It's time we all forgot about Phil Hughes

Two words: Matthew Hayden

Maybe Travis Head, Joe Burns or Cameron Bancroft. These 3 are Aus's future.

Simoc. If you read my items I dont usually put people down. Certainly wouldn't put people down by using expressions like 'totally useless' and 'droopy' like some, and my comments to Ronan were very much tongue in cheek because as I indicated, I generally respect his judgement. But that doesnt mean I have to agree with all he says. I may challenge other's arguments but that's what these forums are about surely to express an opinion and feel passionate about it. I concede that I do rant on at times...tend to get a little excited and verbose. I apologise for such excesses and will try to be more concise. I just have in my mind a clear perspective about what I think works. I'll concede I've never player test or state cricket, though I've played just a little higher than primary school standard. Pretty average really. And you? But being an old fart I have the advantage over many in having seen cricketers all the way back to O'Niell, Harvey, Simpson, Benaud, Dexter, Barrington, Cowdrey live and those who followed. Gives one a broader perspective seeing so many generations dont you think and patterns do emerge. So when I see young cricketers emerge, I look back at what happened to champions of the past and I see parallels that many who have only seen a generation may not have perceived. And there are parallels. This age is somewhat unusual because of the dearth of top line players in one generation, the present 30-37 age group. It has placed a lot of pressure on the younger potential stars coming through, not only because they are more exposed to media scrutiny but more exposed to the best in other international teams because of the lack of top line experienced stars to offer them support coming through. They've had to grow up quicker in some ways. But as I said having been around a long time I see parallels. I was one of the first to identify Thompson in Johnson (now its all over the media). I've seen a lot of Mark Taylor in Silk, Hayden in Hughes, Doug Walters in Maddinson. Its just certain things one picks up over the years. Not suggesting I'm better than any other average hack supporter, just been around a lot longer and seen more. And for me statistics seem to be the best way of interpreting a players potential.

Khawaja was a 'special' for a while there but like Burns has gone off the boil in the longer form of the game. But his apparent weakness about fitness and turning over the strike has certainly been turned on its head with his form in the shorter form of the game firstly in the one day matches at home and now last night in the T20. The thunder vs 6's match showed a distinct difference in class in batting between a few stand outs and the rest. Warner, Khawaja and Maddinson were outstanding. Smith and Henriques looked the goods

Ah. A critic. Always love new prey.

As much as I enjoy watching seam bowlers dominate, conditions at the wanderers are very condicive to seam bowling with both up/down movement + lateral movement. No wonder two such strong batting orders are struggling a bit. Dont know whst happened after morkel hobbled off. Hope he makes it back for the aus series.

This is where the issue of age must be considered carefully Ryan. A 21 year old is unlikely to be as good as he will be at 25 and unlikely to be as good as he will be at 30. A 21 years old with an average in the 30s for me is a very good prospect. If he's 25 and in the high 30s or early 40s I think he's a very good prospect. If he's 30 and he hasnt at least managed a 40 average at first class level, its doubtful if he will succeed at the next level of cricket, that being tests. He should be at least 40 average and preferably mid 40s to be a successful test cricketer. It doesnt always fall that way but for me watching cricket for 50 years, that seems to be a good guide. Silk is only 21 and just starting his first class career. He's already in 22 innings scored 4 centuries and is averaging 38.36. For an inexperienced kid that age, that's a quite remarkable start to his first class career. Very few batsmen perform to such a level at such a young age and it suggests an outstanding potential. Of course 22 innings is still too short a career to judge definitively. I would like to see him over a couple of seasons before lauding him as the next great opener, but the signs are there. I think he is also too inexperienced for test cricket at this stage. Maddinson on the other hand is also 21 and only a few months older than Silk and has already proven himself in the juniors, first class level and some minor international matches that he looks the real thing.He's played 66 first class innings, and though his conversion rate to centuries is no where near up to Silk's efforts so far, he is more consistent and averaging a touch over 40. Personally I think Maddinson is pretty close to test level, but he has work to do on his defence and patience. But for me he is the standout batsmen of the next group of players under 24. But you are right that Hughes, with a solid first class background and one of the very best averages in the Shield at 45.5, should be persevered with ahead of these guys if he is scoring well at Shield level. I know he's not set the world on fire at test level but I disagree that he has 'failed' as some of his most recent innings show. He's a confidence player and if he gets a few big test scores , which he will, I think we'll see the real Hughes emerge. I'd definitely take him to S.A.

http://www.cricket365.com/player-stats/2021/Michael-Hussey "- A late starter on the international scene, scoring a record 15,313 first class runs before being given his Australia debut." Also that average of 41 doesn't not take into account his county record which was/is exceptional... to not include this would be disingenuous;)

Why is Silk getting so much of a write up? He's 1st class avg at the moment is just 38. Not great for an opener. I think Hughes has improved this Sheffield season and would like to see him get another shot as opener alongside Warner. Chris Rogers is not going to be playing in the next Ashes series and if Hughes can start merging his 1st class stats with his Test stats then he and Warner can be our opening pair for the next 8-10 years. I also think we need to look at Cameron White in replacement for George Bailey. White has been rock solid for a few years now and this year in particular he is showing that he can come in and stay in for long periods of time and build a partnership with the middle order........... something we still lack. He's 1st class avg is over 40. Perfect for the #3 spot. He know's the England decks too having some brilliant form with Sommerset. My XI for the 2015 Ashes in England. 1. Warner 2. Hughes (IS an opener, not a 3,4,5 or otherwise) or otherwise Maddinson. 3. White (comes in to steady the ship, avg 50 this year) 4. Clarke (if fit) 5. Smith (as Captain..... Big call but I think he shows quality leadership. 6. Chris Lynn (avg 44 from 23 1st class matches) 7. Wade or Paine (prefer Wade and I think he's glove work has improved) 8. Faulkner (great avg of 23 with the ball and 30 with the bat) 9. Starc 10. Pattinson (people are forgetting how good this guy will be) 11. Lyon (need to just leave him in as our 1st picked spinner, he has deserved it) 12th Man Agar That is a top 7 all with an average of 40 or above!!!!! (in 1st class) Harris, Watson and Haddin would (or should) have all retire by the end of next year.

So...Australian XI in the coming years should look like this... 1.Silk 2.maddinson 3.khawaja 4.doolan 5.smith 6.hughes 7.paine 8.cummins 9.starc 10.pattinson 11.lyon not sure about no.6 yet

Geez, this guy splits the cricket community doesn't he? I'm a fan but I completely get the arguments of Ronan and those that are just not. Simply put, my view is now that we have a team largely in form we shouldn't change it. If we have to (retirement/consistent lack of runs), then we should pick on form for the role we change. That would mean Hughes in for an opener, North for a 3-4 player and Forrest/Lynn for 5-6. Form is cyclical and picking better players (which is entirely subjective) rather than guys with the better numbers is like throwing darts. You get it right occasionally (Clarke) and wrong more frequently. FC averages are a fair way to judge blokes all playing in the same competition. if we're going to Pakistan/India then give the guys who we're taking coaching and practice drills suitable for the conditions. Learn to sweep off length, use your feet etc and practice it ad nauseum. Use Dean Jones, Kim Hughes, Matt Hayden or other gun players of spin to assist with coaching. Then we're as well prepared as possible with a team in the best form possible. If we fail there can be few arguments. Subjective nonsense like "he's not up to it", "he's been tried before and failed" go out the window. Team balance matters - guys who field well, are good team men, can maybe roll their arm over etc but otherwise stats dictate form and thus selection.

But Ronan they came back into the side as mature cricketers. They hadn't played 26 tests by the time they reached 25 years of age. Thats why the Steve Waugh comparison is most realistic as he had played over 26 test before the age of 25. Boonie and michael clarke are in the same boat, they all had much poorer records as 25 years olds

Hodge was dropped after a double ton against proteas..he's still better than hughes at 39. Btw yesterday zaheer bowled couple of away swingers (towards the rough side of the ball) to smith and the next ball swung in (towards shine aka reverse) to trap him plumb.found it interesting.

Can someone explain contrast swing? :-)

Yet you presume that guys who are not doing as well facing the likes of Doherty/O’Keefe/Boyce/Agar will do better.