The PlanetCricket View: Where did it go so wrong for Hughes?

[PlanetCricket]

Article by Sylvester -

Philip Hughes is a man who has gone through an entire career worth of criticism at the ripe old age of 23. How have things gone so wrong for him?

Upon making his test debut, his first class average was above 60 and his runs had come in all kinds of situations. His display on a green Bellerive Oval (not to dissimilar to the second test against NZ) showed he was a class above the rest of the batsmen playing in this match. Guys like George Bailey, Ed Cwoan, Tim Paine, Usman Khawaja and Steven Smith were left in the wake of Hughes whose scores of 93 and 108 was so far above the next highest score in the match of 59, it was Bradman like. In fact this was one of the few records he would go on to take from the great Don Bradman, in this game he recorded the greatest two-innings contribution to a team?s game total and brought up his 1000th FC run at a quicker rate. His other moment came a season earlier where he scored 116 in the Shield final (known as Pura Cup back in the day) leading NSW to a dominant 258 runs win against Victoria.


These amazing feats heightened expectations ahead of Hughes? test debut in SA. The moment had come and as quickly Hughes was on his way back to the pavilion, out to one of the more crazier shots you will see by a player making his debut. This was Hughes confidence on show. Not bothered by this, Hughes showed what all the fuss was about scoring 75 runs in the second innings, easily the highest score in this innings with Haddin?s 37 the next closest.

Next came the moment where he would write his name into the history books. The second test against SA at Durban saw Hughes score his maiden hundred in the first innings and then his maiden 150 in the second innings. In doing so he became the youngest player in Test history to achieve this feat. Bradman only achieved this feat 20 years after his debut.

Despite all this, the short ball weakness continued to flow through the media and from the South African players. His third test was less eventful compared to his first two matches. Not fussed by this Hughes went on to his nicely timed County Cricket stint. Playing for Middlesex he took the County attacks to school, scoring 574 runs at 143.50 in just five innings, which topped Bradman?s 556 runs in as many knocks in 1930. The Hughes show by this point had taken Australia, England and South Africa by storm.

One would call me crazy to suggest this would be the beginning of the end. However sadly this is exactly what happened. The man famous for bowling a wide to second slip in the first ball of the Ashes exposed the short ball weakness which SA said they should have done but didn?t. The England Lions game saw Harmison brutally exposing Hughes against the short ball and in the process bursting his bubble.

The moment had finally come for Hughes, making his Ashes debut at Cardiff. He started like he did in his test debut, backing himself and full of confidence. He took each of the English quicks in the game (Broad, Flintoff and Anderson) for a boundary on his way to 36. Hughes first Ashes dismissal came at the hands of Flintoff.

Flintoff to Hughes, OUT, got him! Flintoff wins the battle with a ball that perhaps moves in a touch and Hughes, trying to punch it through off, gets the thinnest of inside edges behind to Prior​

He would not be required in the second innings. So onto the greatest moment in a cricketer's career ? playing at Lords. His first runs at Lords came off a nicely timed boundary.

Anderson to Hughes, FOUR, and Australia are off the mark with a solid punch forward of point from Hughes, it wasn?t terribly wide but he?s quickly onto that and places it well​

However his innings wouldn?t last long when he was out to the second worse way to get out in cricket.

Anderson to Hughes, OUT, Anderson strikes! Hughes tries to pull down leg side and England are confident it?s tickled his gloves, Rudi Koertzen?s left index finger eventually confirms their suspicions​

Hughes would get a second innings this time round. Little did we know this would be his last innings of this series. After a few boundaries and looking confident, his nemesis would return.

Flintoff to Hughes, OUT, gone, got him, gone! Is he? Hughes edges it to Strauss at first slip who claims this low, scooping catch. Ponting sends Hughes back, asks Strauss if he caught it. Koertzen?s given him though. This will run, and run, and run?​

This would be the temporary end for Hughes as he made way for Watson as the selectors looked for a way to make up for the wayward Johnson. At long last we get to the reason which I personally believe was the point where it went all wrong for Hughes. Not since the Lions game was Hughes out to a short ball excluding the one from Anderson which was down the leg side. This so called short ball weakness never led to his downfall in this Ashes. Since when do we drop a guy for a weakness exposed in a tour game and on the basis of the words of a few opposition players.

I said at the time that Hughes should have been stuck with because he was never out to his precised weakness. In each occasion in this Ashes series, Hughes got out in a different manner (a welcome change from b. Martin c. Guptill!). You don?t just discard a guy that has been breaking records for fun. Essentially 2 games since his successful tour of South Africa, Hughes was sent packing. That should never be the way we treat a youngster particularly one that had Hughes record to date. He should have been given the full Ashes series as we knew once he got dropped for this ?short ball weakness? he would have to change his technique. We will never know what the old Hughes might have become but it is a dam shame it will remain a ?what if?. And just to note to those shouting ?but he got worked out once players got to analyze him?. Again refer back to the dismissal I have shown, in 3 innings he was not out once in the same fashion and none of them were to do with his so called short ball weakness.

As I mentioned in my previous paragraph, Hughes would have to change his technique to get back into the side. Even though he never got out to this weakness apart from in a Lions game, he had no choice but to change his technique to please the selectors and get back into the side.

What followed was Hughes beginning the long journey of developing a new technique. The Hughes we have seen since no longer has the same carefree confidence in himself. Instead he is doubting himself and always wondering when to play straight. His next stint in County cricket demonstrates this point perfectly, in 6 innings he made a total of 85 runs a far cry from his previous stint.

We now enter the final destination for Hughes? new technique. By the time Katich injured his thumb in what happened to be his last game, Hughes was having his worse ever Shield season. However the selectors decided to take a punt on him overlooking Usman Khawaja who was in much better form at the time. Below is commentary from cricinfo of selected Hughes dismissal.

5th Ashes Test: The battle ends for Hughes! What a disappointment. Tremlett bangs it in on a length outside off, Hughes could have left it but instead fenced fatally and it nipped the edge and flew to Collingwood at third slip who took the chance above his head​

1st Test SL: What a beauty this Test could be. Takes off, explodes, from short of a length. It?s close to off, and Hughes is committed to playing at it. The extra bounce means he has to fend at it, and it takes the shoulder of the bat before lobbing to slip. He didn?t even run his fingers across this one. Let me remind you this is just the 10th over. Vicious bounce there from a length​

This was a sign of things to come for Hughes and while he scored a career saving 126, the hound dogs were only around the corner. By his return trip to South Africa he ended up being dismissed in similar fashion 3 out of 4 times. The outlier was his 88 in the 2nd test, 1st innings which shows Hughes can still make runs but he has Marcus North like consistency.

1st Test SA 1st innings: Similar ball to the previous one, lands short of a length around middle and off and then goes away like a charm. This was pacier than before, Hughes gets squared up as he angles the face of the bat in hope, but the ball takes the edge and is into Bouch?s gloves in a flash. He ends up looking just as clumsy as Watto did. This is brilliant bowling in great conditions for such bowling.
2nd innings: It was a short of a length ball that bounced sharply and seamed across the left-hander, squaring Hughes up. The ball hit the shoulder of the bat and went to third slip. It was dying on Rudolph as it reached him but he seemed to just get his fingers under the ball. Close call but looked like it carried.​

2nd Test SA: Philander it is again, gets it to bounce from back of a length, not far from Hughes, would have required an incredible leave to survive that one, Hughes was already close to it with that across movement, and ended up edging it to second slip as he hopped and pushed hard at it.​

What could be the last test series for Hughes in a while came against NZ on home soil. Here was his chance to build on his 126 and 88 and cement his spot for the Boxing day test. Instead what eventuated will almost certainly see Hughes dropped for Boxing day despite having a more recent hundred than Ricky Ponting. In this series he was squared up 4 times and should have been out 4 times by that fashion. This would have broken the b. Martin c. Guptil trend but it would have maintained his fatal flaw.

1st Test, 1st innings: gotcha with a ripper and a superb catch! Hughes has to go now. Martin sprints in and delivers on a perfect length, but it is almost outside leg. It then hits the seam and darts across, opening up Hughes and catching him completely out of balance as he looks to defend. It moved so much, it took the outside edge and flew low to gully. Guptill is among the best there, he dives forward and plucks it inches above the turf.
2nd innings:Dropped Hughes was all at sea really and so was McCullum, Hughes tamely pokes his bat at a delivery angling on his body, the ball hits the shoulder of the bat and McCullum juggles and makes a mess of it at second slip​

2nd Test, 1st innings: Hughes is caught in the slips once again, the pressure on him grows, lovely delivery in the channel outside off, shaping away from the left-hander, leant forward to defend and it took the outside edge as it moved away, Guptill made no mistake at second slip. Tried to defend there with a slightly open face did Hughes
2nd innings: Hughes has been caught in the slips, off Martin once again, New Zealand have started superbly, short of a good length, a little closer to the off stump this one and nips away after a bit of outswing, a fatal poke from Phil Hughes and it?s that man Guptill again who snaps him, moving to his left at second slip, early pressure on the hosts. Four in four for Martin, Hughes and Guptill​

So there we have it, the roller coaster ride that is Philip Hughes is complete. It is clear Hughes is not in sync with his technique. His new technique has got him in an awkward position where he feels the need to play at the angle delivery even though it was never going to threaten the stumps. He needs to return to first class cricket to get back in sync with his technique.

In summary I believe the point where he was dropped was the point where it went wrong for him. We never got the opportunity to see if Hughes? old technique could have copped with the rigors of Test cricket. Now I?m not saying he would have ended up any different but I like to believe the records he broke weren?t by fluke. I hope Hughes ends up sorting out his new problem and returns with his new technique and a return to his old Bradman breaking record ways.

More...

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Good stuff.

Always been against making players change their styles/techniques just based on a few failures. It got them that far, surely it can't be ????.

 

[sifter132]

Short answer: he should have stayed a wicket keeper

He's certainly an interesting case, but for all the talk of changing his technique it's not exactly clear to me what he actually has changed. Backlift? Head position? Foot movement? Grip? Stance? I really don't see anything new. When I first saw him his back foot never moved and as a result he stayed leg side of the ball a lot. Watching him last week, at least he lifts his back foot up, but it doesn't really go anywhere. I might see if I can look on youtube and see if anything's changed.

It may not be the fact that his technique has changed, but the real key could be that he was TOLD that it needed to change ie. it affected his mind more than his mechanical movements. A young kid being told he needs to change his technique probably starts questioning if all the runs under his belt were worthless, or a fluke. Then he has the mixed message of being picked again so soon. So he'd be wrestling with the idea of 'I need to change', but 'they've picked me again anyway'.

So I think the real error was not so much the hasty dropping in 2009, but it was that he's even come back at all. If the selectors really thought his technique wouldn't hold up in the long term, he should have been sent off to pasture to actually change it. Instead they bought him within a matter of months, couple of times after Hughes made Shield runs, gambling that his confidence from those runs would overcome the better bowling and more sustained accuracy at Test level. That theory has since been proven to be wrong. To succeed, Hughes needs high confidence from runs under his belt AND high confidence from people really believing he has the technique to succeed long term. I don't see how he can possibly have either at the moment.

So with the more theoretical side out of the way, let's get real. I don't think Hughes can be a Test opener. Syl you asked if he really goes too hard at the ball in the other thread - certainly, yes. Where are his edges that drop before the slip cordon? Where are his soft pushes into the off side for one? Where are his fighting innings where he's really had to play a disciplined knock? eg. I think I've found only 2 Hughes centuries that weren't with a S/R of over 50: 160 vs South Africa, and 115 vs WA last summer. You can see how he succeeded as a junior cricketer and it was as an attacking opener, able to punish anything loose.

As an aside: This is one of the key issues with the current Aus lineup - all the players are counter attackers: Hughes, Watson, Warner, Clarke, Ponting, Haddin - all like scoring at a good rate, all like feeling the ball on the bat. Hard to find any fighting centuries on the resumes of that lot, most are off 150 balls. And even when you do see a Watson or a Clarke really try and knuckle down, you get the feeling it's only a matter of time before they flash at one (or leave a straight one), just because they are really forcing themselves to concentrate so hard on not doing what they want to do ie. chase the ball. Some defensive players would be a godsend IMHO.

Counter attacking is great at lower levels, even Shield level, but when the loose balls start drying up, what does Hughes do?? I think he's a chance of scoring well against average Test attacks, on flat decks and if his confidence is good - but how often does that happen? More often than it should unfortunately, but I really think he'll be found out in the tough series' - an Ashes tour for instance or even on a seaming track against NZ... But I guess even a guy like Sehwag has those issues

 

[aussie1st]

The commentators have definitely showed a couple of things have changed. He no longer moves his backfoot towards leg stump and his bat is now angling towards mid on whereas before it was straight.

So with the more theoretical side out of the way, let's get real. I don't think Hughes can be a Test opener. Syl you asked if he really goes too hard at the ball in the other thread - certainly, yes. Where are his edges that drop before the slip cordon? Where are his soft pushes into the off side for one? Where are his fighting innings where he's really had to play a disciplined knock? eg. I think I've found only 2 Hughes centuries that weren't with a S/R of over 50: 160 vs South Africa, and 115 vs WA last summer. You can see how he succeeded as a junior cricketer and it was as an attacking opener, able to punish anything loose.

Of course an opener with soft hands is ideal. However how many times have you seen players that play with soft hands actually making it fall short? Not many because if that were the case everyone would be averaging 100 and offering no catches to slips. Staruss, Cook, Hayden, Langer etc they don't rely on the ball falling short of slip because the ball is more times than not coming off the middle of the bat. Speaking of Hayden and Langer both use to go hard at the ball and are regarded as one of the best opening pairs for Australia.

Using strike rate to measure if a player is being aggressive/showing fight characteristics is pointless as well. What is to say he didn't make 20 off 50 balls before making 30 off the next 50? And if the bowler is bowling bad balls what is he meant to do with it? Just leave it so they keep their strike rate under 50 and don't appear to be an "aggressive" opener? As for the fight, he had 3 innings, when is that ever enough to say a player has or has not got the fighting characteristics? All other innings he has played since come with the big fat * as by that stage his confidence has taken a hit, he was working on his new technique, fighting with his technique, etc so really the problem could lie in any one of those factors. As I said it is a dam shame he was dropped before the completion of the Ashes, at the very least we would have had a much better understanding of where his technique was at.

Oh and here you go an edge falling short of the slips.

Martin to Hughes, FOUR, through the slips for four! But fell well short, short of a good length and it nipped away, Hughes played at it softly and opened the face, got a thick edge for a boundary

And lastly how can you be criticizing Hughes for playing too aggressively not using soft hands when you are campaigning for Watson to stay at the top of the order? Watson is no different to Hughes, he goes hard at it and puts the bad balls away. So let me throw it back at you. Where are his edges that drop before the slip cordon? Where are his soft pushes into the off side for one? Where are his fighting innings where he's really had to play a disciplined knock? eg. I think I've found only 1 Watson century that weren't with a S/R of over 50: 126 v India at Mohali.

 

[angryangy]

He's adopted a back and across trigger. He's a bit more fluent on the legside. It just hasn't mattered much. I think he has been trying to play softer in defence, but he gets out more when the things get out of hand.

The thing about soft hands is situational. To get a few boundaries, you'll need to hit the ball well, but what is the point in defending the ball equally hard? If you want to drive, you accept the risk of giving an edge, but defending should not get you out. Soft hands in defence can turn a good ball into a quick single and as much as they'd thrash the loose ball, that's definitely a hallmark of Langer and Hayden's batting.

For Hughes there are some balls where, if he really must play as he does, then his best option is to let the bottom hand off the bat.

 

[aussie1st]

If you want to drive, you accept the risk of giving an edge, but defending should not get you out

If only bowlers thought like that. Bowlers will bowl jaffers and you get forced to defend at one and it ends up going to slip. If they didn't then the likes of Dravid and co would be averaging 200. The last thing Hughes is thinking about when he is getting squared up is soft hands. If we are looking at giving him advise to stop the b. Martin c. Guptill it would be regarding the position he is getting himself into. His bat should never come into play because the balls I mentioned would be clearly missing the stumps however the position he is getting himself into is making him believe he needs to play it and in turn he is being squared up. Forget the soft hands in that situation, he needs to fix why he is getting squared up.

But yes outside of that soft hands to push for the quick singles would be a good additional to his game which is much easier to add to his game then the changing of technique he has gone through.

 

[angryangy]

Yes sometimes things happen, Dravid's not perfect and seems to gets bowled a lot for a guy called The Wall, but if it's only a problem every 200+ balls like Dravid at the moment, so be it. But it's not like Dravid is always pleased with his shots when he gets out, he knows when he's not done what he should've done too.

 

[aussie1st]

But it's not like Dravid is always pleased with his shots when he gets out, he knows when he's not done what he should've done too.

You referring to a certain keeper that seems like he doesn't care given the amount of times he has brain explosions?

 

[sifter132]

And lastly how can you be criticizing Hughes for playing too aggressively not using soft hands when you are campaigning for Watson to stay at the top of the order? Watson is no different to Hughes, he goes hard at it and puts the bad balls away. So let me throw it back at you. Where are his edges that drop before the slip cordon? Where are his soft pushes into the off side for one? Where are his fighting innings where he's really had to play a disciplined knock? eg. I think I've found only 1 Watson century that weren't with a S/R of over 50: 126 v India at Mohali.

Well a) I don't think Watson is a pinup boy for opening batsmen, I might look at Katich or Hussey, b) given that Watson isn't overly good at that aspect why on earth did they pair him with Hughes??

It may seem harsh for a player of Hughes' talent, but I think he'd be better off coming back for Australia at age 28 with plenty of Shield and county experience under his belt, being really comfortable with his style (or having completely remodelled it -depending on what he wants to do). Making him learn on the job in Test cricket is a bit unfair to him I think, when he's such a raw player.

Anyway, one of my long term projects when I have time is going to be a study of batsmen in their first 20-30 balls and what type of shots they play. So in short I'm avoiding the question for now But I'd like to know the answer, because it's my theory that batsmen who play with softer hands will look for ones at the start of their innings rather than 4s, and they won't nick off so often - so I'll start there. eg. Mike Hussey always seems to push into the off side for a quick single early in his innings. Leg side runs don't really count as they are generally off loose balls.

I guess it just struck me as I watched Warner and Hughes bat in Hobart. Both aimed pretty big drives through the covers fairly early in their innings, yet neither really tried to just push into the point-midoff gap. Even Khawaja fell into that hole. I'm particularly sick of seeing players caught behind the wicket early on from balls they didn't have to play, and I think looking for more singles (or just leaving the ball) could help solve that. I'm probably still in love with Alastair Cook from last summer though, I thought he put on an absolute batting clinic - how to wear down bowlers without relying on risk taking or natural talent. He left the ball well, always capitalised on straight bowling, concentrated hard. I'd love a Cook type player to open the batting for Aus.

And Angry's point about driving is right on. If you drive hard early in your innings you are taking a risk. You might want to take that risk to get on top of the bowler or move a fieldsman, but you still must accept that it's a risk. Now I think it's up to Arthur and the batsmen to work out what type of risks they should be taking. It just concerns me that some of these younger players can't really build innings properly yet and don't recognise risks as being too great eg. Warner got started and got away some good straight drives, but I think if he tries that style of batting every time I think he'll nick off a lot because he was reaching out a far way for the ball. He'll also score a lot of runs, but he needs to be aware of the risks. Warner admitted he'd been talking strategy recently with Greg Chappell about how to approach his first 20 balls, 50 balls etc. because he just hasn't had the FC experience to test it out in the middle. Most of his innings building experience has come in net sessions.

 

[aussie1st]

Well I've taken a quick look at what Cook was doing in his two double hundreds he scored.

1st Ashes Test at the Gabba. In his first 30 balls there was 2 singles, neither from soft hands. The thing you will notice however was a lot of leaves.
3rd Test v India at Edgbaston. In this one once again you won't find him using his soft hands to push for quick singles in his first 30 balls. You will find two boundaries

Now I haven't analyzed if he edged any which fell short of slip but as you can see he isn't using the soft hands to push for singles. What he is doing is leaving the ball and backing his technique to survive. Now that last sentence is the key to why Cook is successful. Yes you can leave all the balls in the world but if your technique isn't good enough to survive then 10 off 80 balls ain't much help to your team apart from shielding your middle order from the new ball.

As you said Hussey is one of the few guys that does look for those quick singles. It is a hallmark of his game that makes him one of the best ODI players going around. The problem for Hussey is his technique is no where near as solid as Cook or Dravid so while he can leave balls, there is always one delivery around the corner with his name on it. The 1st and 2nd Test in India are prime examples of this. In fact you said Hughes would struggle on an Ashes tour or on seaming decks, well I just found Hussey has done just this.

Australia in South Africa Test Series, 2008/09 - 3 test, 132 runs at 22
The Ashes (Australia in England), 2009 - 5 test, 276 runs at 34.5 (could have been much worse before that 121 at the Oval when the game was lost)
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Australia in New Zealand), 2009/10 - 2 Test, 93 runs at 31
MCC Spirit of Cricket Test Series (Australia, Pakistan in England), 2010 - 2 Test, 69 runs at 23
Australia in South Africa Test Series, 2011/12 - 2 Test, 60 runs at 15
Trans-Tasman Trophy (New Zealand in Australia), 2011/12 - 2 Test, 23 runs at 7.66 (threw this in since they were seaming tracks)

Outside of Australia and the sub-continent he has done little of note. You mentioned Sehwag earlier, these numbers are very similar to him. Here is a comparison between Hussey and Sehwag career summary. Hussey averages 30 odd in SA, NZ and England, Sehwag is about 25 in those countries. They really aren't all that dissimilar.

Anyway back to one of the points you mentioned. I agree we could use with a player that not only values his wicket but has the technique which allows him to survive for 200+ balls. Khawaja could be one but atm his technique ain't allowing him to survive for 200+ balls ala Cook, Dravid and co. Do we have anyone else that meets both criteria? I wish we did but I ain't seeing any atm.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

you know this is pretty much what I said, and you shouted at me.

 

[aussie1st]

you know this is pretty much what I said, and you shouted at me.

Which post are you referring to?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

when I said, in the "how much sweeping up can australia do" I said that the players that would bolster australia's batting simply didn't exist if they weren't already being picked and then that the reason they were failing right now is because hussey and ponting have almost inexplicably fallen out of form.

but you seem to be admitting that there genuinely isn't the player with the technique to survive 200 balls. that's what I was getting at. maybe you have taken it wrong and my point about the selectors was misplaced as I was unaware they'd just changed, the new selectors might well find a better balance.

but if australia's batting is to get back on course it will need hussey and ponting to start contributing because there are no players to simply move in and score the runs they should be scoring and also. so if hussey and ponting are on terminal decline it will probably just be a matter of waiting until the youngsters improve their game (my further belief is that can be done equally effectively in domestic cricket as it can playing for the test, arguably more effectively as an axe won't hang constantly over their head and there will be periods were technique can be re-modelled without the pressure of results)

 

[aussie1st]

When I commented on that I was talking about players who were performing rather than guys who could be our Cook or Dravid. Lets be honest there aren't many of them around the globe let alone Australia.

Your next point about Ponting/Hussey contributing is exactly what I meant by our team being in a mess. Let's be honest no top 4 team should be sweeping under the carpet 3 sub 100 scores in the past 2 years including one where the team was 9/21 and 7 sub 200 scores including one against a raw NZ seam attack. Something needs to change on that front and as I showed in that thread, peeling the skin from a rotten apple ain't working, it is the core where the problem is. Cowan is one player that values his wicket (don't know if he has the technique as his FC stats are okay without being spectacular) and is the opener Sifter might have been after, so bringing him in for one of Ponting/Hussey would be a start. Khawaja could be another as I mentioned, still too small a sample size to decide. Either that or we bring in a keeper that values his wicket, Nevill seems to be one that does this however lacks experience, Paine is another but he's gone for 4 months. So really the first option is the way to go plus Nevill isn't really in the frame.

So

Cowan/Khawaja
Warner
Marsh
Watson
Clarke
Hussey/Ponting
Haddin

 

[sifter132]

Good points on Cook, perhaps singles aren't the key as I suspect - but all the more reason to look into it more . And yes, it's plain he is comfortable with his technique and uses it as his 'weapon', just like Dravid or Chanderpaul might.

In fact the more I think about it, I don't think the Aussie batsmen are any more fragile in their first 30 balls than other nations. So it must be after 30 balls that I think the problems come in for the Aussies. Wish I could put my finger on it precisely, but Australia generally doesn't knuckle down in this phase, most players natural instincts are to accelerate, we've suffered a poor 50-100 conversion rate of late, and those who try to defend or play with more application are constantly wrestling with their natural instincts eg. Clarke at Hobart who was trying so hard not to play at another wide ball that he left a straight one.

That's why I'd love to see more players who don't want to hit every ball. Khawaja would be an obvious one, but he's struggling a bit for form at present. Cowan could be a good guy. If Shaun Marsh plays with the discipline he did in SL then he'll be excellent (when he's fit...). Tim Paine would be much better at stopping collapses at #7 than Haddin. I read Ian Chappell calling for Clarke to go up to #3, but I think a Warner/Watson/Clarke top 3 would be...unbalanced would be the most diplomatic way of putting it. All love to hit the ball, none seem to knuckle down for too long. That's the Chappell way, but I think it needs a Khawaja/Cowan/Marsh even Hussey to be in that top 3 to balance it out. I think long term I'd be looking at a team like this:
Watson
Cowan
Khawaja
Clarke
Warner
Marsh
Paine

Batting order negotiable of course. Trouble with that team being that it could be vulnerable against spin if it's loaded with too many opening batsmen types. Balance I guess that's all I'd like to see - don't load the team with guys who have to go into a zen like state just to leave a few balls.