Shane Warne's 1st Test figures 45 - 7 - 150 - 1 ( Ist innings vs India , Sydney , 1992 )

We need to give these new players a bit of a go . Hughes has major issues but what's the bet he makes a big score in Hobart ?! Don't know what to make of him really .

Jayasuriya . Sehwag , Gilchrist and plenty of others were highly successful without having perfect techniques , which leads me into "The Suburban Boy" otherwise known as the "Bull" .

I reckon Warner will be fantastic for Test cricket if he's successful and I'm backing him to do it for this reason . He may get found out but I really hope not .

Cummins and Pattinson should lead our attack for many years if they remain healthy . And Starc will hopefully be a goodin' as well with his variety . And there are other young quicks on the horizon ( Cutting , Hazelwood . Herrick etc ) . Lyon keeps getting better and better .

Suddenly this Indian team are quite vulnerable .

I reckon Warner will be fantastic for Test cricket if he's successful and I'm backing him to do it for this reason . He may get found out but I really hope not .

I'm in your corner too Macca. No science behind it, just think that his rate of progression in the long form of the game has been pretty good, remembering that he wasn't a professional cricketer when he was catapulted in to the Australian T20 side. He's obviously got all the shots - I think in time the temperament and concentration will come.

I liked this article - seems to reaffirm what I'm saying: What Sehwag saw in Warner

On Warner - I would not write him off at all. The ABC commentators spoke postively of a recent Shield century which was a patient measured knock. He deserves his chance.

On the Aust Test team.....

Lets not get ahead of ourselves......

There's promise being shown on some reasonably helpful wickets.

India will be another Test. Their batting is still awesome but there ability to get 20 wickets in a Test is challenged if H Singh and Z Khan are not fit.

I'm in your corner too Macca. No science behind it, just think that his rate of progression in the long form of the game has been pretty good, remembering that he wasn't a professional cricketer when he was catapulted in to the Australian T20 side. He's obviously got all the shots - I think in time the temperament and concentration will come.

I liked this article - seems to reaffirm what I'm saying: What Sehwag saw in Warner

Excellent article in that link "Nasher" .

Perhaps Dave Warner will set a trend of T20 batsmen progressing to Test cricket - can't see why not .

As for India , they were woeful in England a few months back and are notoriously poor away from home .

Aussies to win the series though India might win 1 test . Can't wait to see this Cummins / Pattinson duo in action . Bring on Boxing day !

Warner is a better bat than Hughes. I hope he gets the same opportunities .

How about those Vics.

Memories of India West Indies a few weeks ago. Dropped catch, missed run out, 2 needed off the last ball only to get one. Set the Q'landers 400 - 9-399 at stumps day 4.

I only just found this out today, but for anyone else who's interested and didn't know, you can stream shield cricket off of www.cricket.com.au

How about those Vics.

Memories of India West Indies a few weeks ago. Dropped catch, missed run out, 2 needed off the last ball only to get one. Set the Q'landers 400 - 9-399 at stumps day 4.

I only just found this out today, but for anyone else who's interested and didn't know, you can stream shield cricket off of www.cricket.com.au

Thanks for that link HG . I remember the days when we used to get the last session of select Shield games on the tele !

I said [Warner]'s not good enough. That comes from having watched him at NSW level. He has made plenty of runs, sure, but that's over one season. For me I haven't seen enough of him at that level to warrant long-term selection.

So you've seen enough at state level to know he's not good enough, but at the same time not enough to know if he's worth a spot? That's nonsensical rubbish and you deserve to be called out for it.

I like Warner. Is he good enough? I don't know, but the signs are good. What he does well is go on when he has the chance, which is a great trait for an opener. Guys like Sehwag, Gayle and McCullum are dangerous because they can change the game quickly. It makes the game easier for their batting partner because the bowlers are on the defensive. I'm more than willing to be patient with him, because he seems to be made of stern stuff too.

While everyone is very excited about Pattinson and Cummins, I think that it's important to realise that these kids are going to be inconsistent. They'll have good days and bad days. They need a senior workhorse to help them out on the bad days and shoulder the workload. Siddle is perfect for that role. I also thought he bowled well without luck and would surely keep his spot for the moment.

Warner is a better bat than Hughes. I hope he gets the same opportunities .

I reckon he might if he can score 17 first-class centuries including three in Tests in the next three seasons at that level.

So you've seen enough at state level to know he's not good enough, but at the same time not enough to know if he's worth a spot? That's nonsensical rubbish and you deserve to be called out for it.

No I wrote that badly, my bad. What I meant was that having seen him at NSW level I haven't seen anything which suggests to me that he's good enough to hold down a long term spot in the Australian side at the moment. I see how that reads, which makes no sense. Not what I meant.

I stand by that too. I have watched him for NSW and yes, he has made centuries, but even Hughes before being picked looked in far greater shape and looked like a longer term player than Warner did. I'm not saying Warner needs to break Bradman's Shield runs record like Hughes did; all I'm saying is that from what I have seen of Warner at State level, nothing suggests he is going to be a long term opener, and nothing he did in the Brisbane Test changed that (obviously partly because he wasn't given much of a chance).

Nothing I've said so far means he won't make it, or can't. Nor does it say he isn't a good option (i.e. an attacking one). But right now, if Marsh and Watson were fit, they would come straight back in, and Warner would be the first to go. That is all I am saying. Right now, he's not good enough to hold his spot.

But right now, if Marsh and Watson were fit, they would come straight back in, and Warner would be the first to go. That is all I am saying. Right now, he's not good enough to hold his spot.

I would have thought Hughes would certainly be out too.

Right now, we dont know whether Warner is actually good enough to hold his spot against more seasoned players who have had more opportunity to get the runs on the board.

I'm a supporter of Phil Hughes and hope he can iron out the well-documented issues he has with his batsmanship but I'll go against the tide and suggest that Dan Christian should come into the side in his place.

The rationale is that without Shane Watson (who probably won't be bowling much over the summer anyway) we'll need the extra bowler on a flat track like Bellerive, if for nothing else then to preserve our dwindling band of available pace bowlers from being overworked if the occasion demands. I'm not big on using spare parts bowlers like Hussey and Clarke for long periods in tests.

The batting order could easily be switched around to accomodate Christian's inclusion and I think the team would be better off for the change.

That said, Hughes will no doubt stay in the side and belt out a century on that pitch just to make me look stupid.

The batting order could easily be switched around to accomodate Christian's inclusion and I think the team would be better off for the change.

Who would you open with?

Who would you open with?

It's not an easy one given our injury situation but because this would be a one off I'd open with Dave Warner and Usman Khawaja.

If they don't want to expose Ponting at # 3 the selectors might want to try Brad Haddin who has opened the batting in the 50 over game.

As I said, it's a one off and Watson and Marsh should be back for Boxing Day. I'm all for trying things that are a bit left field in these situations.

Probably has no chance of happening because Clarke has just declared his undying love for Hughes as an opener.

Patrick Cummins out for all the Tests vs India - what a shame as I was looking forward to seeing him live in Melbourne . Suppose it gives another quick a chance to cement a spot in the side but it's still a big blow .

Virender Sehwag scores a double ton in one day international v West Indies, breaking the all time highest score in a ODI. He is the second player to surpass 200 - the other being Sachin Tendulkar in Feb 2010. Currently 210* not out off 144 - still 5 overs remaining !

*Fox Sports

Sehwag out for 219 off 149 balls in 47th over.

Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish.

Result wise Hughes has fallen victim 19 times out of 30 innings between keeper and gully.

Ricky Ponting doesn't think the issue is a confidence thing as he highlighted Hughes "has come off a few good knocks in South Africa."

Mark Waugh has urged him to play the percentages: -

"He just keeps getting out the same way." Waugh said. "If you're an opening batsman playing decent quality bowling, you just can't afford to be fishing outside the off-stump all the time. It's the basic technique of a top-order batsman in Test cricket. You've got to be able to let the ball go and you've got to be strong outside that off-stump.

"But he looks like he could get out at any stage, and he just keeps flirting with the ball outside the off-stump. His technique has got to tighten up, otherwise he might find himself out of the team."

- Article: Peter Badel H-Sun

That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day.

I agree with this. The dismissals will happen with the angles Martin creates. However my belief is a good top-order Test batsman should be just as strong on the onside as he is playing the off side. Being able to work through the on side for runs has it's advantages. Many think that Hughes is strong outside that off-stump and they're right to a degree because that's where he cuts and scores most of his runs. But, it is also his weakness. I agree with Waugh's assessment in being strong outside off-stump, strong and mindful enough to let the ball go. Strong enough to have patience too. Much like Justin Langer did.

I can't believe it.

What was Clarke thinking when he won the toss and bowled.

Doesn't he know the golden rule when you win the toss you bat first?

Seriously though, the right call by Clarke. Pattinson's wicket ball to McCullum was an absolute gem. Kiwis right in trouble at 6-83 at lunch with a long tail and no Vettori. Brownlie continues to impress.

Is the NZ series over yet?

Yes the pitch is green, but we did bowl well, especially Siddle and Pattinson early on. Starc was erratic, but bowled some corkers in between.

It will be interesting to see how we bat on this pitch, especially against the new ball.

Is the NZ series over yet?

Nearly :-)

It pissed down with rain here for about 5 minutes then passed. Hot (relative to recent weather) and humid and yucky.

Starc was erratic, but bowled some corkers in between.

He really is a Johnson replacement!

Martin to Hughes, OUT, Martin strikes! Hughes is caught in the slips once again

Well, well, well...

Ha ha! We do have a Mitch Johnson replacement.

Hughes was on a hinding to nothing today with the ball moving. Martin should have had nine slips for Hughes.

He played at a ball that was just too wide to play at. That wasn't a technique thing, but rather it was just a bad ball to play at on a seaming deck.