One of the good things Darren Lehman has changed about the Australian cricket team is we are sticking with our choices and not rotating the team around. However, not everyone in the team is playing well.
The bowling performances have been fantastic but the only performers in the top six are David Warner and Michael Clarke.
We should stick with George Bailey for a little longer because he is new to the side and is just settling in.
Steve Smith should also be persevered with because he is a promising young player who has shown signs of his talent. He can also field brilliantly and could be a valuable bowler in the future as well.
If we stick with Smith he will develop into a great player.
This leaves two players, Shane Watson and Chris Rogers.
Rogers should play out the Ashes and the tour of South Africa and then retire and give a promising young player (at the moment probably Jordan Silk, with Nic Maddinson close behind) an easy platform into Test cricket against India.
He has done a great job of filling a spot, leaving these young players time to develop.
This leaves Watson, who should be replaced by Phil Hughes in South Africa.
Hughes has played brilliantly over the season of Sheffield Shield, recently hitting another century, his third for the season.
Hughes is in great form, is a great player of pace and South Africa feature the best pace arsenal in the world.
I hope Watson proves me wrong and plays brilliantly for the rest of the series, but if he doesn’t Hughes should get yet another chance.
Jake
Guest
Terrible team, Freddy!
Ben
Guest
All of my what......... To quote the video "shit never said during the ashes" "Oh, here comes phil hughes, he'll steady the ship"
Don Garland
Guest
I definitely understand both sides of the argument here. Hughes' Shield record is hard to ignore, but nothing has changed over the last few years. Time is on Phil's side so I don't see any sense in rushing him back, especially as it's too soon to give up on Rogers or Bailey. I do believe we need to replace Watson though, it's just not clear who the replacement is!
Clavers
Guest
Hughes was averaging 60 in the first-class matches (both tests and county games) on the England Ashes tour tour. He has now played five first-class matches in the Australian season and is again averaging 60. Bailey meanwhile is averaging only 30 in first-class matches this season (two Shield matches and two and a half tests) and has passed 50 only once. I think there is already a case for bringing in Hughes at number 3 to replace Bailey and moving Watson down to 6. I think Hughes has the fighting mentality as well as he talent to succeed as a number 3, which is the position in which he played for much of the England tour. I am a big Watto fan and definitely want him to stay in. No huge scores in this series so far, but his current batting form is still okay -- his average over his most recent five tests (including this one) is 44.2. He is playing his role as fifth bowler very well, giving Clarke both an attacking and a defensive weapon as well as relief for the other bowlers (especially if one breaks down entirely). But perhaps the pressure of the number 3 spot is not for him.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Not at all Tony...the last two times Hughes has been in the Test side he has been given a very decent run and failed. Earlier this year he got 9 Tests in a row and averaged 28. The previous time he was in the side he got seven Tests in a row and averaged 28. Why would we return so swiftly to a proven failure?
Aggregated drupe
Guest
@train without a station I would let Bailey have the rest of the series and if he doesn't improve I'd drop him for Faulkner, Pattinson or Starc On Watson I just don't think he's up to test cricket. Both of his wickets have been very lucky although he has bowled well. His hundred was scored under no pressure against mostly debutants Woakes and Kerrigan. He just doesn't have the right mindset for tests throwing his wicket away a lot if the time.
Train Without A Station
Guest
Why stick with Bailey? He was picked based on his maturity on the assumption he would hit the ground running despite his poor recent FC record, and he hasn't. The 6 position has often gone to a younger player to bring them into the side. It's wasted on Bailey who has an average FC record into his 30s so really is not likely to improve. Bring one of these younger players into his spot and give them a chance to settle in, because they have shown the potential to be great players that Bailey hasn't. As for Rogers, if there is a capable replacement opener scoring in the Shield, replace him. And Watson, he is contributing with the ball, his last 3 and a half tests have delivered a century and a half century as well as providing a bowling option. At least until a player shows at Shield level he has the ability to immediately step up into 3, stick with him for now.
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
Problem is the last 3/4 times he was given a go they drop him after 2 or 3 tests. In England he was actually playing ok and then they dropped him for Warner I believe. Also he has been playing out of position, batting down the order. He should only ever open the innings.
bill monaghan
Guest
You have got it exactly right. ..but do it now..it is all right for experts to say stick with the team without changes but for how long do you continue making the same mistake before you rectify the problem..for the next test select Hughes at No.3 and replace Bailey with Watson at No.6
Aggregated drupe
Guest
Tony, Hughes averages the best at 3 in his test career ( apart from number 5 where he played one game) following are his averages: Opener: 34.58 Number 3: 37.2 Number 4: 1.00 Number 5: 81.00
jameswm
Roar Guru
So write him off forever? You have to reward the best SHield bat. Neither of us has been watching his Shield batting to check on his technique. Others have left the team and come back strong. You have to reward the guy who is consistently the best Shield bat.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
In Hughes last 23 Tests he has averaged 27. What discernible improvements has he made at Shield level since being dropped from the Aus side the last time? Everyone knows he can score runs at State level. But the last 3-4 times he has had a run in the Test side he has been a flop.
Peaches
Guest
You're sick of hearing Hughes being compared to to Ponting yet that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article? Hughes is the best shield batsman and has a good record when opening the batting, yet hasn't had the opportunity to cement his spot. It's ironic that Hughes lost his spot in the side in the first place when a misfiring Johnson and a firing Flintoff meant the Aussie selectors thought we must have an all-rounder and the rookie who faced a couple of good short balls lost his spot. Now the author is saying the all-rounder must go for Hughes. I just find that all a bit funny/ironic and I'm not sure Hughes should have lost his spot to begin with.
Gav
Guest
Freddy, Hughes for Rogers at the end of this summer is a big yes. Doolan for Watson, also a big yes As for the others, well I think Smiths efforts today may have changed things for the long term. Haddin also And the bowlers....may well be based on fitness!
Lachlan Doyle
Roar Pro
When did I say that he was ugly?!
Frankie Hughes
Guest
My apologies @Aggregated drupe
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
No one is comparing Hughes to Ponting. Lachlan you can't ignore Hughes' record, just because he looks ugly doesn't mean he can't bat. I remember him pealing off back to back hundreds in South Africa. But again he's not a number 3. We don't have any good options at number 3 its a HUGE problem for the Aussies
Praveen
Guest
Martin Crowe said there are 3 certainties in life, death, taxes and a century at Adelaide oval, anyone who denies that Adelaide is not a batsman paradise needs a good long look st themselves
Lachlan Doyle
Roar Pro
I have had enough of Hughes to be honest. He isn't the next Ponting and I am sick of hearing it. Watson is a excellent limited overs player (in fact he would be one of my first choices if I would pick a T20 team) but not test cricket.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Basically Hughes is scoring the most runs and averaging almost 60 over both seasons. Picking the next in line is that simple for mine. If his technique is so poor against the swinging ball or spinners, why is he scoring so many runs? The Shield bowlers are no mugs, I can assure you.