***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[stephen]

A few years younger?

Are you for real?

Let's just start on the 'form' issue:

Hughes has had an extra 2 innings - but having said that, he's made 4 centuries and one 82* in 15 digs. Has 3 other 50s.
Rogers has 3 centuries in 13 digs and 3 other 50s.

So the 'form' doesn't really lean either way - if anything you could argue that Hughes is the better century maker?
The advantage leans towards him slightly.

Now to the argument that "Rogers has been in form longer": this is false.
Rogers certainly made more runs over the previous 2-3 season - but that's because Hughes had only just started and was playing his first games as an 18-19 year old.
Having said that, Hughes entered this season with a career average over 50 (now 60), Rogers with a career average below 50 (now 49).

Now to the 'age discrepancy'.
Rogers is more than 11 years older than Hughes.
He had a shot last summer, he didn't look great, and why should we pick a guy who will give Australia one good season before people start talking about his age.
Hughes has an OUTSTANDING first class record already at just 20 years of age. Far superior to that of Ponting or Clarke when they made their debuts at a young age (neither averaged over 50 at the time). But look at their imposing test records now? It doesn't guarantee Hughes will do the same - but just because they did well doesn't mean he WON'T do well. The evidence points towards an extremely healthy test career for Hughes.

Put Hughes in now, and in 2 years Test cricket will be his oyster - and he'll still have another 15 years before he reaches the age Matty Hayden retired at.

This is a guy who has the talent to be a permanent fixture at the top of the order for a long time. We're not the top team in the world right now - why on earth would we pick an ageing batsman with a worse record over the boom youngster who has the world of cricket at his feet?
If Rogers was 5 years younger, he might have an argument. He's not, so he doesn't.

Hughes is in ridiculous form, it's stupid not to pick him now.

Ok, I take your point that he is a young talent performing well. I even had him in my side.

It's a bit rich looking at a guys average after two seasons and saying that he'll perform over the guy who has been doing it at that level now for a decade.

Just looking at their stats this season:

Hughes, PJ - 891 runs at 74.25 with 3 half centuries and 4 centuries
Rogers, CJL - 778 runs at 77.80 with 3 half centuries and 3 centuries

The statistical difference between the two is insignificant.

I personally believe that Rogers' experience means that he will be better opening on the South African greentops facing Steyn and Ntini than the inexperienced Hughes.

I am also of the belief that the best option for the Ashes is to have Rogers/Jaques opening alongside Katich (actually i'd like to see Katich dropped to 4, Hussey and Clarke shuffled down and both play tbh). I think that it would be easier to drop Rogers for Jaques than Hughes, regardless of how well Rogers performs in South Africa. I would still have Hughes in the side, but filling the number 6 position for this tour.

You bring up Hayden - here was a man who was not seriously picked until he was 30 years old. He did a fantastic job for the country for a long period of time, and most people consider him in the top two openers of the last thirty years. Why then cannot Rogers do a similar job? Given that Rogers has had all of one test (while he was out of form in the state competition mind you) to prove himself I think he deserves another chance. The guy has 31 first class centuries and a tripple hundred to his name for goodness sakes.

All this Hughes hype is almost like the Warner hype, except for tests instead of Twenty20s.

I want to see Hughes do well. I just don't think it's in the short-medium term interests of the national side to have him picked as opener for South Africa over Rogers.

Jaques needs to find some form in the state competition. Jaques is the encumbant and deserves his test spot back once he's had some time in the middle.

 

[four_or_six]

Are you sure of this? I thought in the lead up that their was talk that Katich would have to be patient and bide his time as backup batsman. This was until Jaques's injury. Can someone else confirm this?

They did actually say that Katich was going to be picked anyway. But then again, they said Watson would be a strong chance of being in the team even if Symonds was there, which was blatantly rubbish as he was no-where near the test team. I think they say those kind of things to try to give the players more confidence. Whether it was actually true about Katich, I don't know.

 

[stephen]

They did actually say that Katich was going to be picked anyway. But then again, they said Watson would be a strong chance of being in the team even if Symonds was there, which was blatantly rubbish as he was no-where near the test team. I think they say those kind of things to try to give the players more confidence. Whether it was actually true about Katich, I don't know.

Oh for the days where Watson was our backup allrounder

 

[Nate]

Will be extremely surprised if the squad is anything other than -

Ricky Ponting
Michael Clarke
Doug Bollinger
Brad Haddin
Nathan Hauritz
Ben Hilfenhaus
Phil Hughes
Michael Hussey
Phil Jaques
Mitchell Johnson
Simon Katich
Andrew McDonald
Bryce McGain
Peter Siddle

 

[TT Boy]

Punter - "I don't reckon will pick two openers" (to tour along with Katich)

 

[Nate]

Haha, oh snap!

In that case, it'll probably be Jaques out and knowing the selectors, White, Thornley or Ferguson.

 

[Matt79]

Are you sure of this? I thought in the lead up that their was talk that Katich would have to be patient and bide his time as backup batsman. This was until Jaques's injury. Can someone else confirm this?

Pretty certain Jaques was ahead of Katich til he got injured.

 

[Precambrian]

Hauritz will get the nod ahead of McGain.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Ok, I take your point that he is a young talent performing well. I even had him in my side.

It's a bit rich looking at a guys average after two seasons and saying that he'll perform over the guy who has been doing it at that level now for a decade.

Just looking at their stats this season:

Hughes, PJ - 891 runs at 74.25 with 3 half centuries and 4 centuries
Rogers, CJL - 778 runs at 77.80 with 3 half centuries and 3 centuries

The statistical difference between the two is insignificant.

exactly my point?
Except that Hughes has made more centuries - so if you had to pick between the 2, you go for the guy who 'goes on with the job'??

I personally believe that Rogers' experience means that he will be better opening on the South African greentops facing Steyn and Ntini than the inexperienced Hughes.

This is what I don't understand?
What experience does Rogers' have (a) playing on "South African greentops" or (b) facing Steyn and Ntini??

If you want to point to the experience of his first class career you can do so
HOWEVER
When people do that, it's normally because the 'experienced' guy has a weight of runs at a potent first class average vs a younger talent who scores runs but also fails and hence has a lower average.

While 49 is certainly a good average, it is hardly 'potent', and to make matters worse, Hughes sits on a princely 60.

What you're FAILING to grasp here is that Hughes isn't some prodigy like pup (who was picked in a test side of 'talent' with a first class average of barely 40 at the time. He's a prodigy like no other whose mass of runs is ALREADY unbelievable since making the step up to first class, and who just looks like a batsman who will tear an attack apart on any given day (he has hit the most boundaries in the Shield this year!)

You bring up Hayden - here was a man who was not seriously picked until he was 30 years old. He did a fantastic job for the country for a long period of time, and most people consider him in the top two openers of the last thirty years. Why then cannot Rogers do a similar job?

Because Rogers isn't Hayden.
Hayden finished with 79 first class centuries - by my calculations that gives Rogers another 48 to go in just 5 and a half years.
Not likely.

All this Hughes hype is almost like the Warner hype, except for tests instead of Twenty20s.

Huh?

IS that because nobody has scored more runs than Hughes in the first class format this year?
You might note his accomplishments in the other forms of the game too - he can chip in another 4-5 half centuries through his ODD and T20 performances...

I want to see Hughes do well. I just don't think it's in the short-medium term interests of the national side to have him picked as opener for South Africa over Rogers.

If the selectors were to pick a slow paced opener like Rogers, who has already failed and looked outclassed at the test level; and that opener were to fail in South Africa and they win the series - THEN the selectors would be taken to the back paddock and shot, gutted and dragged around behind camels. And Rogers is dropped for the Ashes.
Should Hughes be taken, he fail, we lose - the selectors can still be commended for blooding the youngster against the best, and Hughes can retain his spot for the Ashes and beyond without any problems - it's called an 'investment' for the future.

You might not think Hughes has the talent to succeed at test level - fine, that's your call.

But you're dead wrong.

Picking Rogers would be ridiculous - which is why most decent writers don't bring up his name as an option for the tour.

Jaques needs to find some form in the state competition. Jaques is the encumbant and deserves his test spot back once he's had some time in the middle.

Jaques was the incumbent 4 series ago. It's not like he missed 2 tests or anything, he's been out for a long time.

However he has certainly shown that he's a class batsman at the top level in the past, and should be taken on tour because, at 29, he's still a part of the future for this team.

You like Rogers - that's cool, but please stop pushing him so hard - not many others are bothering...

 

[iamdavid]

Huh?

IS that because nobody has scored more runs than Hughes in the first class format this year?...

errr Klinger ?

If the selectors were to pick a slow paced opener like Rogers, who has already failed and looked outclassed at the test level; and that opener were to fail in South Africa and they win the series - THEN the selectors would be taken to the back paddock and shot, gutted and dragged around behind camels. And Rogers is dropped for the Ashes.
Should Hughes be taken, .

Failed and looked outclassed at test level?? Thats a bit rich

He played one test match, in bowler friendly conditions (about the first time this decade I can recall the ball swining that much in a test match in Australia), against a good attack.
And it isn't like he scratched around and looked terrible either, both innings he got a good nut and was out before he could blink, not to mention he got a questionable lbw.

Do you by chance remember just how poor Phil Jaques looked at the other end in this same match, or for that matter most of the Australian batsman?

You might not think Hughes has the talent to succeed at test level - fine, that's your call.

But you're dead wrong.

Picking Rogers would be ridiculous - which is why most decent writers don't bring up his name as an option for the tour.



Jaques was the incumbent 4 series ago. It's not like he missed 2 tests or anything, he's been out for a long time.

However he has certainly shown that he's a class batsman at the top level in the past, and should be taken on tour because, at 29, he's still a part of the future for this team.

You like Rogers - that's cool, but please stop pushing him so hard - not many others are bothering...

Nobody is really questioning the talent of Hughes, I think thats your one valid point, tbh if I were picking the team I'd have him there, he's done all one could've asked of him and as you point out his numbers have far more substance to them than Clarke's did when he was first picked (although not Ponting's as you claimed before, Ponting had a very similar start to Hughes at Shield level in terms of age and results).
Add to that he seems to have the ticker to perform when it matters most (his hundred in PC final, scoring most of NSW's runs on a very green pitch in Hobart, and his great performance in this most recent match when all eyes were on him).

However the way you discount Rogers as a candidate is a little stupid, he's certainly not the most glamorous option and therefore isn't getting the time of day in the media that Hughes is, however he has thousands of first class runs all over the world in all conditions. A very simple and reliable technique against the moving ball and a great temperament, plus he has the runs this season to back it up.

The Australian selectors could (and recently have) done plenty worse than picking Chris Rogers.

Additionally I think the value of Jaques' runs last season are being overstated a little, on paper he has what? 900 odd runs at 50....which is great. But having watched just about all of his batting during that period I think the numbers flatter him a little, he played a couple of good knocks against Sri Lanka.Then batted really stupidly (some of the shots he gave his wicket away to were plain daft) and didn't impress anybody at all tbh against India. And then struggled against a below-par WI attack before coming good with a hundred in his last test. I recall at times against India and the Windies hearing murmuring about the security of his spot in the side. And as has been stated Katich was ahead of him in the scheme of things come the start of the India tour (and rightly so).

I really think it's a pretty even three horse race tbh, can see the merits and pitfalls in picking any of the three.....will be a fascinating decision if they do pick just one as Ponting is suggesting....from an excitment point of view I hope it's Hughes

 

[duffer]

Punter - "I don't reckon will pick two openers" (to tour along with Katich)

Smart move for mine, as long as it's McGain or Krejza they take and not Hauritz.

 

[iamdavid]

What are the odds of-

1.Jaques
2.Hughes
3.Katich
4.Ponting
5.Clarke
6.M Hussey
7.Haddin
bowlers

 

[Prince EWS]

What are the odds of-

1.Jaques
2.Hughes
3.Katich
4.Ponting
5.Clarke
6.M Hussey
7.Haddin
bowlers

Zero.

 

[NUFAN]

Pretty certain Jaques was ahead of Katich til he got injured.

Yeah i thought so too.

 

[iamdavid]

Smart move for mine, as long as it's McGain or Krejza they take and not Hauritz.

I'm resigned to the fact Hauritz will tour ......atleast it's consistent if nothing else, they pick him and he does what's expected of him really in the test matches then goes back to NSW and puts in a career best performance...would be wrong to dump him now even if he never should have been near selection in the first place.

 

[Prince EWS]

It was announced that Katich would play (or was "extremely likely" to play) ahead of Jaques before he was ruled out with injury. I remember the debate about it.

 

[Matt79]

^^ And on that basis, kinda hard to be too bent out of shape about it.

Maybe they should drop Hussey - he's gone anyway - play Haddin at six, Johnson at seven and include both McGain AND Hauritz!

 

[Matt79]

It was announced that Katich would play (or was "extremely likely" to play) ahead of Jaques before he was ruled out with injury. I remember the debate about it.

That's right - it was looming as a pretty contentious decision now you job my memory.

 

[vic_orthdox]

TBH, have no problem with them taking over two spinners, because its the spot about which there is the most conjecture. And lets be honest, they'll play a spinner in each match on the balance of probabilities.

 

[duffer]

I'm resigned to the fact Hauritz will tour ......atleast it's consistent if nothing else, they pick him and he does what's expected of him really in the test matches then goes back to NSW and puts in a career best performance...would be wrong to dump him now even if he never should have been near selection in the first place.

I'd rather they got the team right for once than have loyalty to a player who shouldn't have been there in the first place but you're probably right.