Don't forget about Phillip Hughes just yet

A few interesting observations in this article about Bevan. It's a shame Bevan didn't get more of a go - and was perceived to be worked out against the shorter stuff. I think he was a quality batsmen and would have made it at Test level. He's a better batsman than Lehmann/Blewett/Law for example I think. So he's an unlucky one in the test arena and will be remembered as such. On top of that his bowling contributions were fantastic. Just imagine having Michael Bevan at six now to stabilise an innings, and then also be a second front line spinner bowling with Lyon…! He had a fantastic strike rate!

Hughes definitely has a test future. I wish they'd pick him at #3 instead of Watson (down the order for him). Hughes needs to be either opening or at #3. I think talk of his average being close to 50 is unrealistic. But something around 41-43 is likely in the long run - similar to Tubby, Slats, Langer, etc. So he can be a long term proposition at the top of the order. The thing about Hughes is he can make big scores - and the only players we have that can really do that are Clarke and Warner right now.

His 81 not out in the First Test in England showed all the toughness in the world.

Neither do his Test figures.

The depth of bowling attack is always diminished at Shield level, even when all have previously played Tests, usually ability to consistently bowl to plans is lacking in at least one of the bowlers, and that can be all it takes. The overall intensity of play is also, generally, diminished, only partly due to the diminished bowling attacks at Shield level. Hughes supporters continue to argue that he is the stand out performer, but this season he is 3rd in total runs scored, with two of his SA team mates 4th (Cooper) and 5th (Head), and 8th in averages, with his team mate Ferguson in 3rd place, hardly a standout.

Everything suggests to me that Hughes is closer to Bevan in technical deficiencies and mental application than Waugh or Clarke. Bevan didn't only miss out because of the competition he was shown to be susceptible to good fast short pitched bowling, not unlike Hughes. Unlike Bevan Hughes has also had a weakness against quality off spin bowling exposed. He should be required to show he has addressed those issue for Australia A against quality opposition before he should be considered again. 17% of all the Test runs Hughes has scored came in his second Test, before oppositions had figured out how to exploit his technical deficiencies. Hughes was given 10 straight Tests opening to make the spot his own, from Dec 2010 to Dec 2011, he averaged 24.05 across 4 series: against England (last 3 Tests averaging 16.16), Sri Lanka (3 Tests avg 40.40), South Africa (2 Tests avg 29.25) and New Zealand (2 Tests avg 10.25). Can he overcome his technical deficiencies? Maybe, but he shouldn't be rushed back. He was rushed into the Australian Test side after only 1.5 seasons of Shield cricket and 3 matches for Australia A/Australians where he scored 124 runs in 5 innings. Rushing him back into the Australian side for the fourth time based purely on Shield form isn't the solution. Simon Katich started Test cricket later than Hughes, spent 2.5 years out of the team remodeling his game and came back to be a vital contributor, Hughes could do worse than look to him for guidance and inspiration.

I would pick Hughes for the Tour of South Africa and stick with him. I'd give him 2 seasons to cement his place in the team and fix his batting against spin. He has been in and out of the team, can't be great for his confidence, pick him and persevere.

I've always considered Phil Hughes to be a very talented batsman but one that had some severe technical downfalls. He has definitely improved regarding his flashing at balls way outside off but he does need to improve his batting to spin. I think he probably has some issues with his mental strength and application. This is probably in part to do with the way he's been in and out and in and out etc. from the test team. I've always thought he needs to spend consecutive first class seasons developing his batting but also his mental toughness before being brought back into the test team. Also I like the current contrast in styles between Rogers and Warner and I think it works well for the team. Until Hughes is rock solid as an opener they should stick with the status quo

Yeah Nudge the point I'm making with regards to Hughes is that he will have to front up to those tough spinners eventually if he wants to stay in the team. With South Africa 1st, he may find form at test level before he gets to those spinners. That way he could use that form to get through or even fight hard for runs on those tours. No point bypassing them just to put him in after and revisit those problems later. If he is good enough, he will make it. If not, we know where he stands. I personally think he can do it, and on current form deserves the go.

I think Andrew, Ronan also made the point that how will Hughes go against Ajmal. So if Hughes came in for the Saffas and had some success then he would be facing Ajmal and a couple of other good spinners on dust bowls. He would have no chance, and then he would be dropped again. Where to for Phil Hughes if that happened? In my view he shouldn't be playing against the Saffas because of what lies ahead. If he is still scoring big runs in the shield at the start of the next Aus summer, and there's a spot, I can see that as a good time

Exactly my point, why are you making excuses for a professional athlete who hasn't performed on the international stage?

Batting out position, poor guy, jeez I wish I could bat out of position for Australia let alone bat. I feel for Watson as well, what's his best position going by statistics? Mate, when you're a professional athlete and wanting to play for your country, you'll play wherever you can. If he's using the excuse of I wasn't playing in position then its no wonder he's not in the team, but I don't recall that being the reason for his downfall.

Hughes is a test opening batsman. That's his job. You can see it in his game. He loves to score runs and plenty of them. He hammers the first class attacks and has often been the victim for getting Watson into the side or making Watson feel comfortable in his batting position. For mine, he'll replace Rogers at some point. It's just how long Rogers survives for. He does have to work on his game but name me one player who doesn't. When in form and confident, I think only Warner is a more destructive batsman.