• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's because Anderson was 100% hopeless until last summer and hasn't exactly been the most fortunate bowler you'll see since then. Steyn of 2005/06 onwards is clearly better so far by miles but there are circumstances under which I think the Anderson of summer-2008-onwards could possibly now outdo him. Those circumstances, however, are going to be relatively rare ones, thus meaning overall Steyn is likely to continue to be overall more effective.
I'm a little reluctant to call swing bowlers unlucky for the amount batsmen play and miss them because it generally shows they're bowling too short. If he was getting dropped all over the place like Sidebottom in 2007 it would be a different story.

Anderson has only looked like he'd probably be able to tear apart a top-class batting lineup in the past year. Dale Steyn has done it.

Although i don't mean to argue, because i know you broadly agree.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm a little reluctant to call swing bowlers unlucky for the amount batsmen play and miss them because it generally shows they're bowling too short. If he was getting dropped all over the place like Sidebottom in 2007 it would be a different story.
Sometimes, he has been. I too am reluctant to call, well, any bowlers really, unlucky for getting constant play-and-misses, because as I've noted, the best bowlers also get that all the time, but they still get the figures in the end. If you're eliciting irregularly-common play-and-misses you need to bowl fuller and, most of all, straighter. Because a play-and-miss to a straight ball = out. Steyn, as a matter of fact, has been something of a master of this in recent times.

But there have certainly been a couple of occasions of late where Anderson has done all he can be expected to and the fielders\Umpires have let him down.
Anderson has only looked like he'd probably be able to tear apart a top-class batting lineup in the past year. Dale Steyn has done it.

Although i don't mean to argue, because i know you broadly agree.
Anderson has done it - he just hasn't done it as often (anywhere near so in fact) as Steyn has. Anderson has done it a couple of times, Steyn eight or nine.
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
:huh:

Not from what I've seen of him. But maybe he's appeared more on your TV's since he started his county stint. I think some people confuse ****y with confident though. If he wasn't confident he wouldn't be there.
Nah, he's ****y & it'll get worse unless we give him a lesson.

Tendulkar is confident.

I don't mind ****iness, hell Pietersen is a ****y bastard too.

But Hughes is as ****y after only 3 tests & some big innings against mediocre bowlers.


How is he ****y? He was saying yesterday that he was hoping to be in the Ashes squad, ffs.

Edit: As above.
Yeah because players ALWAYS say publicly what they're thinking privately. 8-)


He may not have faced the "quality" of these (english:laugh:)bowlers, but he has performed in almost every match he has ever played; and most of these matches were played against Australian bowlers. Is my memory a little hazy or has it not been proven again and again and again and again over at least 20 years (and for most of the last 100 years) that Australian bowlers are of a higher "quality"?
Against Aussie state bowlers, most of whom aren't too good and wouldn't get a test place in your second XI. Let's not kid ourselves.

Also, what does the past have to do with the present?

As far as I know, Lillee, Thomson, McGrath, Gillespe, Warne have all retired. Or is my memory a bit hazy?

And come on, If you saw Anderson's bowling over the last 18 months you'd concede he is 1 quality bowler nowadays. I'd take Mitchell Johnson over him all things considered, but Anderson is WAY above any other Aussie bowler of the present so Hughes WILL be tested.

And, btw- I'm a Phillip Hughes fan. He showed great character in South Africa. But Matthew Hayden only averaged 34.50 in England and in 2001 & 2005, he was far more acomplished a batsman than Hughes is atm.
 
Last edited:

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, he's ****y & it'll get worse unless we give him a lesson.

Tendulkar is confident.

I don't mind ****iness, hell Pietersen is a ****y bastard too.

But Hughes is as ****y after only 3 tests & some big innings against mediocre bowlers.




Yeah because players ALWAYS say publicly what they're thinking privately. 8-)
Well, that's certainly a convincing argument. If you're going to attack the guy's character, at least back it up with some kind of evidence.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, he's ****y & it'll get worse unless we give him a lesson.

Tendulkar is confident.

I don't mind ****iness, hell Pietersen is a ****y bastard too.

But Hughes is as ****y after only 3 tests & some big innings against mediocre bowlers.




Yeah because players ALWAYS say publicly what they're thinking privately. 8-)




Against Aussie state bowlers, most of whom aren't too good and wouldn't get a test place in your second XI. Let's not kid ourselves.

Also, what does the past have to do with the present?

As far as I know, Lillee, Thomson, McGrath, Gillespe, Warne have all retired. Or is my memory a bit hazy?

And come on, If you saw Anderson's bowling over the last 18 months you'd concede he is 1 quality bowler nowadays. I'd take Mitchell Johnson over him all things considered, but Anderson is WAY above any other Aussie bowler of the present so Hughes WILL be tested.

And, btw- I'm a Phillip Hughes fan. He showed great character in South Africa. But Matthew Hayden only averaged 34.50 in England and in 2001 & 2005, he was far more acomplished a batsman than Hughes is atm.


Too late.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, he's ****y & it'll get worse unless we give him a lesson.

Tendulkar is confident.

I don't mind ****iness, hell Pietersen is a ****y bastard too.

But Hughes is as ****y after only 3 tests & some big innings against mediocre bowlers.
:laugh:

Looks like he's not the only ****y one. You've got every reason to be though I suppose....

Just out of interest...how do you know what he's saying privately?
 

Trumpers_Ghost

U19 Cricketer
Against Aussie state bowlers, most of whom aren't too good and wouldn't get a test place in your second XI. Let's not kid ourselves.
sounds correct even if it means sfa.
I'll do the math: 6 teams of 4 bowlers makes 24+ 6 Aussie bowlers = pool of 30. 4 are teamates and 3 teamates play internationally. So opposition pool = 23. 3 of these play for Australia, which leaves 4 to be chosen for "A" team (of which I'd open with BA Barachus and the Hanibal). 4/20= 1/5

So you are corect, 4fifths of the bowlers are not good enough to play for Australia A. but probably would be good enough to play for england, who'll pick just about anyone.

My point being that you have to be damn good to be bowling in First class cricket in Australia; even gives you a 30% chance of representing Aus (in A team or higher) and saying that their not good enough to get in Aus A team means sfa.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And come on, If you saw Anderson's bowling over the last 18 months you'd concede he is 1 quality bowler nowadays.
Anderson has bowled well of late, but you're making him sound like the best thing to come out of England since Grand Designs.

Come to think of it, he just might be...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So you are corect, 4fifths of the bowlers are not good enough to play for Australia A. but probably would be good enough to play for england, who'll pick just about anyone.
If you're not good enough to play for Australia you're not good enough to play for England. Test-class bowler is Test-class bowler whoever you're playing for. Amjad Khan may have been picked for England but he wasn't good enough to be picked for England. Just because England may mistakenly pick loads of nothing bowlers doesn't mean they're all good enough to be picked.
 

Trumpers_Ghost

U19 Cricketer
If you're not good enough to play for Australia you're not good enough to play for England. Test-class bowler is Test-class bowler whoever you're playing for. Amjad Khan may have been picked for England but he wasn't good enough to be picked for England. Just because England may mistakenly pick loads of nothing bowlers doesn't mean they're all good enough to be picked.
I won't get into the what I may consider laughable about that statement in its enitirety, except to say that I was mainly having a dig at the English selectors for picking rubbish bowlers (Pattinson anyone).

cheers
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you're not good enough to play for Australia you're not good enough to play for England. Test-class bowler is Test-class bowler whoever you're playing for. Amjad Khan may have been picked for England but he wasn't good enough to be picked for England. Just because England may mistakenly pick loads of nothing bowlers doesn't mean they're all good enough to be picked.
I'd go as far as to say that Bichel or Kasper would have got a game for England when they were 12th man or missing out for Australia so that statement's not entirely true. Some countries will have a wealth of talent in one area at some stages when others are struggling. Just like the Aussies would have loved some of the left over Windies quicks in the 80's I'd imagine.
 
Last edited:

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
Well, that's certainly a convincing argument. If you're going to attack the guy's character, at least back it up with some kind of evidence.
Are you thick or something?

Even for an Aussie.

It's abundently clear he's ****y- but then Australian modest = everyone else's ****y so it's all relative.


Nah he's ****y, because I said so.

Or something
No, because it's abudently clear to anyone with a 3-figured IQ.




Too late.
That's clever, did you think of that by yourself?


:laugh:

Looks like he's not the only ****y one. You've got every reason to be though I suppose....

Just out of interest...how do you know what he's saying privately?
THINKING privately.

It's just what sportsmen do.

1 example, Adam Gilchrist never said anything about Muralidaran's action being suspect while he was playing and the second he retires from international cricket, he admits he was thinking it.

Are you really that naive to think what people say on camera is the truth?


sounds correct even if it means sfa.
I'll do the math: 6 teams of 4 bowlers makes 24+ 6 Aussie bowlers = pool of 30. 4 are teamates and 3 teamates play internationally. So opposition pool = 23. 3 of these play for Australia, which leaves 4 to be chosen for "A" team (of which I'd open with BA Barachus and the Hanibal). 4/20= 1/5

So you are corect, 4fifths of the bowlers are not good enough to play for Australia A. but probably would be good enough to play for england, who'll pick just about anyone.

My point being that you have to be damn good to be bowling in First class cricket in Australia; even gives you a 30% chance of representing Aus (in A team or higher) and saying that their not good enough to get in Aus A team means sfa.
Na, Aussie state bowlers are everybit as bad as our career county bowlers. No county/state cricket without it's international players is any good.

Don't sugar coat Aussie state cricket. It's everybit as bad as our county stuff, the difference is English people admit it.


Anderson has bowled well of late, but you're making him sound like the best thing to come out of England since Grand Designs.

Come to think of it, he just might be...
Anderson has bowled excellent of late. Anyone who knows anything about swing bowling would agree. The fact he bowled on dead wickets in the West Indies in the winter has messed up his stats.

When you take into account that people equate a batsman's average of 45 being the "old" 40, you have to take off 5 runs from the bowler's average to be consistent.

While Anderson doesn't have Steyn or Johnson stats (and I'm pretty sure I never said he was a world beater, just that he'll test all batsmen in England when it swings) his stats are very good nevertheless.

Have a guess at what the WORST thing to come out of England is...

* A clue. It begins with an "A" and rhymes with Bostralia. :laugh:
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Are you thick or something?

Even for an Aussie.

It's abundently clear he's ****y- but then Australian modest = everyone else's ****y so it's all relative.




No, because it's abudently clear to anyone with a 3-figured IQ.




That's clever, did you think of that by yourself?




THINKING privately.

It's just what sportsmen do.

1 example, Adam Gilchrist never said anything about Muralidaran's action being suspect while he was playing and the second he retires from international cricket, he admits he was thinking it.

Are you really that naive to think what people say on camera is the truth?




Na, Aussie state bowlers are everybit as bad as our career county bowlers. No county/state cricket without it's international players is any good.

Don't sugar coat Aussie state cricket. It's everybit as bad as our county stuff, the difference is English people admit it.




Anderson has bowled excellent of late. Anyone who knows anything about swing bowling would agree. The fact he bowled on dead wickets in the West Indies in the winter has messed up his stats.

When you take into account that people equate a batsman's average of 45 being the "old" 40, you have to take off 5 runs from the bowler's average to be consistent.

While Anderson doesn't have Steyn or Johnson stats (and I'm pretty sure I never said he was a world beater, just that he'll test all batsmen in England when it swings) his stats are very good nevertheless.

Have a guess at what the WORST thing to come out of England is...

* A clue. It begins with an "A" and rhymes with Bostralia. :laugh:
Oooohhhh! We've got one of the snidey ones!

This'll be fun.

So, anyway, how do you know what Hughes is THINKING privately? Are you a clairvoyant? Have you been reading tea leaves? The wrapper of a deep-fried lard sandwich? Or the perfectly intact end of a 3 year old toothbrush that's never been in contact with horrifically crooked teeth?

You won't fool anyone who's actually been to England with your holier than thou attitude mate.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Meh, by actually talking to people who know and lived with Phil Hughes, they reckon that he's one of the best players mentally they've seen and spent time with, and above anything they've seen for that age.

I can see in a way where rivera is coming from. I mean, it's probably what separates a "prodigy" like Hughes from that of Bell. Both similarly touted (Bell even moreso really; Hughes never had that same picture perfect technique to get the coaches super excited and just relied on runs to get noticed).
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
Oooohhhh! We've got one of the snidey ones!

This'll be fun.

So, anyway, how do you know what Hughes is THINKING privately? Are you a clairvoyant? Have you been reading tea leaves? The wrapper of a deep-fried lard sandwich? Or the perfectly intact end of a 3 year old toothbrush that's never been in contact with horrifically crooked teeth?

You won't fool anyone who's actually been to England with your holier than thou attitude mate.
I don't know what Hughes is thinking privately (I never said I did), but sportsmen don't admit what they're really thinking for the majority of the time. Sportsmen/women are actually coached into what type of things to say to the media (in England) and more importantly what NOT to say.

You're really naive man. Seriously. Wake up and smell the barby, blue.


:laugh: got to love the pre Ashes prejudice
Yeah, just thought I'd hot it up a bit with so many Aussies on the forum.


Meh, by actually talking to people who know and lived with Phil Hughes, they reckon that he's one of the best players mentally they've seen and spent time with, and above anything they've seen for that age.

I can see in a way where rivera is coming from. I mean, it's probably what separates a "prodigy" like Hughes from that of Bell. Both similarly touted (Bell even moreso really; Hughes never had that same picture perfect technique to get the coaches super excited and just relied on runs to get noticed).
I haven't questioned Hughes mental ability in that regard. I think he showed great mental strength to come back from the first over duck in South Africa.

Ponting, Hayden and Pietersen are 3 ****y batsmen as well but average 50+ in tests. It doesn't mean anything, just that Hughes is ****y. There's really no debate.

I'd like Bell to have some arrogance, he's too gentile a person.
 

Top