Was Phil Hughes harshly treated by the selectors?

They dropped him first time because one of our bowlers was seriously out of form ...which was very harsh and must have knocked the stuffing out of his confidence. Then they picked him again when he WAS out of form which was just dumb. It was like a belated apology for the first dropping but did him no favours at all . Having said that at times he could look clueless but his stats don't lie and are pretty awesome . He was struggling in his recent comeback ...he had nicked off to Siddle and starc in the 2 prior shield games on the Adelaide Oval and imho he wasn't going to be picked for the first test at the Gabba...although im not a selector and he was certainly fighting hard on that fateful day ...had he scored the ton who knows he may have been back in but I have my doubts ...S Marsh scored a composed century and maybe they would/will go that way .

Exactly. He was dropped while having a test average over 50 including twin centuries against the best pace attack in the world. And several other times in and out of the side over the years to make those 26 (not 30) tests. Steve Waugh took more tests than that to score his first test century.

I have no doubt Hughes could have been a player to excel in all conditions simply because he worked so incredibly hard on his game. He was the only batsman who went to the UAE early and spent time training with Murali working on playing against spin in those conditions, and he then came out and played very well against spin in the tour game.

It's hard to not look critically at Hughes and believe he was going to be something great. He had 26 first class hundreds and on his way to his 27th, still shy of his 26th birthday. The youngest player to score 2 hundreds in a test, youngest to score a hundred in a shield final, second fastest New South Welshman to 1500 first class runs behind only Bradman, and the way that he just continued to go back and work so hard on his game every time he faced obstacles just showed a player who was destined to make it and be one of the best. It's just sad that he's now not had the opportunity to get out there and prove all his doubters wrong.

Blackie, I do have to correct you, it is Mitchell Johnson.

yes they are 2 examples of Batsmen that started slowly and went on to great things. but there are many more examples of batters who started poorly and never amounted to anything and with Phil Hughes we will never no. to say he would have been like Waugh is pure speculation. Not outs do not increase ones average, it means that they are not allowed to have long innings and must start from scratch time and time again which is a lot harder

Phillip Hughes was a batsman with obvious technical flaws who was working very hard to overcome them. Despite the tragic circumstances of his passing, he should not be reinvented as Don Bradman reincarnate. Let us remember the fine young man, and the fine young batsman that Phillip Hughes was - not some airbrushed perfectionist image of him.

Agreed, whether it's a valid argument or not. No need to stimulate this kind of discussion at this time.

Four tests and he got dropped. He was never given a chance to settle. Like Mike Whitney, last in first out.

I think he was hard done by on last year's ashes, but other than that, no. Can't say I'm a fan of this piece given the timing.

A well thought out post Blackie. As you say, he'll never get a second dig to set the record straight. He may have remained a great first class cricketer or devolop into a fine test batsman later in his career. We will never know.

Is it the case that a young Phil Hughes who had not been badgered into batting like everyone else would have got into line and attempted the hook shot that he missed.with horrible consequences? We will never know. Maybe they should have just left the kid alone and let him play his way and he might have backed away a little out of the line. Wise heads apparently saw this as fear. That was not the case. Backing away is a well accepted batting tactic in one day cricket and yet for some reason it is frowned on in Tests. Shane Watson who at that time coveted Hughes position was later to say in his book after the 2009 Ashes series that he thought Harmison had scared Hughes in the preliminary match at Northamptonshire. If Watson backed away he would have been acting in fear but not Hughes. That was his natural inclination. It simply cannot be said that Flintoff had the wood on Hughes in 2009. His dismissal against Flintoff at Cardiff in 2009 was an inside/bottom edge to the keeper. He had scored about 36. He hit 5 cracking 4's in that innings. No observable tactic there. He did not get a second innings as Australia made a big score. At Lords he got out to Anderson caught behind for 4 and then he got caught at slip by Strauss off Flintoff in the second dig for 17 when it did not carry. After that it was on your bike son. Mitchell Johnston could not hit the pitch and Watson who clearly white anted Hughes was opening the batting and covering as an extra bowler for Johnston.There is no way that they should have dropped him then for Watson. Absolutely criminal. I think that his off stump nicking dismissals was a combination of his alignment and his fast hand speed which meant that he touched balls with the open blade that others might otherwise missed. The Chris Martin dismissals showed that he was playing straight down the pitch and was nicking off at balls angled across him. He was clearly second guessing himself at that point and correctly needed a rest. In any event Hughes did become an all round the wicket cricketer with the help of his stint at Worcestershire.He adjusted by playing more towards the bowler than straight down the wicket. He started to play forcefully to the leg side although it was not second nature. With the Abbott bouncer unfortunately his fast hand speed caused him to play too early and so was not struck in the helmet but exposed the left side of his neck. He had earlier faced quicker bouncers from Starc and Bollinger and played the fatal bouncer too early. He would definitely be castigating himself in Heaven's Pavilion saying that he should have smashed the cover off it! Definitely the cruelest of fates that he will not get a second dig to set the record straight. Thanks Hughesy for all the joy that you brought back to my cricketing life, Whilst I am over 50 now I recall like yesterday playing with my primary school team at the High School Oval in Macksville. I played to my mind a beautiful "Dougy Walters" square cut which went scorching to the boundary. The shot gets better and better. Next ball I was of course bowled unceremoniously as the ball ricocheted off my pad as I backed away to cut the next one. I hope that one day god will give us another "wonder boy" from the bush with a mean square cut so that all us old cricket tragics can dream once again. RIP young man!

That to me, was a terrible decision. He should have been allowed to develop in the team instead of being punted to keep an out of form player there.

I was critical of Hughes's technique when he first broke into the Test team because I could see weaknesses that top quality bowlers could exploit. To his credit though, and unlike many other first class players, he went away and work on his technique and made real progress in fixing those weaknesses. He never fully eradicated them but it takes real will power and desire to succed to bring about such changes to your game which is hard wired from youth so he eraned my respect for that.

Yes he was at times treated harshly. He had technical deficiencies, sure, but his work ethic and sheer hunger for runs would have seen him overcome these. Although sadly this can never be proved now, he looked on the verge of doing so. Who can say that his recall would not have seen him cement his spot and go on to a great career? The Aussie captain reckoned he had a 100 Tests in him and that is good enough for me. Great observation here by bibbaz that he was akin to (my hero) Dougie Walters. Both not classical batsmen, but very productive and on their day would murder an attack. Best to the family for the funeral tomorrow. RIP.

I have done some quick calculations on some other batsmen in their early careers. Phil Hughes batted in 49 innings with 2 not outs for an average of 32.65. Let us look at the first 49 innings of Bobby Simpson and Steve Waugh. Simpson had 5 not outs and an average of 36.34, his career average turned out to be 46.81 Steve Waugh had 9 not outs and an average of 40.13, his career average was 51.06 Simpson and Waugh also bowled so they weren't just selected on their batting. Waugh's statistics were inflated by the high proportion of not out scores throughout his career and he was a middle order batsman which is an easier position to fill than that of an opener. If you just look at Waugh's first 41 innings there were 5 not outs and he only had an average of 30.53 My calculations have been done fairly quickly and I apologise if there are any errors. Hughes was first selected at a very young age and of course he died short of his 26th birthday. I have given the early career examples of two very good batsmen for Australia, there is no reason why Hughes could not also have improved with maturity. there was certainly no lacking of talent.

Yep, I agree with the comments from Fadida and Silver.

Me either Matthew - the Quiney selection saga was bizarre. Obviously history will show that Quiney failed (despite a couple of "elegant" 9s or however they were described at the time), but if he'd made some decent scores the selectors would have been between a rock and a very hard place if the intention was always to bring in Hughes for the series against Sri Lanka. Flintoff had one good game with the ball in the 2009 series at Lord's (after which Hughes was dropped) - other than that he was really struggling with his knee (to the point of not playing in the fourth test and being largely ineffective - apart from a pivotal runout of Ponting - in the fifth).

Agreed Silver, feel very sorry for his family but lets not rewrite history, i do wish his family all the best at this tough time

very astute call there Silver.