bad call, made by nerves, and Hughes exercised his right to decline. I agree Hughes (and yes, I'm also a fan) is not the best runner in the business but surely that's even more reason for Usman not to have called it in the first place. Should Khawaja have been given another chance in Adelaide - certainly, and the eventual result showed that nothing would have been lost by giving him that chance. And something might have been gained. Hindsight, however, is always 20/20 but it does seem that Khawaja is asked to do a bit more than some others to get a chance - and I don't know why, either!

QUOTE - John Inverarity: "What we'll have to see is dynamism in the field and in his running between the wickets, demonstrating that energy and vitality," Inverarity said. "You take Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting, when they're at the non-striker's end they present themselves every ball to the batsman. They're there and they're down the wicket and their level of alertness [is high]. If you're batting, you can be enhanced by the presence of the player at the other end, it's a team. A lot of players would all say batting with Hussey and Ponting, they would enhance their batting, they're just terrific." Now Invers the doddering old tool aimed that tirade at Usman Khawaja but it would be better aimed at Phil Hughes. Watch one of the 50 replays of Khawaja's run out and you'll see exactly those flaws from Hughes at the non-striker's end, you'll also see ball watching and late calling. Hughes has been involved in at least half a dozen almost runouts and two actual run outs in 7 innings since his recall to the national set up.

You are right, It was probably more than two steps. I was just trying to make the point that he didn't make it past a third of the way down the pitch. I was a bit surprised and disappointed that he was dropped, not least of all because I knew what was going to dominate the discussion on cricket articles! Yesterday obviously proved it was a mistake to pick both Smith and Maxwell ahead of him.

In the end it's not important who is at fault. These things happen. But what is disgraceful is that the selectors arent giving him another go. That's where the problem lies, not the run out. he's been selected in the side to supposedly allow selectors to see how he performs. Well he was run out early so he didnt have the chance to show them. I thought the whole purpose was to determine if the kid can do the job and now they're denying him that opportunity. Yet lesser players are getting more chances to shine. That have something against this kid...the only one dropped from the batting side for game 2. Its a continuance of their actions in the tests. Keep him as 12th man but dont play him. Not saying its racial because I dont think it is, but there is an unfair bias against this guy

It may well have been Khawaja's fault Dish but it is disengenius to say it was two steps out and back. Do you reckon it warranted him being dropped though?

There was a run it. Hughes took EXACTLY the same run from 90-91 but Bailey was (a) backing up and (b) not ball watching but reacting to his partner and he made it easily. The call was Khawaja's to make (ball in front of the wicket), Hughes was on his heels and watching the ball, if he didn't want to run he had to make the call immediately, he didn't, his fault. Khawaja's blame stems entirely from the slow turn (hard pitch so he didn't want to slip) and poor technique on the slide in. I'm fat and I could have made that run. Hussey, Jones, Clarke, Border, Bevan would all have made that run without any trouble. Hughes is a shocker between the wickets.

That run-out was almost entirely Khawaja's fault. I don't know how you can say there was a run in it when Khawaja couldn't even manage to take two steps down and two steps back without getting run out. I take it you are a big Khawaja fan though Red Kev so I can understand the bias.

That's a foolish thing to say Frank. You're better than that.

Frank I'm astonished. I've been watching Khawaja closely in recent matches and his fielding is at least the equal of most other players. He's no Warner or Steve Smith, but he spent most of his recent innings out near the boundary and therefore had far more running to do than most of the fielders. And he saved many a four. And it was his run out or the Sri Lanka player that started their collapse in the first match. I'm amazed that you consider his fielding not up there and wonder if you're just a little too enamoured by Hughes and cant see beyond that.. I supported your claims about Hughes who I consider one of Australia's next big names. Khawaja in my opinion is the next best by a mile. And Hughes was sent back to FC for far more serious problems than Khawaja and to his credit he seems to have addressed them, though England will be the big test. But Hughes has now been given his chance. Same for Khawaja who has also worked hard on his game. A bit of fairness here Frank

Hughes has been given double the chances ... how did he go today with the bat? A bit of ball movement and it undid him. Both should be in the test side, but if they're not going to give Khawaja a run in the ODI side they should never have picked him in the first place. One match is a disgrace.

Lets see Khawaja keep wicket... Hughes has taken his chance. Khawaja didn't.

1 - That run out was more Hughes' fault than Khawaja's (about 65-35%). Certainly Khawaja should have slid in better, but there was a run there if the non-striker was backing up properly and going on the call rather than ball watching. Mike Hussey or Dean Jones would have been passed the stumps by the time the bails came off. 2 - You've clearly not watched any of Khawaja's innings this year if you think there has been no improvement. He's far superior as a fielder and a runner between the wickets than Phillip Hughes.

Well Khawaja was sent back to FC cricket to improve his running between the wicket. As the first ODI showed, there's been no change.