Most of my mates have a pay TV prescription. They watch all types of sports from ice hockey to gaelic football, occasionally even soccer.
Yes, pedants, soccer, that’s what we call it in Australia.
It differentiates the variations of four football codes, it’s a clearly useful term – someone please inform the FFA.
Southern hemisphere winters provide terrific television viewing but you have to stay up late to watch the northern summer sports.
My watching debut this month included the Giro d’Italia, I have watched the Stanley Cup many times as well as the French Open (Go Slammin’ Sam Stosur!). This all adds up to plenty of late nights falling asleep on the lounge.
This week I had pencilled in some tennis watching as the French headed for the semi final stage, being an inveterate channel flicker I got a little bored as Djokovic flattened Jo-Wilfred in the first set (the big Frenchman turned that around quickly) and discovered a cricket game a couple of numbers away.
Worcester versus Lancashire from a cool and overcast Old Trafford filled the 16 :9, the greensward now surrounded by construction zones indicating that the 21st century is arriving at the ground where Laker took 19 in the 50’s and Benaud spun out the Poms from around the wicket in the 60’s . Soon the grimy east Manchester venue may well be rebadged ‘New Trafford’.
While the ground is being reinvented outside the boundary, in the middle wearing the bottle green and three pears of his adopted county Phillip Hughes was reinventing his own game.
I decided to stick with the one channel for a while, to watch Hughes bat against a mixture of quality fast bowling from Sajid Mahood, reasonable stuff from seamer Ajmal Shazad and some club bowling from O Newby.
Hughes began quietly, not getting a lot of strike, being watchful rather than aggressive. His batting partner Vikram Solanki made most of the conditions and obvious ability and duly made a quality ton.
The juxtaposition in the two techniques was stark. Solanki the former England 51 match ODI player was compact, tidy and elegant. He was scoring at or better than a run a ball.
Hughes was, well Hughes.
Left elbow apparently trapped behind the body, jumpy at the short ball and late decision making which makes him appear hurried but as in all things about his batting, appearances are deceptive. He always got there, waiting until the last millisecond to cut, drive or defend in a second or sometimes third thought.
He didn’t look particularly uncomfortable but neither did he look in command of the bowling on what was a very good batting surface. Mahmood shook him once or twice with pace and length directed at the head and chest, but he survived.
The shell was broken intermittently, Newby, at a military medium was belted over cow corner for six, the trademark slicing cut paid dividends as ever when any width was offered no matter the length, then the shell was resurfaced.
I watched closely the retreating left foot, the culprit that j’accuse his loss of balance and form which cost him a Test spot and contributed to his Chris Martin phobia. Was the left shoe shifting to leg as the bowler released?
Was the balance being swayed to a position where it was too difficult to access the ball with the full face of the blade? Was the head being dragged so slightly out of line that edges are produced rather than middles? I couldn’t spot a sign, not that the camera could see and the commentators didn’t bother with technical analysis.
In truth the appearance and substance of the innings reminded me of Phil Hughes whether he was making runs or not, and that is a major chunk of the Hughes enigma.
For Worcestershire so far he has successive limited over centuries and a first class fifty in just one championship outing. He is making runs, something that his 17 first class centuries at just 23 and half tender years suggests he has always done.
I did a double take when I checked his age, the 2009 Ashes when he was effectively dropped after three innings because Mitchell Johnson couldn’t hit the cut strip, feels like ancient history yet he is still a very young man in terms of professional sport.
Ultimately batting is about ‘how many’ not ‘how’, and Phil Hughes is the exemplar of that philosophy. Hughes should be judged on that statistic alone, aesthetics are for the Mark Waughs, Doug Walters and Sachin Tendulkars of the planet.
Hughes just needs to keep the scoreboard ticking and the selectors need to watch the numbers rather than the man.
Geoff ‘Henry’ Lawson returns to The Roar with his first article since 2009. He joins our expert cricket writers, and will offer thoughts as the Australians take on all comers with one eye on the upcoming Ashes.
Todd Johnson
Guest
Arthur - the problem was that 300 of those runs were in one match with bugger all in the matches after. Watching Hughes try and play Harmison and Flintoff in 09 was like watching men bowl at the u12's Let him work his game out and dominate in Shield cricket before even thinking about him at Test level. Don't forget Hughes had pretty good County numbers for Middlesex in the lead up to 09 Ashes (although from memory they were in Div 2, I'm not sure if Worcester are in Div 1 or 2)
JohnB
Guest
Regardless of Geoff Lawson being an out and out NSW-phile, he's quite right that it's how many and not how that counts. Equally, runs in 40 over county matches count for not much. If Hughes scores runs in shield cricket, and lots in county cricket, he (or anyone else who does so) deserves an opportunity. Let's talk when he's done that!
Morning Son
Guest
Henry NSW Lawson should not be given the time of day when discussing NSW players. Objective analysis is simply not possible when discussing said NSW players.
Kento
Guest
Wow, talk about criticizing a columnist from a shaky base Rob... You got the response your comment deserved.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
No one gave a stuff about Hughes' technique when he was scoring runs. But the minute you stop scoring runs, and it's BECAUSE of your technique, then any and all criticism is fair. Simple really.
Junior
Guest
Hughes has problems sure. Left foot shuffling back, moving head, dodgy grip... they are all there for all to see. What some people do not choose to see is his first class record and his twin hundreds against South Africa. I will take a 23 yo with a proven track record and a few problems over a 30yo journeyman with an Indian summer under his belt, an ability to talk himself up on cricinfo and an inability to get the ball off the square, any day of the week.
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
My rushed Maths suggests Hughes had scored 472 runs from his first 9 test innings, at an average of approx 52.5, all achieved in away tests against indisputably the 2 best pace attacks in world cricket. AND WAS DROPPED WTF
tommy
Guest
he will be back. I predict 8000 test runs.
Redb
Roar Guru
Yes picked up that up as well. :)
Pope Paul VII
Guest
It's funny Hughes was dropped originally for a perceived suseptibility to good fast bowling having just carted the best fast bowler in the world all over the shop. That series rolled merrily along as Australia, sans Hughes, went down to good fast bowling. Might it be that everyone is dodgy at some point when the heat is on? Clarke, Ponting and Huss have all come off second best in this manner at various times, before, during and after this series. Latter day saints Cowan, Warner and Watto struggled against the West Indies. The question is what does Cricket Australia want? The top 6 incumbents will surely be tested in the extreme by SA's fast bowling depth. What's the benchmark for survival? I think it's nuts having the coach and captain selecting, they cannot possibly be objective. Maybe sitting out the first half the summer will clear the decks and the air for Hughes and other fringe players?
Matt F
Roar Guru
I'm not saying that he doesn't have issues but every technique has weaknesses, and they always show up when they're out of form. Even Chanderpaul displays technical flaws when he's out of form. Every technique has weaknesses and Hughes has plenty of time to work on his.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Eeeeeyyyyyy, Fonzie (with thumbs up).
jameswm
Roar Guru
As ugly as Chanders looks, he (like Katich, another ugly duckling) is dead still and in good position when he hits the ball. That's what counts. His head is still. You can't hit the ball consistently well if your head's moving at contact.
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Hughes should have never have been dropped in the first place. Within a continuous run I would bet Baghdad to a brick that he would have scored 10 test hundreds by now. What was his test average when dropped originally I wonder ? Only the truly talented can score a hundred in each dig opening the batting vs Steyne et al on their home tracks. His career has now been held back by "paralysis by analysis" and destroyed confidence that will take a while to get back. Australia's test side is the poorer for it.
Matt F
Roar Guru
It's a good point in general. It doesn't matter how ugly your technique looks, as long as it gets results. As others have already mentioned, Chanderpaul has carved out a fantastic career (number one test batsman in the world right now on rankings?) with what appears to be an awful technique. Even Bradman had a technique that many coaches wouldn't consider teaching to kids. If we switch sports, Bubba Watson won the US Masters with a very unorthodox technique. he's never even had a golf lesson in his life! As long as you get results, who cares about the technique. The problem that Hughes has however, is that for the last 2 years (give or take) he hasn't been getting runs, at least not on any kind of consistent basis. If we are going to talk raw numbers then Hughes should be nowhere near the Test side at the moment. Thankfully for him he does seem to be finding some really good form over in England. Hopefully it continues as he clearly does have talent. He's still very young and he's already achieved quite a lot for a cricketer of his age and I'm confident that he'll be back in the Test team at some point. I just hope we don't rush him back in when he's not ready like we did in the last Ashes series.
DanMan
Guest
Hughes will score against lesser attacks consistantly but will struggle against top tier bowling. He needs years to correct his technique in the appropriate state and county comps to address the painfully obvious issues. All sports are differnent but technique is the thing that often sets the good from the great in elite sports. Batting technique is critical as there is so little time to react and position yourself to handle an unknown delivery. If the technique is inadequate then more often the batsman will be in the wrong position and therefore more likely to make a mistake.
Tony Tea
Guest
On second thoughts. It makes perfect sense that an optometrist and cricketer should prescribe TV and cricket.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Look, I've been one of Hughes's biggest critics - well, I should say I've been at the front of the queue of those wanting him dropped, esp after the NZ series. However - I don't really care about anything in his technique, apart from one important thing. His head must be still when he's hitting the ball. When his left foot used to retreat to the square leg umpire, he used to be still at impact, even if too side on. That was when he first came in. He looked ungainly, but he scored runs because he was still at impact. He was then (correctly) told he should get his back foot across, to make him less side on, get his head behind the ball better and make it easier to play to leg. However, he coldn't adjust to doing this befor eimpact, so the foot was shuffling across at impact. This meant he was moving and frequently in the air at impact, especially when defending. Ironically, when he cut loose with his trademark shots outside off, he was more still and belted them. So he does have to work his technique out, but only so that he can be still at impact. He's obviously got a good eye, so if he can sort that out and get some confidence (ie runs) back, there's no reason why he can't be back in the test team in the next couple of years.
Tony Tea
Guest
I'm all for keeping Hughes in the Test side, IF he can stop getting out for rock all.
Tony Tea
Guest
A pay TV prescription? What, have their doctors branched out from pharmaceuticals? PS: Is Merv Hughes one of your mates, Henry?