Daniel Hughes puts his hand up for baggy green recognition

Wow, so much love for Kurt Patterson! I really don't know what to say to you gentleman, other then 50's do not win Test Matches! Hundreds have always, and will always be the currency of repute. While there is great merit in selecting a batsman of Kurtis age who is showing promise, let us not fall into the trap of believing in the Tooth Fairy. Sometimes I wonder about the comments I read, especially when they come from otherwise knowledgeable people, but it is an accepted FACT that the higher one bats in the order, the better batsman one is. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in selecting an opener with a similar average to a middle order player (SS averages, of course), as long as they have demonstrated an ability to bat down the order as well (some batsman get nervous waiting to bat, and are much better at the top of the order). Ordinarily, such an approach will yield higher retuens than selecting a middle order player over a similarly performed opener. Particularly when the middle order player doesn't convert his starts. While Daniel Hughes is 29 years of age, he is a relative newcomer to Shield cricket, a late bloomer if you will. His progress has been steady, and thankfully for N.S.W., it has been steady improvement. He also regularly converts his starts into 100's - 2 this season already. Contrast that to a chap like Joe Burns, who has already been given an extended run in the Test side, and has an average of... wait for it... 36! And this is the guy you all want to select! I mean, honestly, my dears, you must all be on the turps, or L.S.D., or something really groovy if you believe Burns is the answer. The other batsman I hear people calling for is Matt Renshaw. While obviously a batsman of great promise, Matt's form this season has been simply horrendous. In fact, there is an almost symbiosis between Renshaw and Finch - both are so out of form I'm not sure if you asked them to pick up their bat they would even be able to find it. Yet one is in the Test side, and the other is regularly mentioned as a possible inclusion. Funny stuff....

We need consistency, he doesn't have it. Everyone is begging for someone to lead this batting attack similar to how Mike Hussey and Steve Smith did it.

Burns yes, but Ferguson has missed his chance. I cant see him being selected, too old.

Well said. One off scores are getting hyped too much these days. One innings proves little. Burns deserves to be next.

Or one good innings...

Ferguson has been very ordinary this season

Burns and Ferguson are still the next fellas in the team, they have the experience and recent form. They also play proper long form cricket and don't treat it like a T20.

You know, Jack Edwards scored a hundred earlier this summer, maybe he should be selected? Nick Larkin may only have a first class average in the 20's, but hey, he's scored two centuries this season. Test player! Come on, seriously. Every time some player clearly not good enough for test cricket scores a hundred we shouldn't be suddenly clamouring for their selection! Yes, we are in desperate need of some good batsmen, but pushing forward players with a long term history of mediocrity on the back of having scored a hundred this week is hardly the solution to that.

Agreed Don. "Hughes has taken over the running from Queenslanders Joe Burns, and Matt Renshaw". Are you a selector now David? Oh please sir, peddle your wares back in England matey. Australia looking down the barrell of a MAMMOTH loss in the test, just as i predicted a week ago.

"Hughes has been knocking on the door for the last two seasons with 543 runs at 36.20 in 2016-2017, with a century, and four half-centuries. He was more comprehensive last season with 661 at 43.31 without a century, but four half-centuries with a top score of 98*." Geez, if that's all it takes to be "knocking on the door" Australia is in real trouble with it's batting depth.

Joe Burns is next in line for the opening position, not another player from NSW who has 2 good innings before getting hyped by the media.

What? Burns also averaged 55 last season too. He is clearly the best opening option.

Certainly I think Burns is better than Finch or Harris. But he is now 29 and should have improved after getting himself into the test side. Instead he went backwards for a time and though his average this year of 44.6 so far is an improvement, does that justify selection ahead of someone like Patterson who at 25 has a better overall average at 25 and a better average this year. I wouldn't be upset by his reselection but I think we need to give someone who is showing better averages and is 4 years younger, a go.

Joe Burns should be the next opener selected.

Yes Hughes is having a good season so far but it seems one batsmen whose average is only bettered by Warner, Smith, Maxwell and Khawaja, and a shade under Shaun Marsh who is 10 years older, seems totally ignored by media people and selectors. Kurt Patterson is only aged 25, but has been for a couple of years now the main stay of the NSW batting line up while Smith and Warner are away. He's played all the way down the order including opener and this year has scores of 17, 12, 63, 50, 56, 0 not out, 9, 107 not out, 43 and 45 and is averaging 47.8 this season. He seems to consistently score between 40-60 and this is apparently why he's been ignored because he hasn't converted scores to centuries enough, despite being one of the most consistent scorers in the Shield. He averages in Shield better than four of the present test batsmen and is neck and neck for averages with S. Marsh. Yet he's not even mentioned. Seems media and selectors again have their favourites, not based on superior performances. I went through this same issue with Smith, Warner and Khawaja years ago when their performances were being ignored. What about selecting based on performance rather than preference.

What's curious about this angle David, is not the raising of Daniel Hughes as a Test prospect (he was mentioned last year, and even earlier this season), but that in going for Hughes, you've ignored his opening partner Nick Larkin. And why do I bring this up? Well... To date, this Shield season: Hughes 462 @ 46.2, 2 x 100s 2 x 50s HS 134 (v SA currently - also 116 v Qld) Larkin 494 @ 49.4, 2 x 100s, 1 x 50 (HS 175* v Qld, also 109 v SA in this game) The point being that Hughes has been more than matched by Larkin this season, and their partnership has been very productive this summer. Further, they both played a Futures League together game before the Shield season began, put on an opening stand of 240 when Hughes was out for 115, but Larkin went on to make 205. In fact, this current game against SA is the first time this summer where Larkin hasn't been the senior partner when they've put on a big opening stand. It's great that other openers around the country are making runs, but it's a better discussion when everyone is considered... (As an aside, Kurtis Patterson now has 400+ Shield runs at better than 50, though is currently not out in Sydney. High scores this summer: 107* 63 56 50. And I wouldn't have him anywhere near the Test side...)

Seeing this posted I had to put in my own 5 cents. The Finch issue is easily fixed, the bloke ain't no Opener in Australia or England pitches, CA need to pull their heads in and listen to the Vics for once on this As for dropping any player after one Test please give yourself an uppercut a few times, wait least til the 2nd Test is over If spin will be an issue this series, sadly Maxwell would have to come in for the 3rd Test and know that idea will piss off some but frankly he's one of our best from a small pool of players And yes Marsh snr must be dropped if he fails in the 2nd Test, all he is doing is hurting the team right now

This article is not a summary of Australia's 'dire straits. It is a summary of David Lord.

David Let's leave Hughes alone. Let him play for NSW for the rest of the shield season and then evaluate. He is a solid player. Test standard, I am not sure. Too often we pick players on the back of one or two good knocks. We should be picking players on the back of a couple of good seasons. Anyway, the selectors need to bring back Burns and persist with him this time.

Yep, much rather they go back to Burns first, who has been hard done by multiple times.