a HUGHES problem for our top order?

[Rik E Boy]

Both camps have been pretty upbeat about their lead-in matches that have been completed over the weekend. England's key bats got some time in the middle and Anderson, Freddy and Monty all got amongst the wickets.

For the Aussies Lee showed that he can swing the Duke toy and Hussey, Pup, Katich and North all made big runs against a decent attack.

So who actually 'won' the match at Worchester? For me, it is England. Phillip Hughes with his unorthodox technique has proven to be an extremely destructive batsman but his apparent inability to defend the balls being bowled in the rib to armpit area has me recalling uneasy memories of Micheal Bevan.

With Punter out of touch we don't want to be sending in Hussey before Lunch three times in the first two tests. Hughes has me worried! Why hasn't this apparently glaring techinical defiency been addressed before he has worn the baggy blue let alone the baggy green? Booney's mate Tim Nielson has a big job on his hands trying to sort out Hughes' footwork because it is London to a brick that he'll be bounced back to the stoneage at Cardiff and beyond. A countering method MUST be devised to this tactic.

regards,

REB

[Ron Burgundy]

I believe that Hughes will be fine.

In the last series against South Africa, Hughes faced the best attack in world cricket, who tried to adopt a similar strategy at times. South Africa's bowling attack had a combination of fierce pace, steepling bounce and wicked angles and Hughes came out better off.

It is a certainty that Hughes will be attacked with the short rib tickler. However, this is a risk for the English team. Not only is it a skill to bowling a quality, accurate short delivery, it also takes alot out of you. The Aussie batsman in the middle order may benefit the most by the bold English strategy.

Time will tell.

[Dogwatcher]

I agree, Hughes will be okay.
He made runs against the Saffies on good wickets.
And which of the Poms is going to bowl those steepling deliveries to hassle him?
They haven't picked Grievous for this test, so it'll be left up to Flintoff to do that.
While I rate Flintoff, his body might have something to say about the back breaking work of targeting a players ribs over after over.

[Dogwatcher]

BTW REB, I admire the fact you started this thread.
Usually getting a negative word out of you about any Bluebagger is nigh on impossible

[Booney]

The Poms are doing what the South Africans didnt, bouncing into him from around the wicket. This stops him from cutting/slashing over gully/point as he did many times during the recent series.

Might need to work on the pull shot a bit more, or, for giggles leave the odd ball alone?

[Dogwatcher]

Might need to work on the pull shot a bit more, or, for giggles leave the odd ball alone?

[Pidge]

I reckon this series has M Hussey written all over it.. im thinking he will dominate

[Hondo]

I thought that South Africa got caught out for lack of preparation against Hughes. Maybe there were over-confident and figured they'd just roll the rookie. It seemed like they'd never even looked at a single tape? He'll find it harder now that he's clearly an important player so England will have done their homework on him. They had Kat tied up in knots in 2005 so hopefully he's eradicated the holes they found last time. I think he has.

It also depends on whether England have the quality of bowling to keep the pressure up, as DW said.

Hopefully Huss has worked on whatever deficiency everyone's been exploiting the last 4 series or so. It must be a flaw they've picked up on to explain such a long drought. It's now or never for the Huss. I have been critical of him recently but obviously want him to do well to win the Ashes.

[haloman]

I thought that South Africa got caught out for lack of preparation against Hughes. Maybe there were over-confident and figured they'd just roll the rookie. It seemed like they'd never even looked at a single tape? He'll find it harder now that he's clearly an important player so England will have done their homework on him. They had Kat tied up in knots in 2005 so hopefully he's eradicated the holes they found last time. I think he has.

It also depends on whether England have the quality of bowling to keep the pressure up, as DW said.

Hopefully Huss has worked on whatever deficiency everyone's been exploiting the last 4 series or so. It must be a flaw they've picked up on to explain such a long drought. It's now or never for the Huss. I have been critical of him recently but obviously want him to do well to win the Ashes.

England don't have the fast bowling depth they had in 2005. In 2005 they had four quality quicks who were in form and able to follow the plans laid out for them by good coaches.......namely that traitor Troy Cooley.... Simon Jones, Harmi, Flintoff and Hoggard were all at the hieght of their powers in 2005 and bowled with great pace as well as being able to swing it both ways. This years bowling line isn't in that class. I don't rate Broad at all.......... Onions is ok......... can swing it a bit but not at Simon Jones pace. Flintoff is no were near 2005 form and Sidebottom is sean by the Poms as their answer to Hoggard from 2005. Only one problem with that...........he isn't any good. It looks like the Poms have done a little homeworks tho and seen our batsman in South Africa struggling against spin. I guess they have figured if Harris could tie us up in knots during the SA series.........so can Swann and Monty........and I tend to agree. If Swann does a job at one end and is supported by good fast bowling we may just struggle to score runs. However I couldn't see the England bowling attack of 2009 doing anywhere near the damage of the 2005 team.

[rod_rooster]

So Harmison bowled well to Hughes and sorted him out. Thing is England know better than anyone that Harmison is likely to come out and spray it everywhere if they pick him so they have left him out. Broad, Anderson, Flintoff and Onions are not the sort of bowlers who will be able to expose the flaw in Hughes' technique (Flintoff at his absolute best could possibly trouble that area but he still doesn't quite have the pace). Hughes will be fine and will make runs.

[am Bays]

Is it a concern, YES. Do I think he'll be able to work it out YES. It just gives Hughes an excuse for another net. I don't think he'll be as prolific as he was agaisnt South Africa as teams do try to work him out but I reckon he will contribute some ood runs during the season - especially as the POMs have left out teh one bowler who can get the steepling bounce that troubles him like Harmison.

I'm more worried about Ponting, if we lose it will most likely be becasue he hasn't contributed to the runs - so I reckon he will be goneski. You don't lose two series to the POMs and get away with it at the age of 34.

[blink]

I think there is more pressure on other batsman in the squad than the perceived pressure on Phil Hughes.

Clarke and Katich both had very ordinary 2005 Series and were both dropped as a result. However, being the talented players that they are, both have forced their way back into the side. England in 2005 highlighted some techinical deficiencies each had, let's hope they have fully sorted those out in the last four years...

[Rik E Boy]

I think there is more pressure on other batsman in the squad than the perceived pressure on Phil Hughes.

Clarke and Katich both had very ordinary 2005 Series and were both dropped as a result. However, being the talented players that they are, both have forced their way back into the side. England in 2005 highlighted some techinical deficiencies each had, let's hope they have fully sorted those out in the last four years...

The difference between Clarke, Katich, Ponting and Hughes is that are experienced players. I'm still not convinced about Hughes even though he showed he at least has a method for counteracting this tactic. Not being able to cash in on the traditional 'meat and potatos' area off the hip that left handers have is a serious technical concern.

regards,

REB

[blink]

Not being able to cash in on the traditional 'meat and potatos' area off the hip that left handers have is a serious technical concern.

Great point REB. Not having watched much of Hughes batting up until this point, it has become claringly obvious that his protruding hip is going to cause him some serious problems. Flintoff exposed his massive weakness last night by cramping Hughes for room.

[shoe boy]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

[interested observer]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

Certainly agree with you SB on his character, however his most unusual technique will be found out at the highest level over time. Only my opinion..
Restrict his off side options and he is very limited...

[Adelaide Hawk]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

Certainly agree with you SB on his character, however his most unusual technique will be found out at the highest level over time. Only my opinion..
Restrict his off side options and he is very limited...

The more bowlers concentrate on his "weakness", the more it will develop into a strength. The problem with Flintoff bowling to Hughes was he concentrated mainly on the leg stump and short. He needed to bowl around off stump and then use the short ball on leg stump as a shock ball.

Flintoff's first couple of balls hurried him up a little, and then lost its effect the more he bowled there. It reminded me a little of the theory bowlers around the world had about Steve Waugh not being able to handle the short ball. He kept getting them, but they rarely got him out, and he scored a lot of runs along the journey.

It wasn't really bothering Hughes, it just restricted his scoring potential, but as I said, the more the bowl there, the more he will develop as a Test batsman.

[wycbloods]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

Certainly agree with you SB on his character, however his most unusual technique will be found out at the highest level over time. Only my opinion..
Restrict his off side options and he is very limited...

The more bowlers concentrate on his "weakness", the more it will develop into a strength. The problem with Flintoff bowling to Hughes was he concentrated mainly on the leg stump and short. He needed to bowl around off stump and then use the short ball on leg stump as a shock ball.

Flintoff's first couple of balls hurried him up a little, and then lost its effect the more he bowled there. It reminded me a little of the theory bowlers around the world had about Steve Waugh not being able to handle the short ball. He kept getting them, but they rarely got him out, and he scored a lot of runs along the journey.

It wasn't really bothering Hughes, it just restricted his scoring potential, but as I said, the more the bowl there, the more he will develop as a Test batsman.

Agreed AH they are giving invaluable practise on his weakness they will only serve to make him a better player.

[am Bays]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

Certainly agree with you SB on his character, however his most unusual technique will be found out at the highest level over time. Only my opinion..
Restrict his off side options and he is very limited...

The more bowlers concentrate on his "weakness", the more it will develop into a strength. The problem with Flintoff bowling to Hughes was he concentrated mainly on the leg stump and short. He needed to bowl around off stump and then use the short ball on leg stump as a shock ball.

Flintoff's first couple of balls hurried him up a little, and then lost its effect the more he bowled there. It reminded me a little of the theory bowlers around the world had about Steve Waugh not being able to handle the short ball. He kept getting them, but they rarely got him out, and he scored a lot of runs along the journey.

It wasn't really bothering Hughes, it just restricted his scoring potential, but as I said, the more the bowl there, the more he will develop as a Test batsman.

As I said in this thread after he scored his first ton, he will got found out and he will get dropped at this level.

http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21045&start=40

As AH said the more they bowl to his strengths he will develop it, what better place to learn than at test level. aBased on what I hear Hughes is the sort of kid who knows his weakness and is prepared to work on it.

I stand by the fact he will play 150 tests and score 10 000 + runs but like every Australian test gun he will get droped at some stage.

[rod_rooster]

The lad will be good he has plenty of character.

Certainly agree with you SB on his character, however his most unusual technique will be found out at the highest level over time. Only my opinion..
Restrict his off side options and he is very limited...

The more bowlers concentrate on his "weakness", the more it will develop into a strength. The problem with Flintoff bowling to Hughes was he concentrated mainly on the leg stump and short. He needed to bowl around off stump and then use the short ball on leg stump as a shock ball.

Flintoff's first couple of balls hurried him up a little, and then lost its effect the more he bowled there. It reminded me a little of the theory bowlers around the world had about Steve Waugh not being able to handle the short ball. He kept getting them, but they rarely got him out, and he scored a lot of runs along the journey.

It wasn't really bothering Hughes, it just restricted his scoring potential, but as I said, the more the bowl there, the more he will develop as a Test batsman.

As I said in this thread after he scored his first ton, he will got found out and he will get dropped at this level.

http://www.safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21045&start=40

As AH said the more they bowl to his strengths he will develop it, what better place to learn than at test level. aBased on what I hear Hughes is the sort of kid who knows his weakness and is prepared to work on it.

I stand by the fact he will play 150 tests and score 10 000 + runs but like every Australian test gun he will get droped at some stage.

Greg Chappell says hello