Alex Doolan must debut at 6, not 3

Hughes has plenty of other problems with his technique apart from nicking balls to slip and being suspect against spin. He is the only left handed batsman that I can remember that can't play off his legs. The legside is where left handers get their easy runs by whipping the ball off their legs or by hooking and pulling. The poms showed that you can strangle Hughes by denying him wide balls outside off stump for his favourite cut shot and by targeting his pads and body to restrict his scoring shots. Dale Steyn admitted after Hughes' first series in SA that they got their bowling lines all wrong to Phil Hughes by bowling too wide outside off stump. After they worked that out, he has struggled ever since. I know Hughes has tried to improve his leg side shots but it doesn't come naturally to him with his horrible technique. Hughes still scores runs in first class cricket because he gets enough loose balls to drive and cut. That doesn't happen in test cricket.

I certainly didn't say that he was test calibre .But who is test calibre until given the chance. Lehman waited along time because of his relaxed style. My only point is that no-one should debut at 3. With the exception of openers, the class batsmen start their test career at five or six and work there way up the order.

And yet sometimes its the best move to send a rookie in to a test if only to give them a taste and see how they go. Rugby League does it all the time in SOO and it raises the standard of most players who play SOO early. In Rugby League Cherry-Evans was playing junior football two years ago and is now touted as the next test half back, following recent test series. And Steve Smith probably benefited greatly in being put into a test series when aged 21. Probably shaved a year or two off the time it took for him to establish himself as a test player. Then again Hughes may have been put into test cricket too early, though I'm certain he'll be back and maybe it taught him about his weaknesses earlier than would usually have occurred.. I think sometimes you have to take the gamble. I wonder what South Africa will do with their wonder kid De Kock, aged 21 in the coming series. And England's Joe Root debuted before his 22nd birthday. Personally I hope they do pick young Maddinson for South Africa, even if as a reserve. He may be flashy, but he knows how to score runs better than Bailey and even Doolan.

Agree with Vince about Maddinson. He's a flash Harry at present. I can't see that going to SA would be much good for him, he's still finding his feet at first class level.

'Fraid I'll have to challenge again Ronan. Unless you're an established opener, like Hayden was and Rogers is, I feel that any new batsman should not have to face the fury that awaits them in SA. Most new batsmen play at 4, 5 or 6 to start to give them a chance to settle in. Quite frankly I suspect Doolan wont be up to the challenge, but I'll reserve judgement on him because he's still just young enough to come good. But give him a decent chance to settle in further down the line up instead of exposing him to No 3 post, which I suspect would crucify him.

Felix. Hughes is easily test standard. he just needs to believe it himself.

Michael makes a good point it is very hard I think in all sports to throw a rookie in the toughest place on the paddock. Look at Rugby League Halfback experiments have ended in disaster and sometimes end of careers. American Football usually the Quarterback has some blooding to name a few why should cricket be any different. In some cases it has worked but my thinking is that they would be in the minority.

This is not about other people so much as it is about Hughes and his self belief. Batsmen dont average 58 in Shield cricket over 2 years unless they have something special. Its not a fluke. This kid has the qualities. Its just a matter of him taking control of his mind and game in the test arena. He's addressed the slips catch issue and SA have no serious spin bowlers. Who would you choose for another go.

But it then comes down to who do you pick? I've already mentioned the problems with those in contention. Doolan looks technically sound but with a loose style which explains his mediocre FC average. He may succeed, but I suspect he'll be found out more than Hughes. Might even start on fire but once the Steyns and Philanders work him out, his present average and style will debilitate him. The problem as I see it is that no matter who is put in of the contenders, they are all going to be test novices and are going to most likely eventually fail, because that's what happens to batsmen when they first enter test cricket. They have to work through their demons, and yes often get dropped several times and sent back to Shield to work on their game further. But that doesnt mean you dont select them again, no matter how many times they are dropped. If they are succeeding at Shield level, they have the strong potential to succeed at test level. Some players fail, then succeed, then fail again when another flaw is found. The great Greg Chappell at the height of his game for example went through a period against the West Indies of 11 innings where he average 14.4 runs. It happens. A weakness is found and exploited all through a batsman's career. For Hughes it was nicking to slips (which Watson does just as regularly) and problems with the best spin of the Indians and Swan, which every Australian batsman had problems with. So who do you pick. The case for Hughes he seems to have addressed the snicking to slips problem with a change in stance. He handles fast bowling easily, its the snicking that was his problem. Then there is the spin bowling. Well the jury is still out of that one. He seems better at it. But the cruncher is that South Africa have no serious spin bowlers, so that danger doesnt seem to exist. I think I'd take someone who has been through the gauntlet and seems to be coming out the other side, rather than start again with someone new who we know will struggle at first for a couple of series, especially given Warner and Smith despite their big improvements, are still inconsistent and Watson will probably be found out against such fast accurate bowlers. Not a time to experiment yet again I would think. Hughes may fail, but I suspect he is more likely to succeed in this series than any of the contenders.

Bearfax, Hughes has been tried at test level, and lo and behold he is still back plying his trade in Shield. As I mentioned earlier, he is in a period where he is clearly the most dominant first class batsman getting around, that is undeniable, but he is also undeniably no where near test standard. The man has played 26 tests, 26! That's astonishing. Most have been dropped and marked NTPFAA by then, yet he is outplaying all the others domestically, yet cannot make the step up when given the opportunity. Quite simply, he does not have the mental game to handle it, and his technical flaws seem to be exposed as a result. It's time to let someone else have a crack at the team and see if they can make the leap that Steve Smith appears to have.

Spot on here regarding Phil Hughes here Westie. There is NO denying his stats in FC cricket and his successes in Shield. He has been offered ample opportunities to prove himself, men of twice his calibre have played one-third of his tests, yet he still gets mentioned far too often. Mentally he must not have what it takes to make the step up to test match cricket any more. He burst on to the scene and now he's been up and down to the team more times than Boof to the bar. He's in a fortuitous period too, if he was 10-15 years older his average would put him in a mix of about 7 or so quality domestic players who never played test cricket. I think it's time we all stopped stroking the Phil Hughes bat and looked elsewhere.

Chris, Maddinson is in fact a slogger who struggles to temper himself in the first class game. He's oft been undone playing rash shots in the long form, he's an aggressive batsman who doesn't yet know how to find flow and tempo when an innings doesn't have an over limit. He tried to temper it back in the last two years, said that didn't work, so now he's going hell for leather.

It's uncommon for players to find another gear and unshackle their first class habits against international quality. If Stokes can grind out a few more big knocks, his average will jump up to the mid 40's very quickly given his small sample space. At 6 or 7, he's a damned valuable cricketer in my opinion.

Fair enough, he's 28, so I suppose he's of the middling brigade, a couple years older than Hughes and one older than Kawaja.

Michael Di Venuto was a Tasmanian batsmen who was not good enough to play for Australia. Now he is the batting coach, Alex Doolan or George Bailey (players without significant first class records) are being put forward to play for Australia. Stuart Law played once for Australia, and he was 20 times better than either Doolan or Bailey. Six fingers might make you a better a slips fielder, but they don't make you a better a batsman.

What has Doolan done to deserve a spot in the test team if Boof picks on form as he claims?

Most of the English commentators think he is a spot too high at 6, and his FC stats and test record would argue for that as well.

As true as your analysis of Hughes history may be, I suspect, if he retains half the victim mentality of his proponents he's in big trouble..

Nobody denies that on pure Shield stats Hughes would be one of the first picked, the complication is that Hughes has been selected based on similar stats, on more than one occasion, before, but has been exposed, on more than one occasion, with markedly different bowling. To me, it is illogical that, given Hughes history, to once again select him based purely on similar Shield stats.

Good Articke, khawaja should have also batted at 6 and if he was given a full series like bailey he would be established, I agree that Doolan if he plays should bat at 6