Phil Hughes Watch

A quick update on how Phil Hughes is doing against India’s spinners. He really kicked on today, scoring two whole runs.

This means that Hughes has now been dismissed five times in his last 70 balls against spin, scoring two runs in that time.

That’s 0.4 runs per dismissal at a strike rate of 2.86.

It’s rare that statistics speak for themselves when you’re trying to deliver humour.

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

23 Appeals

  1. Michael Taylor

    March 15, 2013 at 9:27 am

    A strike rate of 14 balls per dismissal, or 2 runs in 11.4 overs – how is the 2.86 strike rate calculated?

  2. A much better effort all round from Australia. They’ve literally improved in every aspect of the game:

    • Toss winning (they’ve actually been very good at this, but it’s great to see they haven’t let their standards slip)

    • Opening stand (having one)

    • Phil Hughes (infinite percent improvement in scoring rate against spin)

    • Michael Clarke (proving the doubters wrong about which position he should bat)

    • Batting deep into Day 2

    All in all, I think they can be very proud of themselves. I’m sure this will be reflected in this evening’s warm-down essay writing contest (2000 words continuing from the line “It was a cold day in Hell, but the Porcine Flying Corps was up and about as usual… ” )

  3. I looked this up…

    Michael Clarke became the eighth batsman to be out stumped first ball in test cricket. Norman Gordon, a South African, managed the feat twice, both times by Les Ames off the bowling of Tom Goddard. So it’s happened nine times.

    I do hope Mickey A drops him.

    • King Cricket

      March 15, 2013 at 11:27 am

      Sometimes a simple line on a scorecard can express so much. Nothing unusual about being stumped. Nothing unusual about being out first ball.

      But stumped first ball having promoted yourself to three?

    • I was spurred on by exactly that aspect of your regal analysis of Philip Joel Hughes, m’lud.

      It’s the sort of thing that would have the Mail readers in uproar if KP had done it.

      I hope he’s got thick skin, Clarke.

    • I have a theory – Clarke reads your blog, KC. So he did not expect that to turn.

  4. ..and cheeringly Steve Smith is establishing himself as no 5 for the Ashes. Go Piggy!

  5. Guess I found the reason for the Hughes improvement against spin – net practice!

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/624959.html

    According to this report “Smith was getting hit over the top by the struggling Hughes during Australia’s centre-wicket training on day four in Hyderabad”

  6. Watching Hughes bat against spin is more sad than an old sheepdog with a broken leg.

    • Are you saying Hughes should be taken out and shot? Is that what you’re saying?

      That’s what he’s saying everyone. I heard him.

    • Steady on, chaps. Let’s not put any tactical ideas in their heads before the Ashes. We might find ourselves playing against a three-legged sheepdog, which would be very much more difficult than playing against Philip Hughes.

    • Your words, not mine Sam. And shame on you for advocating such a thing. That’s cruelty to animals, though for Hughes would be mercy.

  7. I predict that Phil Hughes’ performance against Indian spinners will improve from now on.

    Remember where you read it first.

  8. This is cruel now.

  9. We should temper our malicious glee somewhat. Schadenfreude should not trump self interest. The chances of Hughes playing in the Ashes must be dwindling. We should now earnestly hope for a career saving innings. On the bright side, Smith may be doing enough to book him a place in the top 6.

    • Surely it’s only a matter of time before Stuey Law comes out of retirement. He’s only 44. He could do a job.

  10. Where is your faith? Only last year the usual collection of unlearned and totally biased men(Chappell,Border,Warne etc were proclaiming Hughes as the second coming of Bradman.And many of them were very loud in their condemnation of our totally incompetent selectors for not persisting with Hughes. So he was selected for India by that cunning panel to prove once and for all that the selectors were right after all. Plus he is a top notch essay writer of some note.
    Personally I was dismayed when he was so unluckily dismissed as I was looking forward to hearing Hayden commenting on Hughes batting – not often you get the inarticulate describing the inept.

    • Very well said. I was very disappointed when he was picked for this test, as I thought his best chance of playing in the Ashes was not playing a few tests. By sitting out while his teammates make a hash of things, he inevitably strengthens his position. Selection from a pool of incompetents is always a merry-go-round – the only thing you know for certain is that the idiot actually playing isn’t up to the job.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑