One of Hughes "other 50's" was a 90-odd against Tasmania as well.
Really I don't see how we couldn't find room for Hughes. If you really want Jaques in the XI and are reluctant to move Katich it makes more sense moving Jaques even over Hughes.
I'm pretty sure Phil Jaques could handle 3 or 4.
After that he had that back surgery, and has just made his comeback to cricket recently, and to make matters worse he hasn't made many runs either, whereas on the other hand there is a young bloke who is in red hot form and has done everything this season that the selectors could have hoped from him.
So AFAIC Hughes has his nose slightly ahead of Jaques currently in the race for the test opening slot, and Jaques should consider himself unlucky here, he got injured at the wrong time and a bloke like Hughes made most of it.
Therefore either Jaques should go to South Africa as the reserve opener, or he should not go at all and rather play in the SS for NSW and get some runs again under his belt and boost his confidence.
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.
Will be extremely surprised if the squad is anything other than -
Jesus brings life eternal
Haha, oh snap!
In that case, it'll probably be Jaques out and knowing the selectors, White, Thornley or Ferguson.
Last edited by Nate; 04-02-2009 at 02:53 AM.
Hauritz will get the nod ahead of McGain.
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'??
This is what I don't understand?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.
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
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!)
Because Rogers isn't Hayden.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?
Hayden finished with 79 first class centuries - by my calculations that gives Rogers another 48 to go in just 5 and a half years.
Huh?All this Hughes hype is almost like the Warner hype, except for tests instead of Twenty20s.
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...
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.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.
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 was the incumbent 4 series ago. It's not like he missed 2 tests or anything, he's been out for a long time.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.
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...
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?
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
Last edited by iamdavid; 04-02-2009 at 06:16 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)