Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

[Happy Days]

Hughes picked a bloody good time to make 151, seeing as Jaques only made 9.

Is Jaques officially rooted, or is he still a shot of playing in the first test in SA?

Or, am I being overly presumptuous i suggesting that it's only a two-horse race?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

One horse race.

Got to get Hughes in now. Jacques has got to earn back his spot.

[mighty_west]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Jacques has missed too much cricket with his injured back to be an automatic selection IMO, so right now, Hughes would be favourite.

[lemmon]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Surely the selectors have learnt from the Symonds mess and wont pick a player without getting consistent first class cricket under his belt. Is Rogers a chance to go? Making a load of runs this year he would have to be considered.

[hujsh]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Or, am I being overly presumptuous i suggesting that it's only a two-horse race?

There's that Rogers dude. Plays ok. Makes a few runs


I'd love to see Hughes get a game.

[GVGjr]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

If we can't find a decent option as the number 6 all-rounder would it be worth playing both Jacques and Hughes at the top of the order and moving Katich to the middle order?

[mighty_west]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

If we can't find a decent option as the number 6 all-rounder would it be worth playing both Jacques and Hughes at the top of the order and moving Katich to the middle order?

The only problem there is the form Katich has been in up the top, you'd hate for him to drop down the order and lose form, and with a new opening spot available, you most likely need an experienced head along side the new guy.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

If we can't find a decent option as the number 6 all-rounder would it be worth playing both Jacques and Hughes at the top of the order and moving Katich to the middle order?

CAN WE JUST ****ING FORGET ABOUT PHIL ****ING JAQUES UNTIL HE HAS AT LEAST ONE ****ING SCORE IN DOUBLE ****ING FIGURES!!!!!!

[azabob]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

CAN WE JUST ****ING FORGET ABOUT PHIL ****ING JAQUES UNTIL HE HAS AT LEAST ONE ****ING SCORE IN DOUBLE ****ING FIGURES!!!!!!

Tell us how you really feel.......
It is a sad situation when we do discuss players such as Jaques who haven't performed yet or even had time out in the middle, but that is where Australian cricket is at.

[GVGjr]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

CAN WE JUST ****ING FORGET ABOUT PHIL ****ING JAQUES UNTIL HE HAS AT LEAST ONE ****ING SCORE IN DOUBLE ****ING FIGURES!!!!!!

Why should we forget a guy that made a century in his last test? Seriously, get over it because like it or not (and obviously you don't like it) he is very much in the mix. I agree that he needs to get some runs but not as passionately as you do.

[hujsh]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Why should we forget a guy that made a century in his last test?

We wouldn't if it was Hodge

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Why should we forget a guy that made a century in his last test? Seriously, get over it because like it or not (and obviously you don't like it) he is very much in the mix. I agree that he needs to get some runs but not as passionately as you do.

We are precisely in the position we are currently in because we pick players based on reputations and performances from seasons gone by.

We lost the Ashes in 2005 because we played a hopelessly-out-of-form Jason Gillespie just because he had been a good player over the previous 5 or so years. Ancient history - and in sport a year ago IS ancient history - has little to do with right now.

Hayden, Symonds and Lee have all bitten us on the bum by being selected when their most recent form was deplorable.

If we were really desperate for openers I could kind of understand it - we are in that situation with spinners and Bryce McGain - but Phil Hughes and Chris Rogers have both made heaps of runs this year in the Shield and Simon Katich has just about been our most consistant bat in the tests.

Even Chris Grant had to play a game with Werribee before he got back in the seniors.


Personally I'd be delighted if Rogers, McGain, Hodge, D. Hussey, McDonald, Siddle and White all missed out on the SA tour, I'd rather they were here for the Shield final, but all have realistic claims for a spot.

[lemmon]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

We are precisely in the position we are currently in because we pick players based on reputations and performances from seasons gone by.

We lost the Ashes in 2005 because we played a hopelessly-out-of-form Jason Gillespie just because he had been a good player over the previous 5 or so years. Ancient history - and in sport a year ago IS ancient history - has little to do with right now.

Hayden, Symonds and Lee have all bitten us on the bum by being selected when their most recent form was deplorable.

If we were really desperate for openers I could kind of understand it - we are in that situation with spinners and Bryce McGain - but Phil Hughes and Chris Rogers have both made heaps of runs this year in the Shield and Simon Katich has just about been our most consistant bat in the tests.

Even Chris Grant had to play a game with Werribee before he got back in the seniors.


Personally I'd be delighted if Rogers, McGain, Hodge, D. Hussey, McDonald, Siddle and White all missed out on the SA tour, I'd rather they were here for the Shield final, but all have realistic claims for a spot.

Australia would've never dropped Gillespie for the ashes and saying they should have is utter bull. Including his ashes figures he still averaged 26 with the ball and took 259 wickets throughout his career. He was one of Australias greatest quicks leading up to the ashes so why would he have been dropped in the lead up. Jaques' situation is completely differant to Gillespies so why are we comparing them.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

Australia would've never dropped Gillespie for the ashes and saying they should have is utter bull. Including his ashes figures he still averaged 26 with the ball and took 259 wickets throughout his career. He was one of Australias greatest quicks leading up to the ashes so why would he have been dropped in the lead up. Jaques' situation is completely differant to Gillespies so why are we comparing them.

And this mentality is precisely what I mean.

Yes, Jason Gillespie took 259 wickets at 26. He was a star.

His tour of England in 2005 however, was:

1-40 v Leistershire (one dayer)
1-49 v England (T20)
2-41 v Bangladesh (one dayer)
0-66 v England (one dayer)
1-36 (9) v England (one dayer)
0-17 (3) v Bangladesh (one dayer)
2-49 (9) v Bangladesh (one dayer)
0-42 v England (one dayer
0-66 v England (one day final 1)
0-42 (7) v England (one day final 2)
3-44 v England (one day final 3)

10 wickets in 11 OD games (including one T20 match) with 4 wickets in 3 games v Bangladesh.

2-40 & 0-60 v Leistershire
0-30 & 0-18 v England (1st test)
2-45 & DNB v Worcetershire
2-91 & 0-24 v England (2nd test)
1-114 & 0-23 v England (3rd test)
0-80 v Essex

7 wickets @ 63 in 1st class matches.

Funnily enough, the scorers didn't seem to give him any credit for his other 250 test wickets.

Even if they gave him the benefit of the doubt and gave him the 1st test out of loyalty, he certainly should have been dropped for the 2nd test.

Shane Watson wasn't even in the touring squad but made 200 in County cricket just before the 2nd test. He should have come into the team anyway along with Stuey McGill instead of Gillespie and Katich. Watson could have even batted 7 after Gilchrist.

The selectors didn't have the balls to bring in someone in form from left field or try something as radical as playing 2 spinners.

And they still don't have the balls to drop players (especially if they have marketing contracts with sponsors and are in a lot of ads.

[GVGjr]

Re: Hughes Vs Jaques -The "Phil-Off"

We wouldn't if it was Hodge

Sorry hujsh but that is an old chestnut that can be simply answered by the fact that he didn't do enough when he had his chances.