How Many Centuries Will Phil Hughes Score?

[vic_orthdox]

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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.

Originally Posted by jondavluc

got to love the pre Ashes prejudice

Yeah, just thought I'd hot it up a bit with so many Aussies on the forum.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

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 cocky batsmen as well but average 50+ in tests. It doesn't mean anything, just that Hughes is cocky. There's really no debate.

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

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by rivera213

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

Indeed; we more semites in the Three Lions! The campaign starts here.

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Indeed; we more semites in the Three Lions! The campaign starts here.

Ha ha, never even noticed that typo.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Ha ha, never even noticed that typo.

your posts are Sus dear!

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by rivera213

I'd like Bell to have some arrogance.

Well if he wasn't so obviously dire then he very well could be.

Ohhhh I went there.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Richard

Being brought-up in Australia doesn't make you a better bowler than being brought-up in England.

Australian bowlers aren't simply of higher quality than English ones purely because they're Australian.

That's not what they teach us a school

Perhaps the absence of swing in Australian conditions is favourable during development as a state bowler will need to develop consistency or be exposed. An Anderson type bowler with an old ball downunder becomes easy pickings if the consistency doesn't hold up and the fear of the 'jaffa' every 6-12 balls is subdued.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by rivera213

Are you thick or something?

Even for an Aussie.

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

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

One things these tests can't reveal is the ability of self-deception, sure someone can determine the next number in a sequence but it falls down if you then exhibit conformational bias to an extreme level in your endeavours.

It's why no doubt some people cringe at nationalism, team following etc. because they essentialy require excluding something else to justify our faith in the concept, (in your case this may be rational though ), or a personal arrangement of facts that best satisfies our own opinions of our critical reasoning, rather than a direct search for 'truth' as you may put it

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

That's not what they teach us a school

I know - Australians who don't believe Australia > UK purely because that's the way it is are, in my experience, in a minority. Doesn't make the school of thought right though.

Perhaps the absence of swing in Australian conditions is favourable during development as a state bowler will need to develop consistency or be exposed. An Anderson type bowler with an old ball downunder becomes easy pickings if the consistency doesn't hold up and the fear of the 'jaffa' every 6-12 balls is subdued.

That's perfectly true, but the best bowlers whose principal weapon is swing are perfectly capable of getting the ball to do something off the pitch if there isn't any swing. Malcolm Marshall didn't exactly struggle in Australia, nor did Richard Hadlee, nor Wasim Akram... I could name any number of others.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Richard

I know - Australians who don't believe Australia > UK purely because that's the way it is are, in my experience, in a minority. Doesn't make the school of thought right though.

Nor does it make it wrong...

[rivera213]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

your posts are Sus dear!

Sus?

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well if he wasn't so obviously dire then he very well could be.

Ohhhh I went there.

Well he isn't dire. We've had plenty of dire batsmen though. He just for some reason has brain farts. In effect it's the same thing.

Although maybe not statistically true, it seems as though he gets himself out much more than the bowler getting him out. If Dale Steyn bows a 90mph ripper and takes off stump then there's nothing you can do, but Bell often edges or goes for too expansive a shot when the deliveries aren't worthy of a wicket.

It's annoying since aesthtically, he is 1 of the best. Similar to David Gower in that regard, though Gower was much better.

Originally Posted by Redbacks

One things these tests can't reveal is the ability of self-deception, sure someone can determine the next number in a sequence but it falls down if you then exhibit conformational bias to an extreme level in your endeavours.

It's why no doubt some people cringe at nationalism, team following etc. because they essentialy require excluding something else to justify our faith in the concept, (in your case this may be rational though ), or a personal arrangement of facts that best satisfies our own opinions of our critical reasoning, rather than a direct search for 'truth' as you may put it

There's a whole different test for sports IQ.

I agree following a team, or being biased towards a particular country, can hinder genuine judgement but (and I can only speak for myself) I realize Pietersen is cocky whereas I get the feeling the general concensus in Australia is that Ponting ISN'T cocky.

I really think the majority of Australians (when it comes to sport) are cocky, that's the way they come off in interviews etc. Even Ian Thorpe spoke with an arrogant overtone and he's a glorified fish!

* BTW- the estimated average IQ per person in the UK is 100, in Australia it's 98 hence the 3-figured part which nobody seemed to pick up.

[Burgey]

Bell is one of those conundrums. He looks a million bucks technically, looks composed at the crease for the most part, but there's something missing that's stopping him being the complete package right now.

I wonder if he's too correct int he way he plays.

[Richard]

Nah, his shot-selection is just decent but far from outstanding. And as we know from many past experiences, shot-selection is far more important than technique and a faultless or near-faultless technique is little use with merely moderate shot-selection.

A technically average player like Gary Kirsten or even a merely pretty good one like Michael Atherton is streets ahead of the technically near-perfect Bell, and the only reason is because their shot-selection was so much better.

[Burgey]

Yeah, that's probably it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Nor does it make it wrong...

That doesn't make it wrong - the fact that it's wrong makes it wrong.