Back in Contention

If your first-class career is still in its early stages and you're averaging nearly 70, scoring just 7 and 8 in a match must pull you up a bit short. All in all, it's unlikely that Phil Hughes's double failure at Worcester will have a serious effect on his confidence, but the manner of both his dismissals - caught close in dealing poorly with short balls - is sure to cause some interest among England's bowlers and some concern in the Australian camp.

The bowler who delivered both those balls, Steve Harmison, is another man in an interesting position. After a distinctly average winter it was assumed in some quarters that England's future lay without him, and this may still be the case. But with what he's done at Worcester you wouldn't be at all surprised to see his name at least in contention for a place in Wednesday's side, although, as Harmison himself has said, if England do play two spinners it's hard to see how he'll fit into the team.

Others, such as Graham Onions, would offer more consistency but less pace and hostility, but Harmison has laid a powerful marker down over the last few days at Worcester.

The trouble, as ever, is that no-one can be sure how he's going to bowl on any given day, but that might just be a risk worth taking.

Too Good

When the mild 'controversy' blew up a while ago about counties signing Australians in advance of this summer's Ashes series, I didn't make any comment, mainly because I wasn't really sure what I thought. On the one hand it certainly wasn't going to work in England's favour, but on the other it's hard to castigate the counties too much as they have trophies to win and no absolute necessity to consider the Test team when they decide who to employ, even if many would argue that there's a strong moral obligation to do so.

As many people said, it highlighted the differences between English and Australian cricketing culture. The idea of states employing overseas players has never really caught on in Oz, and there wouldn't be a cat in hell's chance of anyone doing what Middlesex and Kent have done in advance of an Ashes series, even if there was a surfeit of players with the required ability. But England is different, and there are many people involved with counties (especially, in my experience, supporters) who appear to care very little about the England team so long as their own county is doing well.

What I'm trying to say here is that Middlesex's employment of Phil Hughes didn't tell us anything we didn't know before.

Of course, the main argument against it was that Hughes' exposure to early-season English conditions for the first time would help him to settle and improve his technique before the Ashes, but the evidence provided by his performances in South Africa and for Middlesex so far are that it doesn't matter. He's simply too good.

With a first-class average well above sixty, two centuries in his second Test and now a couple of tons in his first two games for his new county, it looks increasingly as though Australia have uncovered another 'once-in-a-generation player', and one who could haunt England for the next decade.

By the time he's finished with us the fact that he once played for Middlesex may be long-forgotten.

No Tears Shed

Just for once, with another famous player having retired, I'm not going to write a heartfelt valediction. I just can't bring myself to do it, because, while his statistics and performances undeniably speak of a very, very good, and possibly great, player, I never had much time for Matthew Hayden.

As a batsman he was just a bit too muscular, stereotyped and unemotional for my liking, and, if you throw in the grating contrast between his widely trumpeted Catholic piety and the way in which he apparently abused Graeme Smith relentlessly on his debut (I say 'apparently' because Smith might have been lying, but I don't think his account of events has ever been convincingly refuted), there always seemed to me to be plenty there not to like.

On the face of it, his retirement in advance of this summer's Ashes series does England a favour, but does it really? Although he might have recovered his form - good players always think they will - his career had entered a marked decline which may well have been age-related and unrecoverable. Australia now have a choice of several candidates for his opening spot, the majority of whom (Jaques, Rogers and Hussey, anyway) know all about scoring shedloads of runs in England.

Personally I have a hunch that the Australian selectors might go for the young New South Walian Phil Hughes for the South African tour, but, for England, Jaques looks a better bet. Or, if they're happy to rejig their order, they could do much worse than move Hussey up to form another left-handed combo with the revitalised Simon Katich.

Another interesting imponderable ahead of a series which is building up to be very interesting indeed...