Rogers and Hughes to duel for Test spot

I think Rogers has deservedly retained his opening position ahead of Hughes. Always thought Rogers had it in him to give us the goods with his first class average. Though I believe Hughes deserves to be back in the test team, I could not drop Rogers while he is still producing the goods. In Australia he should be a good foil for Warner. In England, he has a proven history of being a prolific scorer on English grounds. There's life in the old guy yet and I think he'll be in the team until after the Ashes tour. Hughes only option in my opinion now is the No 3 position. Interesting to see Burns finally break the shackles and show us what he's got. He has to be also one to watch for the Ashes if he continues that form. And 22 year old Maddinson has finally regained that magical form that saw him explode off the blocks as a 20 year old. Interesting that NSW have shifted him to 2nd drop, which is a much more sensible position for him. He is again one to watch over the Shield season.

I'm warming to him, but not convinced he is quite there. don't want to put him in too early and have another Khawaja-like situation.

Hartley, Ludeman, Whiteman.. in that order. Neville has completely flown under my radar I'm afraid so I have no opinion of him.

Nice banter there Don and Bear, you guys seem to know your stuff, apart from domestic bias (like me pushing Klinger last year!)

I don't think you'll find anyone on this site promoting Shaun Marsh for the Test side. Most, in fact have been vehemently against it. What are you reading? Even I...one of his greatest fans...have suggested he'd have to do a bit to get picked. I just say he is Australia's second best batsman. Doesn't mean I'm recommending him for a Test berth. If he got a game, however, he'd shine.

So using that logic our two best batsmen Warner and Smith were seriously inconsistent in test in 2013. Warners 2013 test scores: 85, 0. 59, 23, 6, 26, 71, 2, 0, 8, 5, 41, 3, 71, 6, 12, 49, 124, 29, 83 no, 60, 112, 9, 25 Smith's 2013 test scores; 92, 5, 46, 18, 53, 17, 2, 1, 89, 19, 17, 2, 138 no, 7, 31, 0, 6, 23 no, 111, 15, 19 Both improved in consistency in 2014 but those figures make Hughes look like a master of consistency. Oh and I use Shaun Marsh because I want to be able to use someone being heavily promoted for tests, whose figures make Hughes look like a master batsmen. Bit of a dig as well.

Of course a success followed by a failure isn't an indicator of consistency. What you are describing is inconsistency. You are just explaining how an average is calculated. We all know that. Both the batsmen you mention are inconsistent. It doesn't have to be a 'one or the other' every time you post. I reckon I would have covered over 50 cricketers in my last month of posts...hardly concentrating on one cricketer. I am concentrating on the questionable validity of how you wave stats as if they indicate absolute cricket knowledge.

Consistency is determined surely by your aggregate score for each match, not just one innings. Scoring a century in one innings and a duck in the next is fine because its to be expected that a batsman wont score every innings and that others share the load. The problem develops when your aggregate contribution for the match is poor. That's what burdens others because the pressure is then on them to contribute more. Hughes aggregate for Shield matches during 2013-14 season were 48, 204, 74, 113, 120, 48 and 180. As a comparison Shaun Marsh's was 46, 17, 127, 53, 5, 113, 40. So far this year Marsh has aggregated 0, 111 and 19 for one innings. Hughes has aggregated 89 and 7 for one innings. Not hard to determine the more consistent batsman. As for indicators for a chanceless or luck based innings, like all things in cricket as an individual score it has little meaning because all sorts of variables occur in cricket. But over time they balance out as with all statistical matters. They only become relevant to you because you are concentrating one one player and therefore are becoming influenced by variables faced by that player while ignoring the problems other will face.

It's time for Joe Burns my friends!

Bearfax...you still haven't addressed the variable of dropped catches or runouts like Bancroft's yesterday that point to hiccoughs on the reliability of stats alone. A batsman who gives chances and is dropped and ends up with a better average that someone who is dismissed by a freak or cops a dud decision or is runout by his batting partner...or is never dropped...tell me, is that batsman better? Is Bancroft unreliable because Fekete got a hand onto a Klinger straight drive? Is Hughes better despite the fact he plays and misses more than most or his miss hits fall into spaces? Do we overlook SOK's stats each time he gets 0/57 off 18 overs?..or 0/66 in the last game and only count the umpire assisted 5 wickets? Stats...Grrr!

A big score every 2 innings is not reliable. A duck and a hundred is not as useful to a team as a 30 and a 70 or a 40 and a 60 (a la David Warner, Steve Smith, Chris Rogers or Michael Clarke) When Hughes gets on a flat track and without pressure...he is very good...but usually dropped 3 or 4 times. Selectors are seeing something that worries them. I suspect it is that, at the next level, he has too many holes in his technique and in his his psyche that the Steyns and Andersons (and in yesterday's match, Siddle) can exploit.

Almost all of those averages relate to the last 2 seasons Don. Only Maddinson has faltered in the past 2 seasons yet still averages consistently in the mid 30s.each year At one stage he was averaging over 40 when aged 20 years

Fair go there Don. No batsman scores more consistently over time that what Hughes did last year. Even the present star of the Australian team went through a period not so long ago when out of 15 innings he was dismissed for under 10, 8 times and under fifty 13 times. The best player Warner scores 50 or more every 2.8 innings. Hughes does it every 2.9, Smith every 3 and Clarke every 3.1. Shaun Marsh does it every 4.5. That's what I mean by reliability

There are 3 failures in 6 innings there. If he scored 77.56 each innings, great...he'd be in the Oz side now. But he DOESN'T score 77.56 each time he bats. He fails too often when a side needs him. Averages do not indicate much.

Fc cricket is his forte. He is an innings builder. He just performs in ODI and T20 because he is that good. I have explained his Test numbers to you before.

We all know the averages...they are available everywhere. Where are the indicators of the chancey innings or the chanceless innings? No cricket selector or captain is EVER going to take into account an average that includes scores from more than 2 seasons ago. That would indicate nothing about a player's form.

Yes...but if the catch was held...different story. He hit the catch.

If that is correct Nic, it just shows that the bar of expectation is far higher for Hughes than it is for other test aspirants. In last years Shield his first innings scores were 25, 204, 7, 103, 118 and 9. He averaged in first innings that season 77.56. No one else came anywhere near that performance

Shaun Marsh is an excellent one day batsman and I agree we could have used him in the ODI match. But with kids aged 21-22 already closing in or exceeding his first class average, his test aspirations are just about gone I'm afraid. If he was still only 25, he may have had a chance but not at 31

Mttch Marsh has his position in the Australian side because he is an all rounder, not purely because of his batting prowess. His batting has been improving markedly but he is still well behind a couple of batsmen only his own age and it is averages that show this Mitch Marsh averages 29.27 Bancroft is on the rise at 29.52..younger and has played fewer games than Mitch. Good prospect Maddinson averages 36.5 and is several months younger with similar number of games Head averages 29.76 and is 2 years younger Patterson averages 34.2 and is a year younger Silk averages 39.28 and is several months younger As you can see there are some interesting up and comers coming through. Silk seems likely to be a test opener, is slightly younger than Marsh, and has an average 10 runs better. So Mitch as a batsman only is well down the list of even those his age. Not to say he wont improve markedly and looks test material. But it needs to be seen in perspective. We have at least half a dozen bright young batsmen vying for future test roles.