In what looks to be a batsman friendly but heavily rain effected match, the selectors focus should have been on fixing Australia's shaky bowling attack. With Johnson spraying it around more than a garden hose, and Siddle bowling more inconsistently then I've ever seen him bowl, the selectors needed to make some drastic changes in that department more than any other. Instead they have decided to break up a very settled opening partnership to bring in a guy who will probably break down in the first session of the first day.
I'll say it once, and I'll say it again... makeshift openers have no positive effect on any cricket team. And unless the selectors are thinking about permanently entrusting "Watto" with the opening position, what's the point of bringing him in? If they want the extra pace bowling option, what is so wrong with dropping one of the struggling middle order batsman and leaving Hughes up top to further develop his game?
And what is so wrong, if they are not happy with the way Hughes is developing, with bringing in a specialist opening batsman like Chris Rogers (averaging over 45 in county cricket this year) or Phil Jaques (who's test batting average is touching upon 48)?
I may (and will probably) be proved wrong, but at this very moment, it just doesn't make sense...
No comments:
Post a Comment