Phillip Hughes was earmarked from a young age as Australia’s next champion batsman, tipped to follow in the steps of Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke before him.
Hughes’ untimely and tragic death late last year robbed the world of a young man, by all accounts a ripping bloke and the sport of a potential superstar.
While cricket isn’t the ‘be all and end all’ of life, the mastery Hughes could’ve produced at international level hasn’t been lost, but is currently being shared with his close friend Steven Smith.
No one will ever forget the Australian vice-captain’s moving gesture to Hughes at the Adelaide Oval in December last year, as he saluted an emotional century by gesturing to the sky while standing on the area of the ground marked with Hughes’ playing number 408.
Before his death, Hughes looked the man most likely to lead Australia’s batting for the next decade, through the post Clarke, Chris Rogers, Shane Watson and Brad Haddin era.
While Smith would undoubtedly have been part of that future, it’s fair to say based on sheer talent, Hughes would’ve been the premier batsman in the side.
Although initially in his career Hughes had problems with the short ball and then outside his off stump, it was widely accepted he would ultimately prevail against those pitfalls and come through a gun of the game.
Unfortunately we will never know.
The man now leading Australia’s next generation of batsmen is Smith, who you can bet walks to the crease with the belief Hughes is looking over him every step of the way.
Since Hughes’ death Smith’s record has been unrivalled in world cricket.
The 26-year-old is averaging a startling 115.91 in that time and he has won three man-of-the-match and one man-of-the-series awards in eight matches.
Six hundreds and four fifties in 16 innings is extraordinary going, but consider also that Smith has made his three highest Test scores in this period as well: 192 versus India at the MCG, 199 versus West Indies at Sabina Park and 215 versus England at Lord’s.
It’s a shame we’ll never get to see Hughes and Smith in tandem at the wicket destroying opposition attacks, but you can bet the former isn’t far from the latter’s thoughts each time he takes guard.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Had never heard of Archie Jackson, was a good read. Then it made me re-read Don Bradmans career.
Christian D'Aloia
Roar Guru
I hear people say this all the time. I think we're at the stage that if it was possible to 'work out' Smith, it would have been done by now. He's been the best batsman in the world for some time now, whether or not it's officially recognised by the ICC, so you'd have to think every bowling attack in the world has been studying up on how to dismiss him.
Perry Bridge
Guest
As much talent as Hughes displayed - he had clear deficiencies in technique. That doesn't mean he wouldn't get past that - however he'd been challenged repeatedly and it was at very least a bumpy road. Ear marked as a future superstar? Based on his debut test series perhaps? The main comparison is that Smith also has an odd non-text book technique. Smith is currently 'on top of the world'. It'll be interesting to see how bowlers go with respect to 'working him out'.
geno
Guest
Archie Jackson and Don Bradman anyone?
Axle an the Guru
Guest
I think people need to let Hughes rest in peace. I don't see any point in making a debate about Hughes.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Comparing him to Watson isn't a great comparison if you are looking for the absolute opposite of Hughes, not for someone similar. Watson is someone who's had the same flaws in his game for a decade and seems to have done nothing to rectify them. Hughes was someone who had an issue possibly with certain sorts of short, fast bowling at the body, and he worked really hard and overcame that. He had issues against spin, and worked his backside off to improve on that, even travelling to the UAE ahead of the rest of the team with Murali to work on playing spin bowling in those conditions. To me, the sort of player who is able to continually look at their weaknesses and work their backside off to overcome them is destined to succeed and a long way from being a Watson type who keeps getting out to the same deliveries, never able to come up with a way to counter it.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't agree. Hughes worked harder than almost anyone, and whenever there was some sort of chink in his armour found he just went away and worked his backside off and came back a better player. He did that time and time again, and that is what makes a quality test player, someone who recognises issues they have and works hard to overcome those issues.
CT
Guest
Agree. Reason he would never have been as good as Smith. Do not agree that Smith is not technically correct. Quirky maybe but when he hits the ball he is in line, head over the ball and still at point of contact. Technically correct in my view.
Ken
Guest
It's all been said above. Let's not re-write history, it cheapens what he did achieve.
jamesb
Guest
I concur with all of the comments above. Another thing I like to add is with the benefit of hindsight, Rogers should have been selected in the test side ahead of Hughes. Rogers played one test in 2008 and then finally recalled in 2013. During that five year period batsman like Hughes, Cowan, Watson and Quiney were given a shot. If Rogers was selected, it would have allowed Hughes to spend more time in the SS improving and eliminating the flaws in his game. With Rogers closer to the end of his career, now would have been the time to select Hughes. Or at least on his second chance. But sadly we will never know what kind of test career Hughes could ve had if he was still with us. At the end of the day, Hughes was a talented batsman and just appreciate what he achieved in his short career.
Paul Schlanger
Roar Rookie
I for one and like many, many other people in Australia was very saddened to hear of Phil Hughes' death, particularly in the manner in which he died. On reflection of his life, I think it disrespects him to inflate and romantise his achievements. He was a good cricketer who worked on his game as best he could. When very few batsmen get a second chance at a spot on the Australian Cricket Team, Hughes was given 3 chances (from memory). The facts show that he had flaws with his game that were identified and exploited by bowlers. Not withstanding those faults Hughes would have held his place in the team but unfortunately for him, cricketers are judged by their overall approach. You need look no further than Watson in more recent times. Cricket Australia gave him many chances to sort out his LBW issue. He is another example of a great cricketer who ultimately has lost his place in the team because of repeated failures due to one weakness in his game........ And that's all an opposition needs. Speculating like this on what Hughes might have achieved is wrong. Let's look back at his record and be greatful that he was a good cricketer.
Vish
Guest
I feel Hughes was a player who destroyed Shield attacks but was found out at the international level. International cricket s very unforgiving and bowlers dont take much time to work you out. A flaw noted can spell the end of a career. Never saw Hughes looking comfortable in his whole career. Smith s hard workin and his career has taken off due to his sincerity and application at the crease like Rahul Dravid. might not be technically correct or good looking. but effective
peeeko
Roar Guru
i don't want to sound bad but Hughes wasn't an established member of the test team. He was a fringe player that had failed to deliver on his potential. He may have done so in later years if not for his tragic death. I think to say that he would have been "looked the man most likely to lead Australia’s batting for the next decade" is pure conjecture and not a widely held view. Of course we will never know but as if often the case a tragic death can lead to an over estimation of someone. I definitely believe it was not a widely held view that " he would ultimately prevail against those pitfalls and come through a gun of the game".