By SB Tang
It’s after lunch on the third day of the 2010 Ashes Boxing Day Test. Australia’s opening pair of Shane Watson and Phil Hughes are cruising along at 5.4 an over in Australia’s second innings. The ever unpredictable Melbourne sun has come out for the first time during an Australian innings in the Test match, the pitch looks placid and Australia have reached 49 without loss after 9 overs. Even Jimmy Anderson looks unthreatening, going for 5.4 an over.
For the first time in the match, Australian fans had grounds for cautious optimism. I certainly did, believing, for the first time in the Test, that Australia might have some scintilla of a chance to save the match and keep alive the hope of regaining the Ashes with victory in the fifth and final Test at the SCG.
England captain Andrew Strauss makes a double bowling change, bringing Graeme Swann on for Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan on for Anderson.
Runs, which until then had flowed from the flashing blades of Watson and Hughes as easily as raindrops from the sky in an English July, immediately dry up as Bresnan maintains a suffocating line and length. True to his reputation, Bresnan somehow finds something in a flat-looking pitch which other bowlers could not. His first over is a maiden.
This sudden, unexpected drought of runs makes Watson and Hughes nervous. The crowd can feel it too. The relaxed chatting in the grandstands, so natural and prevalent just minutes ago, peters out.
The very next over, the inevitable happens: a wicket falls.
Watson, anxious to keep the scoreboard ticking, pushes a ball from Swann straight to Trott at cover and calls Hughes through for the single. Hughes hares down to the keeper’s end but his fate is already sealed: Trott calmly collects the ball, throws it — hard and flat — straight into Prior’s gloves, and Prior whips the bails off.
Hughes is run out for 23 off 30 balls.
I watch as he trudges off. It is a long walk back to the dressing room on the vast expanse of the MCG. His bat trails bumpily along behind him, like a disobedient, leashed dog being dragged for a walk. Officially, there are 68,727 people in the MCG but, at that moment, the place sounds empty, the only noise coming from the Barmy Army. Hughes looks even shorter than his Cricket Australia listed height of 5ft 6in, like a boy who has accidentally wandered into an unwelcoming, cavernous coliseum and been swallowed whole.
Hughes’s wicket turned out to be the Cecil Terwilliger designed rubber stopper in the creaky dam that was Australia’s batting order that summer. Its removal unleashed a torrent of wickets — Australia lost 5 for 116 to finish the day on 6 for 169 and were bowled out for 258 the next morning. England won the Test by an innings and 157 runs, went 2-1 up in the five match series and extinguished any possibility that Australia could regain the Ashes.
To really rub salt into my already septic wounds, Hughes was and is one of my favourite cricketers. For the first time that summer, he was looking solid and set for a decent Test score. Eight Tests later, he was dropped from the Australian XI.
I was gutted.
That summer, I spent — some might say “wasted” — a day at the beach vociferously defending his place in the side against attack by a friend of a friend. In my eyes, he is the eternal target of “unsupported hypotheses” concerning batting technique, the innocent victim of received wisdom as to how to bat.
I suppose, like Professor Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky in Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Heart of a Dog, I entertain grandiose, bourgeois delusions of being “the enemy of unsupported hypotheses”; however, I hasten to add that I do not spend my spare time surgically grafting the testes and pituitary gland of a recently deceased man onto a stray dog in the name of science.
The unsupported hypothesis frequently levelled at Hughes is this: his unorthodox, homespun batting technique renders him unsuitable for Test cricket. This hypothesis presumes that technique is the primary factor in determining whether a batsman will succeed at Test level.
It isn’t.
A batsman’s job is simply to score runs. And Australian cricket history — modern and ancient — is littered with prominent examples of country batsmen with distinctly unorthodox techniques who, like Hughes, have scored heavily at first-class level, but had their technique ridiculed as they tried to make the step up to Test cricket, only to go on and thrive in the face of snide put downs from technical fetishists.
Sir Donald Bradman — with his turned-in bottom-hand grip and predilection for playing the hook and pull shots — was deemed “unsound” by Percy Fender, writing before Bradman’s maiden Ashes tour of 1930.
Matthew Hayden’s batting “style” was decried as “almost completely half front-foot” by former Australian selector John Benaud, writing in 1997 when Hayden’s seven Test career looked finished after he missed out on selection for that year’s Ashes tour.
On Phil Hughes’s maiden Ashes tour in 2009, The Times went so far as to label him “technically incompetent”.
The empirical truth is that Hughes — like Hayden and Bradman before him — scores runs. Of the first-class variety. BHP acquisition worthy mountains of them. More than any other Australian batsman his age.
When Hughes made his Test debut against South Africa in March 2009, his first-class batting average was 65.39. He had scored five centuries, 11 half-centuries and a total of 2485 runs in just 42 first-class innings.
Compare these figures with those of his top-order contemporaries, Shaun Marsh and David Warner. Marsh’s first-class batting average when he made his Test debut against Sri Lanka in September 2011 was 37.71. In 112 first-class innings, he had scored just six centuries, 20 half-centuries and a total of 3658 runs. Warner’s first-class batting average when he made his Test debut against New Zealand in December 2011 was 60, but that impressive looking figure was derived from a limited sample of 17 first-class innings.
Whereas Hughes offers the hard currency of first-class runs, Marsh can only offer the collateralised debt obligation that is aesthetically pleasing technique. Warner, at least, offers the medium term note programme of destructive potential.
What has become of Hughes since his axing from the Australian Test XI in December 2011?
Hughes has returned to his old routine: scoring runs. Right now, he is scoring them in droves for Worcestershire.
He currently sits third in the batting averages for the English domestic 40-over competition — in seven innings, he has scored 420 runs at an average of 105 and a strike rate of 83.33, with two centuries and three fifties. He sits top of the batting averages for the English domestic T20 competition — in eight innings, he has scored 402 runs at an average of 100.50 and a strike rate of 126.81, with four fifties. He has only played five first-class innings in the first division of the County Championship thus far this season, racking up 206 runs at an average of 41.20 with two half-centuries.
On Wednesday, in a T20 quarter-final against Yorkshire at Headingley, Hughes scored 80 not out off just 53 balls.
Two shots will live long in my memory.
The first was a straight drive. The ball, delivered by Yorkshire’s impressive 20 year old right-arm quick, Moin Ashraf, was speared in full, straight and at Hughes’s feet. It was millimetres away from being a perfect yorker. Millimetres was all the room Hughes needed: he whipped his bat down at lightning speed, like Thor wielding his hammer, and struck the ball laser-straight back down the ground. Long-on and long-off converged on the rocketing ball, but it bisected them with surgical precision. For a moment, it was as if the two fielders were the closing hangar doors of a hostile alien mothership and the white cricket ball was a hijacked flying saucer (piloted by Will Smith) escaping through the ever diminishing gap just in the nick of time.
The second shot was played two balls later, off the final ball of the same Ashraf over. Fine leg was up to save the single (and keep Hughes off strike the next over) because everyone knows that Hughes is a predominantly off-side player, right?
Hughes’s riposte: he stepped outside his off-stump, knelt down and comfortably lap-swept the ball over short fine-leg. Four.
The first shot demonstrated that Hughes has rediscovered the virtues which brought him all those mountains of runs when he was but a teenager — blinding bat speed, fearless driving and an unwavering belief in his simple but effective technique. The second shot proved that Hughes has successfully worked on what has always been an obvious weakness in his game — his on-side play.
Back in the mid-90s, there was an iconic TV ad which did nothing more than inform the viewer: “Grant Hill drinks Sprite”. At the time, Hill seemed destined to inherit Michael Jordan’s throne. And he would have, but for a series of injuries which threatened his career and his life.
Back in 2009, Phil Hughes was the officially-anointed successor to Matthew Hayden at the top of the Australian batting order. And he still could be.
Perhaps, one day, there will be an ad which simply states: Phil Hughes scores runs. And, if given a fair go by a selection panel and a captain who truly believe in him, he can score them in bucket loads for Australia.
A Straight Bat 
David Cooper
August 3, 2012
Wonderful. Don’t have your great writing skills but exactly my analysis. I made the hollowed levels of 2nd Grade in the 1970’s but can see the fast hands and placement. His t20 technique potentially revolutionizes the game. Everyone talks about strike rates but occupying the crease and setting up the platform while truncated is the foundation of T20 cricket. I have watched Test cricket. So much reminds me of left handed Walters. I think he should bat at 4 or 5 that’s his spot. David C
SB Tang
August 4, 2012
Thanks – that’s very kind of you.
Hehe, well, second grade’s further than I ever made it: 9A schoolboys and indoor cricket with mates at uni!
Yup, Hughesy’s strike rate in this season’s English domestic T20 season – 126.81 – is pretty decent when one considers that the conditions this English summer have been bowler friendly and the sheer volume of runs he’s scored. To put it into perspective, Shaun Marsh’s strike rate in the same competition has only been marginally better – 129.81 – but Marsh’s batting average has been roughly half that of Hughes. That’s no dig at Marsh who’s also batted very well in the English domestic T20 competition. But Hughes has batted even better, which is some feat given that Marsh is one of the best T20 batsmen in the world.
Interestingly, Hughes has been batting at three for Worcester. I reckon he can bat anywhere between one and five for Australia in any form of the game. His lifetime’s experience opening at all levels gives him the ability to batten down the hatches when the situation requires and his recent limited-overs form certainly demonstrates an ability to up the scoring rate when needed.
Yup, I agree re Walters. Another example of a legendary batsman from the bush who succeeded at Test level by trusting his homespun technique. And yup, I agree that you gotta take the good with the bad. Both Walters and Hughes slash through the off-side. Occasionally that gets them out. But, by and large, judging by their first-class records, it gets them mountains of runs, so it shouldn’t be discouraged.
If Hughesy keeps piling on the runs, he could be back in the Australian Test XI in the not too distant future. Warner’s a phenomenal talent but his Test record to date has been inconsistent.
Cheers
SB
David Cooper
August 3, 2012
Doug Walters did up and overs outside off stump we love it. Sometimes you get out but creates dominance and runs.
Christopher James
January 13, 2013
Beautifully written. Hughes was an instant favourite of mine with his unorthodoxy and his David and Goliath run slaying deeds. It has long been my contention that to succeed, a batsman needs only an attacking plan, a defensive plan and the courage, endurance and physical ability to enact it. The worst successful technique that I ever watched was Paul Nobes who played as an opening batsman for Victoria and Sth Australia. He scored 15 1st class centuries and averaged 41 from a stance that was almost completely front on and eschewed any kind of off side driving. Technique to me has always been the least relevant facet of batsmanship and a distant cousin of confidence and certainty. There are highlights of Hughes 115 and 160 versus SA in ’09 on YouTube. I was immediately struck by the number of leg side boundaries he scored and the contrasts-both in his hand and foot speed to England ’09. The disciplined and ferocious manner in which the 1100 wicket attack of Steyn, Morkel, Ntini, Kallis and Harris attempted to uproot him was in keeping with their publicly stated intentions prior to the tour and their impeccable credentials. What had been publicly portrayed after his England failures as runs against an attack bowling wide half volleys and short balls, was clearly misleading. I began to investigate under the ‘cui bono’ mantra. The evidence that lay before me stood as follows; Hughes scores 1637 runs in 10 matches at 96 before joining the Ashes squad. There is a complete change in his approach, style, hand and foot speed and of course, results upon joining that squad. He scores 36, 4 and 17-out to a ball that bounces short of the catching fielder-and is dropped with a Test average still standing at 58. There are rumours that he cant handle the short ball and implied comparisons with Bevan, a middle order batsman. The idea that an opening batsman wont have faced every version of short ball and handled it successfully before rising to the high station of Test batsman is so absurd, that I immediately discount it. The videos of SA show him facing the same style of bowling as in England with aplomb. In the immortal words of Sherlocke Holmes,’When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the answer.’ His difficulties began when he joined the Ashes squad. He was dropped on the flimsiest of pretexts by those who managed that squad. The evidentially vacuous reasons given for his dropping that began the anti-Hughes technique mantra were also from the same source. When all roads lead to Rome, then Rome it must be. Hughes had stated at his press conference that he had faced short balls all his career as one might expect of an opening batsman and had never previously had any difficulty. The defining piece of evidence came later from his long time coach and mentor, De Costa. In a short public statement when being interviewed and with a view to not disadvantaging Hughes further, he stated that,’On joining the ’09 Ashes squad in England, Phil was forced to prepare his game and against the short ball in a manner that didn’t gel with him-didn’t suit him.’ As damning a piece of evidence as it was, it has continued to be ignored. There is no doubt in my mind that though any player can consider improvements, there was no facet of Phil Hughes game that required attention before he joined the ’09 Ashes squad. It is certain that his game was forcibly changed to cause the failures and facilitate the inclusion of Watson, the all-rounder. It was stated at the time of Hughes dropping that,’ He had done better than expected in SA and hadn’t been a part of the original Ashes plan-Watson had for his all round skills.’ Once the ‘technique myth’ was started, he was bound to follow it to it’s conclusion or face not being selected. His sudden rise in short format cricket can be attributed to the equally banal Cricket Australia commandment that all players expecting to receive contracts must be proficient in all three formats. The move to a technique driven game removed attacking intent, fast hands and feet and limited his game plan while offering nothing of substance. It effectively saw his 1st class average fall 17 runs under its stewardship. I regard Phillip Hughes as the finest player of his generation. It heartens me to know that despite the vociferous and vitriolic nature of three years of public and establishment attack, that he has retained his character and courage. It seems only a matter of time before his rapidly returning rapier-quick bat, undeniable substance and fearless intent leave those shadowy figures who have sought through subterfuge and implication to denigrate this country batting maestro, drinking at the well of their own deeds.
SB Tang
January 13, 2013
Thanks for your kind words and comment. Unfortunately, despite being Victorian, I never watched Nobes bat; however, he sounds like an inverted version of Kepler Wessels, a left-handed batsman who succeeded at Test and first-class level at a time when world bowling stocks were arguably at their greatest in cricket history, despite permanently pointing his front right shoulder somewhere in the direction of cover when batting! Of course, that idiosyncratic technique closed off his on-side play to a substantial degree, but that didn’t stop him scoring runs, which, at the end of the day, is what matters. Yup, I agree that technique is not determinative and should not be determinative at the selection table. It is one persuasive factor amongst many others — no more, no less. It can be rebutted by empirical evidence ie runs. Yup, I agree that Hughes was harshly and unfairly treated on the 2009 Ashes tour and that his efforts in slaying the world’s best Test bowling attack in South Africa were inexplicably and conveniently forgotten. People tend to forget that in the two Tests Hughes played on the 2009 Ashes tour, he scored 36, 4 and 17 (given out when he shouldn’t have been by Rudi Koertzen). Not great, but hardly disastrous and certainly not justifying his subsequent dropping given that in the preceding three Test series against South Africa in South Africa he’d scored 415 runs at an average of 69.16. Moreover, between the second and third Tests of the 2009 Ashes, Hughes scored 68 in the second innings of a tour match against Northamptonshire! One oft-cited theory — which I agree with — for why Hughes was then dropped for Watson is that the selectors wanted additional bowling cover for Johnson who’d completely lost his radar. So Hughes, an opening batsman, was dropped for an all-rounder because of the poor form of the leader of the pace attack. Bizarre. Personally, I reckon that Hughes would have succeeded at Test level if he hadn’t been dropped in 2009. However, I do believe that, thanks to the supportive and intelligent tutelage of Neil D’Costa and Steve Rhodes, he is now a better batsman than he was in 2009. Hughes has, to his credit, turned the injustice of being dropped into the positive of becoming a better batsman. He was never incompetent through the leg-side or against the short-ball as the technical fetishists alleged. However, I do believe that he is now better through the leg-side and against the short ball. He has slightly altered his stance so that, instead of moving his back foot towards backward square leg and pointing his front shoulder towards cover, he now has his back foot pointing towards the point-gully region and his front shoulder pointing towards straightish mid-on. That means that he is now more well-balanced and able to score freely through the leg-side. He was always able, as he showed in Shield cricket and in 09 in South Africa, work the ball to leg for ones and twos and slog-sweep for boundaries. But now, he can pull and hook fluently and play what was the best shot of his ODI debut hundred — the effortless, Mark Waugh-esque whip through mid-wicket for four all the way along the ground. He’s done all this whilst maintaining his natural strengths — cuts and drives through the offside. He’s shown tremendous character and determination to do all this whilst his technique was being ridiculed by many fans and some sections of the media.
David
February 14, 2013
Terrific article. Hughes is a great favourite of mine as well, and I am confident that he WILL be a great success in Test cricket in due course. As you say, he scores runs!
SB Tang
February 14, 2013
Hi David
Thanks for your kind words.
With the tour of India already underway and back-to-back Ashes series on the horizon, we’re going to need Hughes to keep scoring runs!
Cheers
SB