What’s a Phil Hughes to do?

I don't believe he will be dropped because of a couple of low scores, that can happen to the very best batsman. But if he keeps going out the same way, or if he unravels to the extent you can just about pick the ball he is going to go out on then that will be the end. He is a young cricketer, he can spend a couple of years developing a more complete game and gain confidence from performing well over some time. He should listen to Lehman and learn how to build an innings even when he is a bit scratchy early. Get extremely fit like Mark Taylor and Michael Clarke did and score a triple hundred, if you keep scoring runs you can't be ignored. His ability is widely recognised but he has to demonstrate that he has learned how to harness it. A problem to overcome is the limit on the longer forms of the game and that is a problem for Australian test cricket. Are we going to sacrifice shield cricket with T20 and one day cricket? Will test players be selected on their performances in one day cricket because we don't have enough exposed form in the longer form of the game? Perhaps we need to have Australian A and B sides playing each other in 4 day cricket to give some players a chance to show themselves outside the helter skelter.

I agree that part of the problem is mental and he needs to be confident when he's in the team. The issue is therefore two-fold: 1. If he thinks (as has been the case prior) that one poor Test will be the end of him, he'll never have the self-confidence to succeed and will always be worried about his position in the team rather than just scoring runs. 2. If when he's in form, scoring a tonne of runs as was asked of him, and he's in full confidence, he's not picked, then where does the kid's head space go? Surely right about now he's thinking what the hell do I have to do to get picked again, and doing what they've done to him here will just wreck him mentally.

Yes. He's also not from Tasmania.

Sums up my thoughts perfectly. We will always be left to wonder what Hughes could have done if he wasn't dropped to make up for a misfiring Johnson. Also well said on his latest dropping, again came out of the blue and by the end of the series we had Faulkner playing as a batsmen. Easily the biggest scapegoat going around at the moment. I don't mind him not being picked, given the selectors keep mucking him around it probably is best that he spends a bit of time in shield cricket and uses the time to get a real good understanding of his technique away from the spotlight.

On the pages of Roar for the last 3 years there has been a chorus of punters saying that Mitchell Johnson must never play test cricket again, that he is rubbish and fodder for international batsman. But, as you correctly pointed out, it is the mental, not the talent quotient that is most important element to master to be a success at the top level. Johnson got his confidence up and delivered the series that his God-given talent always suggested he would. I am of the belief that if Hughes is shown the same perseverance that Steve Waugh and David Boon were shown, he would reward the selectors faith by becoming as consistent at test level as he already is at First Class level. The fact is, that other than his horror spell against New Zealand and his premature re-selection against England in 2010/11, he has been treated rather harshly by the NSP.

Well said Vic. Though I think you've been perhaps a little too generous with Hughes past performances, I do agree with the fundamentals of what you are saying. Hughes is a potential test star. He could become anything. You dont average 58 over two 2 Shield seasons and an overall average of 45.5 at the age of 25, with the experience he has had, without being something special. At this stage other than Warner, Clarke and Smith, there just isnt any other batsmen in his age range or older with experience, who is close to his ability. I think he does have some problems still with spin, but I think he's getting better at it. I dont think the nick to slips problem exists any more, so it lacked common sense on the selectors part not to send him to SA where spin is limited and he is experienced against the quicks in that country with several good scores against them. I suspect in a year or two many selectors, prominent commentators, media people and members of the public are going to be eating humble pie over this kid...though few will admit being part of the 'put down Hughes' league by then. Same happened with Warner and then Smith. There is an element called ADAPTATION and the best players learn from it. Warner learned it, Smith learned it, Hughes is learning it, Marsh never learned it, Bailey never learned it, Doolan needs to learn a lot more from it. In any sport its 10% talent and 90% perseverance and adaptation. Seems many commentators think its the other way around.

Let us put a few things into context here. When Hughes burst onto the scene in 2009, he murdered the South Africans. Then the Hughes Ashes controversy. Because the stupidity of the Australian selectors, the myth that "the English have worked Phil Hughes out" was considered fact. But does it stand up to scrutiny? In that first test at Sophia Gardens, Hughes made a typically cavalier 36 before Flintoff got him with a brute of a ball that nearly split him in half. "Aaaah, he doesn't like fast balls at the body!" (Who does?) Still, 36 is hardly a disaster. The next test at Lord's, Hughes was unluckily out caught behind glancing a ball down the leg side (the unluckiest form of dismissal) for 4 runs. In the second innings, Hughes was on 17 and looking ominous when he edged a ball off Flintoff that bounced 3-4 inches in front of Strauss at slip who claimed the catch...watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X46rGWveBBk So that is three completely different forms of dismissal in three innings...so what was Hughes "weakness" that had been found out? The edge to second slip? The leg glance down the leg side which the keeper caught, or the catch at first slip that Strauss did NOT take? Truth be told, Hughes was dropped after Mitchell Johnson's hideous Lord's test when the Oz selectors brought in Shane Watson as extra bowling back up more than anything else. After Lord's Flintoff barely raised a gallop again, Anderson was useless and only Onions was any good. Watson made a series of typically unfulfilling 30-50's before throwing his wicket away and all the while Phil Hughes could have been filling his boots with easy runs, yet he was left to lose confidence on the sidelines. He next played a test on a horrific SCG wicket where Ponting batted first on a green top and ALL Australia's batsmen failed with the exception of Hussey. There after, he next played in New Zealand as a fill in and made a spectacular 86 not out off 70 balls in a run chase of 115. Katich was a spectator at the other end. Hughes was then jettisoned from the team after that innings to make way for the returning Watson. Then the worst thing that could have happened to Hughes happened. He injured his shoulder in England during a county stint, and spent months with his shoulder in a sling and in rehab. The start of that Shield summer, he was horribly out of form averaging only 16. Match was averaging 76 in the only productive season in his life. When Katich went down, Hughes was brought back in when he should not have been. In a struggling team, Hughes was predictably way out of touch and continued his woeful Shield form into the test arena where he struggled to reach 30 in any innings inspite of battling bravely. He was subsequently dropped from the NSW team (while still nominally a member of the test team), but returned by seasons end to post a 90 and a century. This kept him his test place and in Sri Lanka he made an impressive 120 in the last test. In the second test against South Africa he made a blistering 88 (in a series that Hussey made nothing at all). In the next series in November against New Zealand played in green tops, Hughes had his famous caught Guptill bowled Martin episodes and was discarded. Again, Hussey, Ponting etc all failed miserably in that series. India and their pop gun attack arrived on our shores and were plundered for millions of runs...heck, Ponting made his first centuries in two years so bunt was their attack. Phil Hughes would have dominated that Indian attack on those true decks, yet Shaun Marsh played every test and averaged an embarrassing 2 (or something not any better), which is the lowest series average in history for a non tail-end batsman. Hughes next run in the team was against Sri Lanka in Australia last summer where he made 86 and 87 in consecutive tests. Hughes then had a horrible Indian tour (virtually all our batsmen did) and it wasn't until the 3rd test that he finally found some methodology of dealing with the spin and made a typically dashing 69 before he was incorrectly given out (replay's showed he did not get near the ball). The next test he made a 40. First test in England, he makes a fighting and composed 81 not out handling Swan with ease. Only denied a century when he ran out of partners (though Agar was unquestionably heroic). The next innings, Hughes comes in during the middle of a batting collapse late in the day (a regular occurrence in England in 2013) and has to start his innings against spin (his main weakness), even so, the LBW decision against him looked to the naked eye to be missing. The replay showed that a tiny bit of DNA of the ball may have just been touching the leg stump and it was umpires call. The next test at Lord's was a not a good one for Hughes where he was out for 1 and 1...but then in both innings, ALL Australian batsmen had a nightmare. Hughes was dropped never to be seen again. This summer the pitches were not spin friendly (bye bye Swann) and not seam friendly (bye bye Anderson) and would almost certainly have suited Hughes...again when their was easy runs to be had, Hughes was not in the team. We are talking about a batsman in his short career who has posted scores of 75, 115, 160, 86no, 120, 88, 87, 86, 69 and 81no. To highlight just how shabbily this young man has been treated, Hughes was dropped three tests after his double of 115 and 160. Hughes was dropped immediately after his 86no against NZ. After consecutive tests where Hughes made 120 vs SL and 88 vs SA, Hughes was dropped three tests later. After consecutive tests where Hughes made 69, 40 (vs India) and 81no vs Eng, he was dropped one test later! Phil Hughes has never been allowed to settle in the Australian team, unlike some golden children, and has had his confidence severely tested. Having said all that, I believe the best of Phil Hughes is yet to come. At the same age, he averages more than Steve Waugh, Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer, David Boon and a host of other Aussie champions who all got their test start at a young age similarly to Hughes. Phil Hughes must come back in the team and he must open and nothing else.

Don't just go on the statistics, Hughes looked to completely unravel against Swan and you could see he was going to go out before it happened. I am not prepared to write him off though, but he needs to address his technical difficulties and mental toughness. I think he needs a couple of years to do this and the worst thing would be for him to be selected too soon. It is easy to be blinded by statistics, the more one understands numbers, the more one understands their limitations. Two players with identical stats, one you can count on in a tough situation, the other who does well when it doesn't matter.

This is what I am saying, except I think they will go with Doolan at 3 and Marsh is dam lucky to be on tour, as I said up the top Hughes last 3 innings = 2 runs total off 37 balls all out against Swan. It is not as if he got dropped out of the blue. He was scoring plenty of Shield runs then too.

Andrew Jones made 7 Test Hundreds, ever see him bat? New Zealand player. Phil Hughes is ineffective against any sort of spin bowling. His last 3 Test innings all out to Swan 1 run of 21 balls, 1 run of 8 balls 0 runs of 8 balls.

Marsh is lucky to be playing Shield cricket. He is ordinary and has shown virtually zero ability to make runs. He is a failed test payer and a failed sh ield payer

Hughes has played five tests over two series against SA and has an average of 53 against Steyn, Morkel, Philander....he does not need "shielding" against SA. Hughes problems are on raging turners against high class spin. But he isn't on his Pat Mahone there.

Phil Hughes would have to change his game dramatically to be recalled. He has previously made runs at first class level and the failed at international level. He is not technically sound to be a top 3 batsman. When he sprung onto the scene no one knew him but it didn't take them long to work it out. Marsh is my no 3.

Hughes is our next long term opener after Rogers. why should we select him and make him bat down again. The only heartening thing would have been RSA have no quality spinners.So Hughes would be scoring more. Khawaja should be tried at three if Marsh fails. Phase out Watson and pick Moises Hendriques at 6. He s a handy hitter and good seam bowler.

From what I've gathered, Hughes is a nice young man,quite humble and respectful, but that's based on my view. I have never been in a dressing room with him. So regardless of persona aside, his selection becomes based on two things: form domestically & form internationally. Domestically, I would choose him. Internationally, I would not. Even though his average indicate a strong showing against South Africa, since his second one hundred, it all went down hill. His performances against every other opponent were very poor. Hussey and Hayden, two Australian greats had to bide their time and were given an opportunity earlier, respectively. It wasn't until later on, after scoring thousands, and I mean thousands of runs, they were selected. The careers they went on to have... Well we will let history tell that story. I for one have faith in Hughes, but the young bloke has plenty of time on his side. Maybe if he continue his domestic form for another season then pick him, but remember each time he's gone to play internationally,, he's failed.

Marsh was a bad choice but Phil has had his chances and won't get another one.

Rodgers may not be around after the saffa tour. Got a distinct feeling he may well be found wanting.

I think we've debated the next in line on this forum ad infinitum and there have been up to 8-9 options trotted out as replacements for a middle order vacancy. Without having read every single post I think I'm right in saying very few people floated the Shaun Marsh boat. The selectors obviously feel that Hughes has had chances and they want to look elsewhere (before anybody fires off, I don't agree) but looking to Perth is a bloody disgrace. They have found a bloke who is a proven failure and previous discard at test cricket but without the bounce back runs that Hughes has to his name. It simply beggars belief that his form in Shield or previously against the world's limpest pace attack even merits a discussion at the selection table and yet, there he is. It's not just Hughes that should feel robbed; there are more than a handful of young blokes who should expect better from our national selection panel.

I can live with the non-selection of Hughes, given his Test history, but Marsh WTF?