You just have to love writing about cricket and cricketers. On Wednesday, a day after I questioned whether he’s really playing that delivery angled across him any differently to how he was last summer, Phil Hughes compiled a beautiful century in the last match of the limited-over series against Sri Lanka.
Batting at first drop in Hobart, Hughes didn’t look particularly good until he was north of 60, but really kicked on after that, and indeed, produced some late-innings carnage to push Australia’s total from 5/218 at the end of the 47th over, to their eventual 5/247.
Hughes’ own innings could neatly be broken up into three blocks. His first fifty was raised in 82 balls, the second fifty came at a neat run-a-ball as the confidence started coming back, and the last unbeaten 38 from just 22 deliveries.
As far as one-day innings go, Hughes’ 138* was certainly the highlight of this five-match series, and might even be as well-compiled an Australian one-day innings in the last twelve months or so.
Such a well-constructed innings was timely, too, on a number of fronts.
Not just for the obvious reasons in the context of the game, but rather that with the rapid infiltration of Twenty20 cricket, it’s not that often that we get to see the lost art of ‘building an innings’ against the white ball.
And when it does happen, it invariably wins matches, as Hughes’ knock did.
For those willing to see the 50-over format disappear, this is probably worth considering. Sure, you’ll still get the big innings in the shortest form, and nearly all of them will be match-winning, but how many of them will really be constructed, rather than just… well, bashed?
The other timely aspect of Hughes’ hundred was that I’d only just read an interesting article in a book that discussed the beauty of the being able to build an innings in one-day internationals the night before.
No, it wasn’t a Christmas present, but rather a two-year old book of Gideon Haigh’s comprising articles he’d written in the two years before that.
I hadn’t even bought it deliberately; it was one of those you-might-also-like six-dollar beauties thrown up as you wander through the Amazon checkout.
Haigh’s book, Sphere of Influence, is a collection of articles from numerous publications and media outlets, mainly concerned with the growing empire of Indian cricket and the IPL, and how its/their power is seemingly expanding exponentially. There hasn’t been much disagreement so far.
One particular article, “How to save one-day internationals”, first published by our dear colleague, the late Vinay Verma, in the Seriously Cricket Chronicles in October 2009, made reference to a one-day century made that year by South African captain, Graeme Smith.
Haigh described it as being “as complete an innings as no Twenty20 innings ever will be.”
Now it’s true, Haigh is often less than complimentary about the Twenty20 game, though I believe his distaste is not necessarily toward the format itself, but rather the over-commercialisation of the format, and what effect that over-commercialisation is having on the broader cricket schedule. Not to mention the effect on the cricketers themselves.
Regardless of the motivation behind the obviously pointed remark, Haigh’s point stands. And Hughes’ innings in Hobart should be similarly celebrated, rather than left to fall deep into the abyss that contains every other decent one-day performance before it.
It’s an innings that shouldn’t be forgotten so hurriedly, even though it almost certainly will be.
Cricket Australia could do a lot worse than to put Hughes’ innings onto DVD and send it to every junior coach in the country. This innings, kids, is what you should be looking to emulate when you need to bat for any length of time.
There will be times when you’re coming off a couple of low scores in a row, and when the questions resurface as to whether you’re really as good a bat as was being made out. It won’t matter that you made a significant score four innings beforehand, scores of 3, 3, and 1 will get the tongues wagging again.
There will be times when you start off looking very shaky, maybe even on the verge of giving the critics even more ammunition. But somehow, you’ll get through that early period. You might manage a few good shots, but largely, you’ll be looking streaky for a good while.
Eventually, suddenly even, you’ll find yourself reaching fifty. You won’t have looked particularly good but you’re still eking out runs, almost in spite of yourself. However, this will also be a major mental hurdle you’ve overcome.
Push this scratchy fifty a bit further, and you’ll feel the confidence starting to build. The shots will come more freely; the feet will move faster and more decisively, and the ball will start finding the middle of the bat more often.
You’ll find yourself in the middle of a major partnership, and naturally, you’ll start projecting ahead, thinking of what kind of total you might be heading the team towards.
The the runs will really start flowing, you can do no wrong, and luck starts coming your way. Your century will arrive, you’ll raise the bat, and then you’ll have a bit of fun at the end with wickets in hand and nothing left to lose.
And you’ll walk off unbeaten, and look down to realise you’re wearing coloured gear.
This is building an innings, kids, and its place in one-day cricket should never be forgotten.
This is what I imagine Hughes went through on Wednesday afternoon. To be honest, this is what Hughes seems to go through whenever he makes a solid score. Ignore the colour of the gear and the ball, and this was just another Phillip Hughes innings.
An innings like this makes you realise why Hughes’ record is as good as it is in all three forms of the game. He has that wonderful ability when he’s ‘on’ to ignore the surroundings, and even his most recent form, and just go out there and bat.
With Michael Hussey now consigned to the ‘former’ prefix, Hughes is arguably the best innings builder behind Michael Clarke in the Australian team. It’s an art form that the proliferation of Twenty20 cannot teach, and which will be lost forever if the 50-over game is allowed to die.
Matt h
Guest
That's a bit freaky
DCO
Guest
Vivek, that's a similar average to your boy Phil Hughes when he was reselected for the test team last summer before Chris Martin had his way with him. I assume you held a similar view back then re giving out Baggy Greens. I assume you want Moises or Steve Smith as your all-rounder?
DCO
Guest
Jameswm, how do justify this approach with Henriques in regards to him being young and time to develop, yet you so easily write-off Wade. Wade put performances on the board in shield cricket and as a result has earned his spot. Historically all new Australian keepers have needed a little time to develop.
Bearfax
Guest
Moises Henriques I believe like Steve Smith, is a future test player....but not quite yet. Good to see he's getting a chance to display his wares, unlike others. He's only 25 but has a head on his shoulders obviously much older and plays quite smart. Still has some developing to do but with a first class batting average of 30 and bowing average of 27, he's showing promise to turn into a good all rounder. Would like to see his batting improve, and this season he is making bigger scores. I wouldnt take him with the test team just yet but he is a year or two ahead of Maxwell, who I also consider a player of the future, and perhaps a year ahead of Steve Smith, whose got more potential as a batsman than a bowler. All three if handled patiently could be the basis of a good stock of all rounder batsmen in a year or two. They could all be significant figures in the next World Cup.
Bearfax
Guest
Jake. Your attitude displays bias. My arguments about Khawaja, are not just about Khawaja. He is symbolic in my mind of poor selection policies being practised where young talented players with long standing good performances at first class level are being overlooked for older lesser 'golden head' favourites, who have overall poorer averages and poor international averages being constantly given opportunities while the more talented younger players are being ignored. They are choosing on short term performances and therefore failing to select wisely. And you will find most commentators and ex players are saying much the same thing. I made the same case in respect of Hughes. I will make the same case in respect of Burns. I will keep arguing that they should be picking the younger players who are consistently showing good averages now, because they will improve. The older players as history has shown, very rarely improve much past 30 years old. That is what this argument is about Jake. Not Khawaja. Its to do with sensible selection policies and this group are quite frankly off the planet.
Bearfax
Guest
You see Jake. This is what I mean about seeing one player by one set of rules yet ignoring the same principle in respect of other players, just like the selectors. Little wonder we keep raising the issue with comments like this. The test averages you are talking about are from over a year ago over a very short stint of games. You will find Hughes over the last same number of tests before he was dropped had a average in the low 20s. We have an opener with twice as many games and untouched with an average of 32 In the latest group of games, despite Khawaja being one of the top shield scorers again, he gets one ODI match all summer, while players with lesser averages get many. No one is saying that Khawaja doesnt need to prove himself. That's accepted. But he must be given the chance to show his wares. One ODI match, where he wasnt even dismissed by a false shot, is hardly affording him an opportunity to show if he has learned by the mistakes the selectors think he had a year ago. No other batsman selected this summer other than Steve Smith has been given only one match, and Smith has played many International ODI matches in the past, Khawaja hasnt Sorry to keep harping on this mate but if you cant see the injustice here, I suspect you arent paying much attention. And as I indicated before I argued the same case for Hughes...and what happened when he finally was given a few chances. That's all we're asking. A few chances and a little display of confidence in him otherwise we'll loose this talent for another year and perhaps permanently like we lost Hodge.
peeeko
Roar Guru
quite a bizarre post by Johnno
Yola
Guest
There are just as many Pakistani cricketers from advantaged backgrounds as there are from poor backgrounds...
Yola
Guest
Mate, Shane Watson went to Ipswich Grammar School.....not a good person to use in your argument.
Jake
Guest
Vivek, Khawaja has played exactly half the amount of International games as Maxwell, guess what......? Khawaja failed, couldn't even average 30. There goes your 'theory'.
Jake
Guest
I can't wait to see Usman fail in India and/or the Ashes, then to see all of the Khawaja fan club eat their words.
Jake
Guest
Nice one, Brett. I'm getting tired of several Roarers consistently bringing up Khawaja in every single comment. "He is our best bat against swing bowling" is my favourite comment that I constantly hear. I have no idea how they can come to that conclusion. I'm a fan of him, don't get me wrong, however I can see why they aren't playing him. If he had taken his chance in the first ODI then he'd still be in the team, as Hughes has done.
Praveen
Guest
Yes Bearfax if the selectors give the same opps to Khawaja then he can shine as well, a good start would be say to him you have the full Indian series, show us what you can do, if you do well you are in for the ashes if you don't then you need to go back to shield cricket. And CA needs to fix the current schedule, They have banged the BBL into the middle of Dec-Jan, split the Sheffield shield & made it almost impossible for tests candidates to sustain, or more precisely find consistent form for the longer formats.
Praveen
Guest
I have to agree with the genral consensus here that David Hussey deserved to be dropped from the ODIs and should not make the Indian squad as he is averaging 14 in sheidl this season. I would say David Hussey not being picked shows that selectors will either pick O Keefe or Smith as the spinning allrounders or go for Doherty as a spinner alone. I would omitted George Bailey from the Indian squad, although a good player, cant see him going on to great things as I do with Henriques and Khwaja. This would be my test team apart from Lyon to come in for Doherty and Siddle in for Starc who becomes 12th man.Warner, Watson, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Henriques, Wade, Johnson, Pattinson, Starc, Doherty, Doolan(12th man),If Watson doesnt want to bowl then i wouldnt pick him in the test squad. Hughes to open with Warner,
pope paul v11
Guest
I'd replace Mickey Arthur with Tommy Raudonikis
Bearfax
Guest
Bleeding obvious Brett. This is about our anger, not the reality of the injustice. Of course he has to keep performing. But that doesnt make what is happening right and these forums at least give us some opportunity to express that frustration. The present coach and selectors, as is being noted even by leading commentators, albeit very politely, have lost the plot. Hopefully promoting that enough even on these forums may assist in getting rid of them. Get Boof as National Coach for a start.
Todd Johnson
Guest
Terrible chat mate - seriously that should be you done on this site I guess working class boys like Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale make better footballers than soft private school boys like John Eales and Phil Kearns
Alec Swann
Expert
Brett Good to see someone who apreciates the 50-over game for what it is. The line that it is past it's sell-by date is becoming increasingly tiresome and is often sprouted by those who should know better. It's only considered tired is because of how much of it is played and the 20-over format will, and already is in this country at least, go the same way in time. There is an art, as you refer to, in playing a one-day innings and also to batting in the middle overs. I've seen Andy Flower make this point and he is spot on. 50 overs provides a narrative that its shorter cousin can't and this will always be the case. ps - if it goes to 40 overs it might as well not exist.
Lellers
Guest
Well written Brett. Have forwarded to my son, also a number 3 batsman. Maybe he'll listen to your advice more than mine! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Brett McKay
Expert
Bearfax, or course that applies to all other players as well, but the fact remains, it's all that Khawaja can do. At the end of the day, perceived injustices or not, Khawaja needs to keep making runs in order to get in the national side. That's all there is to it.. And Kev, just to clarify, when I mentioned Khawaja's net form, I meant that in the context of being in the national squad, as in whenever he gets the chance to bat in front of the selectors, the captain, and the coaches, he needs to be at the top of his game. Not his net form for Qld!!