By Spiro Zavos
March 9th 2009 @ 7:56am
Related coverage
Phillip Hughes is bound for glory
Just to prove that journalist can multi-task with the best of them, I watched the NSW Waratahs defeat the gutsy Queensland Reds in an unconvincing fashion at the Sydney Football Stadium while plugged in to ABC 702 to listen to Phillip Hughes smashing the much-vaunted South African bowling attack to all parts on and over the field.
When I got home and settled in front of the TV set to actually watch the play, Hughes had reached the devil’s number of 87 and had faced 110 balls, with the apparently unlucky 111th delivery to come up.
Like that eccentric English umpire Shepherd I hopped on one leg while Hughes kept out the 111th delivery.
Now I had to navigate him through to his maiden Test century.
Australian cricketers have a thing about 87 which they regard as a fatal number of runs for too many batsmen. Presumably this is because 87 is 13 (another unlucky number to some – but not to me having been born on the 13th July) away from 100. The habit in the dressing room is not to change what you are doing until the dreaded 87 is past.
So there I was hopping on one leg while the South African spinner Paul Harris trundled down his tight, quickish leg-arm stuff. Luckily for me Hughes pushed a ball away and was soon into the 90s.
Now I had to navigate him through the nervous 90s. But this was a breeze, the boy wonder, as the Sydney Morning Herald is calling him, belted Harris for two successive sixers.
The second hit was bigger than the first and as soon as Hughes made contact with the ball he ran down the pitch, took off his helmet, pumped his arms to his team-mates and behaved rather like a bloke who has been accepted for a date by a latter-day version of Bo Derek.
As readers of The Roar might have noticed from previous posts, I have taken an almost proprietary interest in Hughes ever since I saw him play his first first-class innings at the SCG and came back home that afternoon and predicted Australian honours for him, sooner rather than later.
So entranced was I with his possibilities that I harangued Peter Roebuck about him before the third Test against South Africa at the SCG. Insisted that he had to be selected for the South African tour, that Hayden must be dropped (he retired before being pushed in the end) and that Simon Katich and Hughes, two left-handers with great temperaments, were the openers for the next couple of years.
Hughes was out in his first Test to the fourth ball he faced for a duck. I wrote a comment that one of the greatest of openers, Sir Leonard Hutton, made a duck in his first Test inning. I deliberately chose Hutton for the comparison because I believe that Hughes will be seen in that sort of company when his Test career is over in a decade or so years.
In the second innings I watched him belt his way to the top-score of 76 having belted seven fours the night before in bad light in making 36 out of 51 runs.
Now he’s made a century in his third Test inning – with two for the Test having scored another one overnight – a Bradmanlike rate that he won’t maintain. But he is one of the youngest Australians to have scored a Test hundred; and the youngest Test cricketer ever to score twin centuries in a Test.
More importantly, it was an inning that answered his critics (Roebuck being one) about his loose technique and the South Africans who told him he was a coward the way he backed away to force balls to the offside.
It’s true that his technique is not copybook, the way Hutton’s or Sachin Tendulkar’s technique delight the purists. But other great openers have had slightly unorthodox methods. Herbert Sutcliffe (one of the few batsmen with a 60-plus Test average) and Arthur Morris (a boy wonder before the Second World War), for instance, both played with a lot of bottom hand.
Hughes is short. He can get very low and cut virtually any ball, the reason why he is inclined to give himself room to play the cut shot by pulling back sometimes to the legside.
He has a slashing off-drive which he plays with his hands sliding up the bat handle and giving a long blade to the errant ball. He scores very quickly. His 115 came off only 132 balls. Katich, by way of comparison, scored 108 off 190 balls.
He is a clean hitter when he goes for the clout, as his two sixers to achieve his maiden century testify and the thunderous over against Morne Morkel (who had sledged him at Johannesburg) when the boy wonder belted four fours to put the lanky and talkative fast bowler in his place.
What you look for with great batsmen is temperament and the ability to play the big innings when a big innings is needed. Hughes scored a century in the Sheffield Shield final to wrap up the match for NSW: he scored 181 at Newcastle when he was in a bat-off with Phil Jacques for the tour to South Africa: and now he’s scored double Test hundreds in a match that sees Australia remain number 1 if it is won or drawn.
Temperament is not something that is learnt, in my opinion. You have it or you don’t have it. You see it in the great players when things are tough. ‘When the going is tough,’ the old adage says, ‘the tough get going.’
Hughes is a golden boy who is bound for glory, in my view. And it’s going to be fun watching him on his wonderful journey.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(13)
Harry said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Well he’s one NSW much-hyped progidy whi is certainly living up to it – they don’t always Spiro. Last nights partnership with Ricky was fantastic viewing, the best Australian batsman since Bradman scoring 81 runs with his usual superb clean strokeplay. Hughes in my view is less asthetically pleasing in his strokes but as you say he scores quickly, clearly has a superb temprament and a style that works for him. I think its fair to say he plays the cut shot quite well for instance! He has delivered massively having to make his debut against what was the best fast bowling attack in the world on their home turf. Imagine what will happen when this bloke gets in against some of the more pedestrian test attacks on flatter pitchs.
Spiro Zavos said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
The other points I missed in my analysis of Phillip Hughes’ batting technique is that he sees the ball very quickly. When he blocks, for instance, he is in position for what seems ages before the ball hits his straight back. And the leg-side bouncer theory stuff the South Africans bowled to him was handled very well (much better than Grame Smith) by leaning away and dropping his hands to ensure there was no contact with the ball.
He doesn’t hook. which is smart as he is very short and ould find it difficult to keep his hooks and pulls along the ground. He cuts instead, rather like radman in the Bodyline series. It was an attempted cut from a high bouncer that caused his duck in his first Test inning.
His technique is unusual. But so was Bradman’s (although I would never put any batsman remotely in the Bradman class). Bradman was told or warned in a newspaper article by the captain of Surrey Percy Fender that he couldn’t score runs in England with his cross-bat method. If my memory is correct the first time Bradman batted against Surrey for Australia he scored a double century.
The South Africans have made the same mistake with Hughes as Fender made with Bradman. They haven’t seen the pluses from the unusual technique. The South African coaching staff, particularly, and their TV commentators have been going on about the way Hughes pushes away slightly to the off-side to give himself room to cut. He doesn’t do this to wide balls, though, something they haven’t noticed.
Unusually for a left-hander he scores the majority of his runs on the off side. When he develops his leg-side play to the level of the off-side play, the bowlers will have nowhere to bowl to him.
Harry said | March 9th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
He is actually quite orthodox in his driving and defensive play to fuller/length balls.
sheek said | March 9th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
I like the SMH banner line – “Stuck in the middle with Hughes”.
craig said | March 9th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
HA HA Thats great. I bet the Saffa’s are feeling something aint right!
Selwyn said | March 9th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
I hope our selectors are feeling suitably embarrassed. Our team was forced to carry an out of form and slow reflexed Hayden through the series against India and then again against SA. Both series lost. It shows that carrying one person can make a huge difference to a team. Thank goodness Hayden pulled the plug. Otherwise we’d still be hearing from the selectors and the captain that his experience is required.
Hatchet said | March 9th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Spiro,
Keith Miller always used to get very upset whenever a co-commentator would give the 87 – thirteen short of a hundred line.
Howerver, I always missed out on hearing the background to the phobia. I remember when he rebuked ” young Jim Maxwell …” for getting it wrong. Perhaps Jim could assist.
Brett McKay said | March 9th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Selwyn, I suspect the selectors are too busy celebrating their “gamble” in picking the untried, inexperienced Hughes over the seasoned Jaques, to be embarrassed by past series losses and perceived selection blunders. In fact I’d wager that had Australia won the series at home against SA, the selectors may well have gone with Jaques, with the view to adding experience to a team ready to consolidate their ranking.
However with series lost, they then really had nothing to lose gambling on Hughes, and the rest, as they say…..
Jameswm said | March 9th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Selwyn – leaving an out of sorts Hayden in when kids like Hughes were around isn’t the only recent selection blunder.
I know I could come in for some flak here, but I thought they left Gilchrist in for a year too long. His batting reflexes were waning, but because he was such a legend (not denied) they let him write his own ticket. Haddin was just as good then as he is now and you’ll see he scores consistent runs at test level. Gilchrist didn’t for his last year or two.
Leaving Brett Lee in last series was another example. You could see the batsmen lick their chops when he was brought on to bowl and they played him easily and with no respect.
Just look at how seasoned pros like Katich, Hussey and North have gone when brought in later in their career. These guys are better value than waning superstars like Haydos, Gilchrist and Langer in their later years and the selectors listen to the team captain too much, who is understandably loyal to the guys who he’s been through wars with. There can’t be room for sentiment at the selection table, I’m afraid.
Harry said | March 9th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
So James, Brett and Selwyn, how do you feel about the current ageing champion Mike Hussey … another modest score yesterday and he got routed in the 1st innings after a less than flowing 50 … remmber he is is no spring chicken at 33, will be 34 by the time the Ashes start.
For what its worth I think he should be kept for the final test then sent home, missing the one-dayers in SA and give him time to freshen up for the Ashes series, he has played a lot of cricket in Engalnd and scored a lot of runs in the last series against them so i reckon he’ll go well.
Hayden clearly stayed too long – the time for him to retire was his 100th test match against NZ – what a difference Hughes has made eh.
Tom said | March 9th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Just a minor point Spiro, why are people only suggesting he can be there for the next decade? Almost all cricketers are playing well into their 30’s; if he plays to 35, which is not unrealistic in the slightest, that is 15 years away, not a decade or so. Hence why I think selecting 20 year olds is such a good idea (if they are good enough, of course).
Jameswm said | March 9th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Harry – Hussey finished the Aussie summer back close to his best in the one-day game. I don’t think his reflexes have slowed; I think he’s cluttered in the mind. I’d say leave him there to play the one-dayers. That got him going last time (he did start this series with a 50, albeit a laboured one) and could give his confidence a shot. I don’t know that he’s the sort of player that needs a break, though if he has a couple of failures rest him for a game. If his confidence gets back up, he’ll be back to his best in the tests.
Viscount Crouchback said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:56am | Report comment
What do you think now, Spiros, old fruit? Hughes has been rumbled, what?