Please, for the purposes of this article and any consequential discussion, momentarily ignore however surprising or unsettling such a revelation may indeed be for the real you.
Because for now, all that is important, is that you are Phil Hughes.
It’s November 2012 and the selectors have rediscovered your phone number. And why wouldn’t they have? After all, they were the ones who had asked you to go back and make runs at Shield level. They were the ones who wanted you to play with a straighter bat. To stop all that nonsensical ‘back-foot-to-the-legside’ stupidity that had absurdly gotten you mountains of runs and to where you are now.
They want you to play Sri Lanka.
The newspapers decorate you as the nation’s newest capeless batting hero, the white knight born to lead Australia out of the post-Ponting depression and into the Hughes era of English torment.
And it begins well. Sure, you’re slow to start your innings perhaps, but you want to show the world your new, robust technique anyway, the one that worked for thousands of batsmen before you. See, your front leg is opened up and everything!
You finish the series to a round of applause, even despite the lack of a century. But you manage to sneak a few of those in during the one day international series, which you feel will leave you in good touch for India.
Even the notoriously cantankerous Ian Chappell says he thinks you’re one of Australia’s better players of spin, a comment that originally seems like a compliment but sours in the coming weeks as if it were a neglected gift-bag of fruit.
However things soon change. After swift introductions are made, it becomes abundantly clear that Indian cricket pitches do not like you. The more you change your approach, the more they do to show they don’t care. You get on the front foot, the ball leaps at your throat. You duck, the ball dies as if shot and strikes you in the side. The only seeming consistency is the enthusiasm to which the ball has when presented an opportunity to laugh at you.
With the amount of men standing around you, staring and anticipating your every move, you begin to wonder whether this is what it’s like to be an unaccompanied Scarlett Johansson in a bar.
Ashwin is everywhere too. He’s there standing at the other end. He’s there on the backs of your eyelids. Humiliating you as he bowls you around his legs again. You keep telling yourself to get right back or right forward, but in the end you can’t quite manage either.
Whitewashes are rarely pretty, but this one is the lovechild of Susan Boyle and Barnaby Joyce. By the English tour, a coach has been fired, another hired, a selector resigned, and a Sheffield Shield family band headed by Chris ‘Old Man River’ Rogers has emerged.
Consequentially, you’re demoted both literally and spiritually. No longer the white knight of the castle, now the son still living at home, whose parents are prompting to get on with it.
Reassigned to a middle-order role thanks to a confidence inducing assessment of your ability from the new coach, your form is strong in the tour matches without being incredible.
The first Test arrives and a redefined Australian top-order exhibits the stability of…the last one. Though not in your best touch, you scrap for your 81 runs and quietly thank Alastair Cook for his persistence in offering you singles, even despite how clear it became as your partnership with Agar progressed into “you’re joking!” levels, that the latter was the one seeing the ball better.
You walk off the ground the unsung hero, the momentum shift practically carrying you to the pavilion.
Three innings later, featuring frequent shifts of batting position that begins to resemble an under 12s team line-up to give kids a go, you’re again thrown aside.
A better, but still lacking, ODI tour of India follows and you’re seemingly done.
The parents have had enough.
So you watch from the outer, as a who’s who of prodigal sons overwhelm your parents with a five-month karma train of success. You’re in and out of squads, but never really considered for teams.
You become very accustomed to plane travel, watching others bat and sometimes, others succeed. Forced to sit from the sidelines and watch as the team rides turbulent highs and lows.
You’re overlooked for anyone, anything. A piece of cheese might have a greater chance of being chosen ahead of you if it weren’t for the fact it would likely go off by a second or third day in the sun.
But soon you’ll return to Adelaide Oval, to that class you shine much brighter within.
And two things remain. That you will continue to muster runs, and that you should be thankful you are not Phil Hughes.
Bearfax
Guest
Amen to that Anthony
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
Phil Hughes certainly hasn't always helped Phil Hughes out, but I think he's been mismanaged. Sheltering him from the SA bowlers was hardly confidence building, and the constant chopping and changing of his status -- he's our long-term first drop, he's an opener, he's a middle order bat, he's second drop -- has hardly helped. Then lastly, they keep pulling him out of the shield so he can go into squads to sit on the sidelines. Both parties are culpable in my opinion.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
Ah Dave Hussey. Seriously my favourite batsman (still) to watch. Absolute gun. His inside out cover drive is batting porn. There seems to have been a lot of hunch selections in recent years, with Marsh being one of the latest. Luckily he had an okay series against Pakistan in very trying circumstances, however consistency will likely be his issue for the moment. It's the same for other young players like NZ's Corey Anderson. Started very nicely but expectation rose his performances stagnated a bit. Both will no doubt be stars eventually, but they're probably a bit of a way off. Hunch selections are fine to make, given selectors are selectors for reasons you and I are not, but surely we can reward more people who have great shield performances more regularly.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
Given the form batsmen at the moment, I would say there's more than enough room for Hughes to bat at 3 in the first test against India, with Rogers still opening.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
Certainly wouldn't say not to a batsman averaging 55 now.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
That's a really good point. And I didn't know that about AB. The man can do everything. It seems odd doesn't it? If you bother to pick someone, surely you should have the confidence to believe they will make it. Then by not giving them much of a run, you're really backing either of them or yourself.
Matt
Guest
Agreed, this tour can be the making of a top order name, like any home series really - look at Warner last summer, came in for Hughes (at the time Hughes had the most runs of all the Australian batsmen, but let's not get into that) and did worse than him for the last 3 tests. But got good scores at first class in Aus, took the opening spot for the Australian series of the Ashes and the rest is history. I would love to see Hughes or Khawaja get that sort of opportunity, and I think on domestic form they deserve it. The reason I said AB is because the similarities to the Hayden situation in the 90s are striking, and AB was Hayden's biggest champion back then, as well as leaving a legacy of using youth and shield consistency as the primary means of selecting. It would have been more reasonable to give Doolan the second test as well, but I find it hard to sympathise when he should not have got the nod in the first place. He was following from names like S. Marsh and Bailey in getting a baggy green despite achieving no consistency at FC level. AB's argument on Hayden should be ringing in all ears: “You can’t tell me that if a bloke’s good enough to open the innings and average 60 in first-class matches at the Gabba, he’s not good enough for Test cricket. I just don’t buy that.”
Bearfax
Guest
You're tough Dingo and I understand your frustration. But while we castigate Hughes, what have we got that's better. Rogers is averaging 36 in tests, only 2.5 runs better than Hughes yet we're happy with his efforts. Watson is averaging 36 and we say the same. Doolan averaged 23 in tests, Cowan 31.3, Bailey 26.1 Shaun Marsh 32.9. Yet many are calling for their return. Hughes only averaged 32.7 but he's had too many chances many say. But hang on. Doolan is 29, Shaun Marsh 31, Bailey 32, Cowan 32, Watson 33, Rogers 37. They are in the best years of their career. Hughes is 25, an age when many test players start their career. Warner started his test career at 25. I say we have expected too much of Hughes and then held him down with criticism despite his efforts to improve. We expect centuries now from him, not 20s and 30s like most others. 81 not out in his second last test was just not good enough, yet Marsh scores 87 and we think he's a world beater. Hmmmm
DingoGray
Roar Guru
"Whitewashes are rarely pretty, but this one is the lovechild of Susan Boyle and Barnaby Joyce." An oil painting of highest quality! But Phil Hughes only has Phil Hughes to blame! He's had more chances given to plenty before him. I do think he will return to the Australian team but it won't be until Chris Rogers is retired.
Bearfax
Guest
Amazing the negativity that surrounds this player, one of the three best younger batsmen in the country (First class figures dont lie). Only Clarke, Rogers, Warner and David Hussey (the Forgotten Hussey) have better first class averages. He's virtually got the same averages as Smith. And then there's a gap of several runs to the next batsman. And not only that but he has one of the best one day and T20 averages as well. This guy is a juggernaut of Australian cricket being ignored like Bevan and Hodge before him, seemingly on the scrap heap at 25 years old. No! I cant believe the Australian selectors are that stupid. They have experimented with Bailey, Quiney, Shaun Marsh, Cowan, Doolan, North....it goes on and on yet not one of them is within cooee of Hughes first class performances and only North just exceeded Hughes meagre test averages over many tests. Not one of them was anywhere as young as Hughes yet they were given the jacket. Now we have Mitch Marsh, a 21 year old, with batting first class average of 28 (Hughes averages 46.6) pushing his way into the test team. Had a good second test but remember Hughes at 21 scored centuries against the South African might and virtually won those tests on his own No one is disputing Hughes has had to face criticism for flawed styles against certain types of bowling. If you look carefully at most test batsmen over the years you'll find not only that they have had to fight their demons, but at the same age have had poorer test averages. But Hughes was the 'New Bradman' in many critics eyes and he let us down. Thing is he is no Bradman, but he is potentially one of our best test batsmen. It just has to be remembered that he is 25, not 35. He is still developing. It happens. And each year he is getting more prolific with his first class scoring and tougher. He is learning but no one appreciates that someone can address their flaws. Many still see him in India almost 2 years ago. Players do move on, even if critics dont. There are those who criticise Hughes for his efforts against spin. As Ian Chappell indicated, he is NOW one of the better players against spin. We forget too easily he just scored a 65 against Pak A in UAE. Same place where most of our present batsmen are floundering. But we wont look at them because Hughes is the one with the problem isnt he. Point is almost none of the batsmen now and in the past were successful on those wickets. It wasnt just Hughes...He was scapegoated. Now the talk is to bring Shane Watson back as a batsman only and retain Marsh. Watson is a fine all rounder, but now in his thirties he has a batting average only 2.5 runs better than Hughes at test level, yet he's declared one of our best batsmen. And Marsh as indicated did well in one test, but look at his averages. Hughes is a test quality batsmen. We see others fail but only Hughes is criticised. He's become Lehmann's Khawaja, and we know the travesty around Khawaja's non selections and what it did to him. I say select Hughes. I suspect he's much harder than he was. And I remind his many critics, he is still only 25.
ChrisLove
Guest
Time to stop the rot. Sure the selectors have a lot to take responsibility for over Hughes' treatment but in the last two years his replacements habent looked close to earning their spots over him. How many shield hundreds does he need before we lock him in? Seriously! I'd take him over Rogers any day to open.
Spoungeworthy
Guest
Hughes was averaging 55 when they dropped him the first time, as part of the drop em to strengthen their mental approach strategy we had for a while there. All it did was take a confident attacking batsman and make him second guess his suitability for test cricket. One of the dumbest mistakes selectors made.
Ross Fleming
Roar Rookie
Hughes has had 4 chances at the top level, i am hoping he takes his next one but compare him to someone like Khawaja who has had only half the chances Hughes has had. Hopefully both of these batsman are long term fixtures for our test team
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
I don't know if AB is strictly the answer, but I'm with you on the latter point. While I never thought the Doolan decision was by any means terrible, the knock on him that's been there for a while is that he doesn't make the most of his starts enough. Personally I thought it was a shame they ditched him after the first test, because I felt he deserved the whole series to make his case. Whoever ends up with the first drop spot for the India series would struggle to find a better team to start off against, other than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
I can give you an answer, but I doubt any of them would be accurate. I can say though that I think it really just comes down to the selectors (rightly or wrongly) not having the confidence in him. They've been criticized a bit for continually picking Hughes early on and now they seem to be a bit worried. There's nothing wrong with exploring other options, but the options they've chosen so far haven't worked out too well. The only other consideration I have for you is that the selectors may purely see Hughes as an opener (incapable of batting at 3) and are seeing him as an eventual replacement for Rogers.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
Comments regarding Clarke are fairly premature in my opinion. There's no doubt he had a poor series, and that his back is affecting him (either directly while batting, or in keeping him out of matches every now and then thus reducing his match practice) however it was our last test before this series in which Clarke scored a pretty incredible 150 odd against the best team in the world. Regarding Hughes, you can't deny that in a shield environment he is a step above the vast majority of other candidates. He makes 100s. While the trend is hopefully stopping now after the 1st round of this season's shield, in previous years we've had a lot of potential batsmen who don't even make multiple 100s in entire seasons. I'm far from a Hughes apologist or supporter, but even I have a hard time with how he's been treated by selectors recently.
Matt
Guest
Bring back AB to chair the selectors and all this madness will stop. I have no problem with talented batsmen, who are proven to get runs, getting a shot ahead of Hughes but the mediocrity that has been getting in there instead of him is absurd
Bob Sims
Guest
So just whose toes has Phil Hughes trodden on? Question needs to be asked.....and an answer would be even better!
Stalingrad
Guest
Enough about Hughes, he had plenty of chances. We are a nation of cricketers, there are a lot of other batsmen around. What we should be talking about is Clarke. He is near the end the way he has been going.
Johnno
Guest
Alot of paid net sessions.