The hysteria of whitewashing England in the Ashes was enough to overlook the possibility of Alex Doolan’s inclusion in the XI for the fifth Test.
The inclusion of Doolan’s name in the squad highlighted Phil Hughes’ plight, raising questions of why he was not the first cab off the rank.
It seemed a no-brainer when one factored in Hughes’ 2013 average of 61 with two centuries and one double from nine Sheffield Shield innings this season in comparison to Doolan’s average of 39.1 with just one century.
It made one think that Hughes’ figures are currently irrelevant, with the Australian selectors applying a higher judgement to him.
Their focus seems to be on the flaws in his game that they are adverse to trust in the interim, rather than take a leap of faith to show support for a player with undoubted talent.
Hughes’s exclusion from the Test team seems to point more and more towards a lack of faith shown in him by Australian head coach Darren Lehmann, who perhaps sees him as very able in the standard below Test level but without the current game to deal with the eclectic challenges of the Test arena.
Of course, I am reading into the situation without facts, but allow me to show evidence of smoke to give credibility of supposed fires.
Consider the Lehmann quote to explain Hughes’ dropping after the second Ashes Test in England: “Because of a failure to convert good starts into big hundreds.”
As an Aussie fan, one could be forgiven for taking this reasoning as a bit of a joke considering all of the Aussie top six outside of Michael Clarke have struggled with converting starts.
One just had to look at Shane Watson, who at the time had not turned a start into a big score in 45 innings, to gain a chuckle. It also represented a bitter pill for Hughes to swallow considering he had the highest score of an unbeaten 81.
Even now, with Hughes having a century strike rate of one in every three innings in the Shield this season, he’s overlooked.
Which again makes one question why.
On top of being recently overlooked for Alex Doolan, he was burning it up in the lead-up to the first Ashes test in Brisbane, only to have George Bailey preferred to him on the back of his stellar ODI form.
Even when Bailey struggled throughout the Ashes series, averaging 26.1 against a tepid English attack, Hughes’ name was never aggressively pushed forward as a replacement.
As we look forward to the naming of the Australian squad for South Africa, it in essence represents a fork in the road of Hughes’ career.
His present figures, coupled with his previous success in South Africa, should make him a virtual certainty.
Supporting him further is the pace-dominated South African attack which, although of the highest quality, he has conquered before.
Lastly, the absence of a quality spinner to test his noted weakness against the slow men facilitates his chances to succeed.
If not chosen, the only conclusion is that the Australian selectors have turned their backs on him.
Dan
Guest
I still think Khawaja is the next best batsmen at test level. Give him as many chances as Steve Smith and we may see him convert to the great player he definitely has the potential to be. He may be a 3 or 4 but let him play a whole series at 6 and then judge him. Who has a better technique in the shield? Bailey is great for one-dayers but really, for test top 6? Why is the Big bash going on so long - should be played over 3/4 weeks from 20 Dec to 20 Jan. Surely players only need a day or twos break. No shield cricket makes it almost impossible for players to press their claims for tour selection.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Yes, what really is he basis of Selection, and what propels it, certainly is an interesting chat
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I agree James, that is what it has come too for Hughes, as I said in the write up , it seems 'a higher judgement is being applied to him'
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
North is a valid form and what he brings, but it is hardly progressive, considering his age
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
agree Tinfoil, in fact I can see all, bar Clarke having their pants pulled down
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Last time I looked JGK, Hughes has been an opener in name alone, and expected to be every thing else. So, If Doolan , who is a top 3 batsman was going to be slotted in at 5/6 to accommodate Twatto, why could not Hughes have been given first chance at it?
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
The Watson inclusion to convey that point Don is a bit of a curve ball by I, but it has greater credibility when you take into account that for most of those innings, Watson did not bowl. Plus I could have used Smith or Khawaja to highlight the 'discrimination' against Hughes
Chris Widjaja
Roar Rookie
Don't you remember his 80-odd batting with Agar? That was his only start at #6 and seems lencouraging
ozinsa
Guest
What an arrogant, stupid opinion. Whether he has under-performed against his early promise or not, he is patently not rubbish. Two centuries against the best fast attack in world cricket as a 21yo ain't rubbish. Average under 35 for North Sydney 4th/5th grade is rubbish. Flaying Dale Steyn is not.
ozinsa
Guest
Really disagree with this. Hughes is an out and out opener. His go-to shots are best suited to playing quicks. If 1/2/3 is injured/retired/dropped then I'd expect he's in the discussion for a replacement. if we shake up the order to fit him in to replace somebody batting at 6 then we weaken the side to accommodate him
Jeremy Shrubb
Roar Rookie
One question. Would you rate Mitchell Johnson a world class bowler? Because Hughes had to bat to him in the early shield season, among others. Despite this Hughes still managed to score runs. I can see how this supports your argument that Hughes is susceptible to pace bowling.
Jeremy Shrubb
Roar Rookie
You are wrong. Hughes has in fact scored a mountain of shield runs. On point 2 i believe the answer is; its not how you get them, its how many.
Luke Smyke
Roar Pro
I prefer North, more experience, in just as good a form as Hughes and has a pretty decent test record with a far less susceptible technique at the highest level... plus he provides a useful second spinning option.
Andrew
Guest
Agree with you totally on this 1 James. Hughes should take the number 3 spot and Watson to 6. Funny how some people say he keeps nicking off due to a swinging ball, Watson still can't get the inswinger off his front pad and he still gets to bat at 3. Watson wouldn't even make the team if he didn't bowl. At least if Hughes was at 3 for more than one or two tests, Watson can have Bailey's spot and hit freely higher in the order. Which is how Watson plays best anyway and then gets to rest more between batting and bowling. Once Hughes gets time in the team, he can then be moved into Rogers spot post his retirement and guys like Lynn can have more time in shield to develop and get into a number 3 spot or whichever is available by then.
jameswm
Guest
You're saying there is no decent off spin bowling in the Shield. In fact there are two - one plays tyests and the other plays for Hughes's state, so he doesn't have to face him. You're saying he can't prove himself in Shield because there are no good spinners, so he can never prove he has improved. That means he can never be picked again. Did you see the ODI series in India? Hughes played Ashwin pretty well. He'd have never seen anything like Ashwin in India before. Good to see he learned and improved. He learned about playing forward and back. Note Rogers and Khawaja struggled just as much as Hughes did.
jameswm
Guest
How could he do worse than Bailey? Did Bailey even pass 40 once in a first innings, on home pitches, against so so test bowling? He can't do any worse. I agree Bailey is the only one in the top 6 he could replace, but Bailey surely has to go. He's at his peak and still has serious flaws. Why persist and hope for the best from an ordinary FC cricketer aged 32? I don't see the point. if you're not going to pick Hughes, then pick any of Silk, Maddinson, Lynn or Burns to bat 6. Needless none f them have been anywhere near Hughes in Shield cricket for the last two years, but then again they haven't failed at test cricket before. Any of them would have scored more runs than Bailey last series, too.
Nick
Roar Guru
Hick was probably unfairly judged because he hit 400 in a county game. People probably expected the world from him after that point.
Nick
Roar Guru
...and him failing abjectly in India when given a full series to play. Yep, that domination in the 2012-2013 season paid off handsome dividends against the Indian spinners. There has been no indication, even in the shield that he has resolved any of his problems against decent - and I stress decent - spin bowling.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Just on old Hicky, he went through a solid period mid career and generally did well, despite getting dropped at the merest pretence. Other times he was in good form but ignored. His record against Australia was quite respectable in hard times until he had a poor tour toward the end when he got selected despite being a bit past it.
Nick
Roar Guru
I'm cherry picking the bowlers that he has struggled against (or the selectors thought he would struggle against re: philander and morkel) as these are the bowlers that are still very much active in test cricket and he would be guaranteed to be facing them again. These are worldclass bowlers who Hughes will have to face, not second tier bowlers. 3 of these bowlers (Steyn, Philander and Ashwin) would be walks in in ANY test team. I can't show you anyone else who has averaged near him in the shield...I don't dispute that. But against the current XI, he can only realistically replace Bailey, and to be honest, I'm doubtful that he would do any better than Bailey. Yes, Hughes has an ordinary average in the same way as Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc. Those three paid the price for it for 5 years too. Better to persist and hope for the best with Bailey than hope Hughes comes good at last...only if the team is genuinely suffering with Bailey should Hughes be contemplated. I've watched 3 games. Against genuine worldclass bowlers his technique would still be exposed. He is not moving his feet enough, and his drives are still awfully horizontal.