Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - Understanding Hughes' ouster

Even though the selectors may never admit as much, it sounds like the Hughes decision has been made to keep Johnson in the side rather than to drop Hughes per se. The balance of the side obviously required some insurance against Johnson’s form loss so rather than just swapping Johnson for Stuart Clark, it looks like poor old Hughes gets the rough end of the pineapple. Shane Watson, fine batsman that he is, can probably thank his bowling skills for his inclusion at the top of the order. Who was the last opening batsman selected for his bowling I wonder? Maybe back to the days when India used to pick a medium pacer just to get the shine off the ball for the spinners to do their magic.

If Watson succeeds in the role, that opens up Pandora’s box. Do they then persist with him and try to turn him into a poor man’s Jacques Kallis? Will his fragile body hold up to that workload? Who was the last opening batsman who averaged 4.67 in first-class cricket (as an opener) to have been selected at the top of the order. In some senses, Watson has nothing to lose. A streaky boundary through slip and he’s just about beaten his average for this batting position.

If Watson fails, is he owed a few bits of the cherry before he too is then unceremoniously dumped? Surely they must now persist with him for a few Tests, allowing him the luxury of some breathing space. Not that Hughes was afforded such courtesies mind you! This was a man who scored two Test hundreds in one game not so very long ago against arguably the best seam attack in world cricket, on their home pitches.

What happens if Johnson has another bad game and gets dropped? Does that mean the balance of the side is restored and Hughes comes straight back into the reckoning? That would be most unfair on Watson, regardless of whether he scores runs or not in this Test.

What it means is that Australia, for so long the bastion of loyalty and stability, has now set a dangerous precedent for the ‘chop and change’ culture that they took so much delight in vilifying England for. Clearly, recent form has no place in the current selector’s thinking. Marcus North must be a bit nervous in case Watson or Andrew Macdonald start coveting his place. After all, his last Test century was more than one Test ago!

While Australia tinkers with out-of-form selection headaches, England has the delicious opposite. Their biggest conundrum is whether to bring in the rampantly in-form Steve Harmison or stick with their winning formula. In this sense, I’d rather be in England’s shoes but one more poor showing from Stuart Broad, if it coincides with a loss, could spell curtains for him. He probably owes his spot in the team to Flintoff. Hughes owes his loss to Johnson.

Delicious ironies indeed – that’s why cricket is unsurpassed as a game of intrigue and utter fascination. Both teams are playing the same game but might as well be on different planets. Funny how one win at Lords, having just scraped a last-wicket draw at Cardiff, can change the course of someone’s career. Just ask Hughes. Or check out his Twitter page!

Oh I've started following him on Twitter.

I thought this would be an absolute disaster, but as it turns out Watson has vindicated some faith by scoring a solid half century. He needs to turn that into a century before he makes me a partial convert.

Hughesy has a right to feel hard done by as Mitch gets his chance to continue despite struggling more dramatically. Hughesy still got plenty of tiem on his side to iron his kinks out. I suggest he do what Allan Border did when he found out he had a weakness to the short ball outside off stump: Take as much practice against that style of bowling as possible.

I'm in the favourable position of knowing that Watson has done an excellent job in his assignment on Day 1, which makes it easier to say this - but there is a much to be said in favour of the approach the Aust selectors took here. And I'm tired of reading hasty and over the top comments like "Aust hits the panic button" or "Aust takes on a chop and change culture". Rather than jumping to the conclusion that the selectors and team management don't know what they're doing, it's quite reasonable to assume that they recognise problems in Hughes' technique that have been exposed by the current conditions and opponents, and are doing his future and the team morale a favour by telling him to sit this one out. Watson is a good prospect in these circumstances - very good technique, a lot of courage, right-handed, tall, and despite contrary claims, quite a lot of diverse experience. As for Johnson, he has one more chance to see if he can take wickets when Aust need him to - in these conditions.

Trivia question: Who was the last right-hander before Shane Watson to open the batting for Australia..? If you guessed Michael Slater, eight years ago in Ashes 2001, you'd be right. (Ironically Slater was dropped for the left-handed Justin Langer, which led to arguably Australia's greatest opening partnership, the Langer/Hayden combo. Langer, like Hughes, is a short left-hander, and is something of a mentor to the ousted opener. At 20, the Twittering Hughes has time on his side, but the selectors probably felt they owed Watson some time in the middle after all the faith they've invested in him, especially when he's showed some form with the bat in his only game on tour. While Watson is surely not a long-term option at the top of the Aussie batting order, he WAS picked as the spare batsman (and bowler) in the squad, so he's supposedly covering for BOTH Hughes and Johnson. Let's hope Watto is only required to cover for Hughes and Johnno roars back into prime form with a bag of wickets!

in my opinion despite his half century shane watson should not have been selected over hughes just because phil had a couple of bad games. it happens to the best of cricketers and what i've noticed is phil hughes' ability to score when pressure is on him. correct me if i'm wrong but didn't hughes score a 0 in his 1st international test innings and then return to score a half century and then 2 centuries? think about it. why drop someone who averages 52.44 and 61.91 in international and first class cricket respectively for someone who averages 19.76 and 45.41? because the later is an all-rounder? that doesn't make much sense to me. but ponting must have his own reasons. i'm in no position to question the wisdom of the australian skipper. and as it concerns mitchell johnson, personally he is my favourite cricketer and i think the media needs to give him a rest. you can't expect a bowler to blast batsmen out 100% of the time. it's only a matter of time before we get the old johnson back.

Everyone has failed to acknowledge the fact that Hussey is in much worse form than Hughes. In Hughes's defense he has made a start in 3/4 of his innings in england, and has been quite unlucky to be dismissed on 2 occasions. He should feel extremely hard done by, considering he clearly will be the next big thing in Australian cricket. Clarke and Ponting were certainly given much more opportunities early in their career. Whilst Watson has suceeded once, his technique is flawed and he will not stand up to test match standards on a consistent basis. And the argument raised by DVC that Johnson has a better average than hughes cannot even be compared. Johnson bats at 7, faces the old ball and the occasional new ball with bowlers who are tired. I firmly believe that the selectors have truely stuffed this selection

The decision to persevere with Hussey has failed -miserably. It is hard to imagine someone so reliabe a few years ago could become such a liability. They needed to stick with Hughes. The psychological damage will be huge. The selectors have been found out. I suppose Big Merv and Boony are no Einsteins, but you expect professionalism at least. The bowling attack is woeful. There is something terribly wrong with Johnson and it defies belief how bad he is. If Siddle and Hauritz are in the top 4 bowlers in Australia, well all I can say is that we are struggling big time. But the thing that amazes me most, is that Aust poached back Troy Cooley - the so called 'swing doctor' to provide that X factor for our bowlers. Am I missing something?? - ball ain't swinging boys.. for Aust that is. Solution - Bowlers - line and length - try bowling off-stump for something different. Hold the ball seam up to give it a chance of swinging. Batting - use bat if ball aimed at stumps

I think you got it partly right, but missed an important point. It's not only that Watson's bowling secured his selection, as that Johnson's batting ensured his retention. Watson is insurance for Johnson's bowling form, but Johnson is insurance for Watson's batting.

That may be the selector's logic but I think both Hughes and Johnson should have been dropped. Because their woes are not just about a run of couple of poor matches; they're due to serious technical faults in both that have developed (overly open stance, too much roundarm action). These can be fixed, but need to be before either can resume playing at this level.

The Aus selectors faced an unenviable task. Pick a batsman who has a major weakness and he gets out cheaply or pick a bowler who is spraying it everywhere but still getting wickets. Agreed that Hussey is the luckiest guy in the lineup. He has another chance to prove his worth tonight. I think that Martyn is right that Hughes could well spend some time playing for NSW getting to know his own game better. He's 20 years old! Watson had to get picked if he was taken over there and is fit. Clearly the selctors value what he brings to the 11. I think Johnson is in fact bowling himself back into form. That's the thing with bowling - there's always another chance to pull out a jaffa. Not so with batting if you lose your wicket: that's it.