How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[andruid]

Originally Posted by social

A "Jewie" is a fish

Originally Posted by Burgey

Cheers mate - glad you cleared that up for me.

Jewie = Jewfish.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Perhaps consider asking first next time.

Now I know


*runs off and hides*

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by andruid

Now I know


*runs off and hides*

No dramas mate.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

Two. He copped one on the helmet in Harmison's first over.

Justin Langer copped one on the helmet or somewhere on the body in most innings' he played. He was nonetheless a very good player of the short delivery, however.

[Golaxi]

hughes can't even handle harmison. 0 centuries, sorry

[jondavluc]

Originally Posted by golaxi

hughes can't even handle harmison. 0 centuries, sorry

[King Pietersen]

Originally Posted by Richard

Justin Langer copped one on the helmet or somewhere on the body in most innings' he played. He was nonetheless a very good player of the short delivery, however.

Well Hughes didn't play that 1 delivery very well at all. Was short, but not bouncer length, Hughes just read the length wrong completely and tried to duck out of the way when he should definitely been up on his toes playing off the back-foot. It definitely wasn't a matter of just taking a blow because it was a good short one, just played it poorly.

It was early in his innings though, so I'm not reading too much into it, and I've heard talk that he's actually quite a good player of the short ball normally, so hopefully England won't go completely 1 dimensional at him and try and bowl constantly back of a length, especially Jim, he never looks threatening enough when bowling back of a length.

[wfdu_ben91]

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

Well Hughes didn't play that 1 delivery very well at all. Was short, but not bouncer length, Hughes just read the length wrong completely and tried to duck out of the way when he should definitely been up on his toes playing off the back-foot. It definitely wasn't a matter of just taking a blow because it was a good short one, just played it poorly.

It was early in his innings though, so I'm not reading too much into it, and I've heard talk that he's actually quite a good player of the short ball normally, so hopefully England won't go completely 1 dimensional at him and try and bowl constantly back of a length, especially Jim, he never looks threatening enough when bowling back of a length.

Absolutely. He played it poorly, which everyone does with all sorts of deliveries, pretty regularly. Mostly, playing a short ball poorly won't get you out - this time it did.

Most batsmen benefit if bowlers wrongly start to think they have a weakness against short bowling, because they then get preoccupied with that and fail to attack their real weaknesses. England spent over a decade doing that with Stephen Waugh. Let's hope the treatment isn't repeated with Hughes, or anyone else.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

there were enough pies at the other end to keep the pressure off. Onions or Flintoff can bowl a negative line whilst they bounce him from the other end. He played ****house in the first innings not even looking like punishing a half-volley, whereas in SA anything on his leg side he was hitting for 4, England can just throw out a leg side sweeper if he has two main scoring areas, whereas SA didn't because they didn't have a decent plan against him.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Hughes destroyed Steyn and Steyn is twice as good as England's best bowler.

In retrospect, England have a pretty weak bowling attack, so unless he averages under 30 then this series shouldn't affect his potential alltime status considering he destroyed a hostile South African pace attack in bowler-friendly conditions just a few months ago.

Better, yes, twice as good? Not even close. Jimmy & Freddie say hi.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Freddie

Have to be able to walk without breaking your foot to be considered a bowler, sorry.

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Better, yes, twice as good? Not even close. Jimmy & Freddie say hi.

Steyn averages... what? Like 10-12 less runs per wicket then Flintoff & Anderson?

[social]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Steyn averages... what? Like 10-12 less runs per wicket then Flintoff & Anderson?

Anderson is similar to Steyn but not as good or as accurate - he's likely to go the distance more often than not with Hughes

Flintoff will trouble Hughes (and all other batsmen) because of his pace, bounce and accuracy - IMO, that's where his real test will come from

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Have to be able to walk without breaking your foot to be considered a bowler, sorry.

How's Watto?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

How's Watto?

Walking laps of training grounds I hear.

Hence, being a bowler.