There will be no winners this week for Australian cricket

By Trelawney McGregor / Roar Guru

This week will mark one of the most difficult weeks the Australian cricketing community has had to endure in the history of the sport, and there will be no winners.

The coronial inquest into the death of Phillip Hughes has picked at a scar that has failed to heal. The scar will probably never heal. That is what happens when a young man is tragically cut down in his prime. The only week more difficult perhaps, was the actual week Hughes died.

He was struck by a bouncer causing a haemorrhage in the brain resulting in his passing just a few days afterwards.

Having listened to the commentary and watched the media surrounding the inquest this past couple of days, I have experienced the anger, hurt and frustration of the Australian cricketing community.

I have seen a family still completely devastated by the loss of a son. It is why I decided to take a different path last night, I went to YouTube and remembered Hughes for what he was. An exciting and lovable batsman whose time on this earth was brief, but left us with some endurable memories.

In his first Test match against one of the most fearsome pace attacks in world cricket in front of an intimidating Johannesburg crowd, he was dismissed for a duck by Dale Steyn in the first Test innings. A lesser cricketer would have been crushed and a lamb to the slaughter in the second innings against the intimidation of Steyn and company.

However, Hughes flourished and peeled off an entertaining 75 including 11 crisply struck fours and an audacious six. The kid had survived his first outing in the brutal examination of temperament and technique that is Test match cricket, and it was just the entrée.

In the second Test at the Sahara Stadium, Kingmead, Durban the 20-year old came of age, he became the youngest Australian batsman to score a century in both innings of a Test match. The footwork was sparkling, the shot making was exquisite and the complete package was just a joy to watch. The South Africans were shell shocked, the bowlers at a loss, this young punk from Australia had slayed the dragon in the dragon’s backyard.

It can be easily forgotten that just a few months before Hughes’s maiden Test match, Australia had suffered a humiliating home Test series defeat against the Proteas. The return series in South Africa had the experts predicting a comfortable victory for the home side. Yet on the back of an energetic, swashbuckling 20-year-old opening batsman, Australia triumphed against the odds and recorded a comfortable series victory.

The Australian cricketing community was abuzz and the adulation and comparisons came. Hughes was mentioned in dispatches to being the reincarnation of a young Neil Harvey, a lofty comparison indeed. Having never been one to place stock in comparisons, I was just thankful I made the decision to stay up late at night and suffer the next working day to witness first hand such an arrival on the Australian cricketing scene.

The struggles came and the 2009 Ashes campaign in England is not pretty viewing, as he was taken apart and roughed up by Andrew Flintoff and subsequently dropped from the side. However, Hughes was the not first batsman to be ruthlessly picked apart on English soil by Flintoff, Adam Gilchrest can testify to that.

Another highlight was just around the corner however, and the third and final Test match century against Sri Lanka in Colombo makes for pretty special viewing. The poise and temperament shown in that innings belied his age. The innings can perhaps now be looked upon with a greater respect and admiration. Australia’s recent disastrous tour of Sri Lanka puts Hughes inning into context, where no batsman could knuckle down and show an ounce of grit and determination when the series was on the line, like Hughes had done all those years before.

There were other cameos from Hughes over his brief career, the century on debut in the one-day arena at the Melbourne Cricket Ground is compelling viewing. A second match winning century in the fifth game of the series had me believing he was well on the way to resurrecting his Test career via the shorter format like so many had done before him. Unfortunately fate intervened and Hughes was tragically taken from us in the most brutal of circumstances.

Coronial inquests are not pretty occasions, the New South Wales coroner has an obligation to explore all possible avenues of inquiry and circumstances to explain why a young man died playing a simple game of cricket.

The coroner does not have an agenda, nor does he have a desire to single out and persecute individuals. The coroner just has a responsibility to ensure that every possible safety measure was in place and recommended any improvements. It does not do anyone any good to question the role and responsibility of the coroner.

The Hughes family are grieving and they want answers, they deserve to have the questions being asked answered this week in the inquest more than anyone. It is impossible to comprehend what they are experiencing. The parents of Hughes had to do what no parents should ever have to do, and that is bury a child who had the world at his feet. It cannot be anyone’s business in the cricket community to question the motives of the Hughes family during this difficult time.

No doubt some members throughout the Australian cricketing community are questioning the purpose and motives of the inquest this week. Instead of getting angry or upset and potentially lashing out, just take a moment to pause and use the opportunity to remember Phillip Hughes for what he was. A young vibrant and likeable cricketer who was a breath of fresh air on the cricketing landscape and captured our hearts.

There can be no winners in this difficult week. Let all of us make sure there are no losers this week either by apportioning blame or questioning a grieving family’s right to have questions answered.

The Crowd Says:

2016-10-13T11:17:42+00:00

Samuel Laffy

Roar Guru


The questioning and reporting related to this case is some of the most bizarre I've ever read. Obviously bowling short to a batsman is a tactic, and yes, it was most likely used against Hughes. However, the questioning and reporting around responses to this question make it seem like a criminal offence. Same for Bollinger. I have no doubt he did sledge Hughes. But he's now having his name dragged through the mud through reporting of heresay that makes it seem like he hit Hughes in the back of the head with a bat. From the media's focus, it's turning it into a family vs. everyone else soap opera that makes everyone involved in the match look bad, and the family look like a mob on a witch-hunt. Dear me.

2016-10-13T07:53:14+00:00

Liam

Guest


That's as foolish as anything ever uttered. It isn't just bouncers that can make contact with the head, nor are batsmen's reactions entirely voluntary all the time. Top edges, stray throws, both can and have caused no end of injuries to the head. You then have, for example, a child who has never played a game before at 12 who is just too old for a younger age group, playing against the representative opening bowler of their district, who is genuinely quick for his age. You have the new format laws, which shorten pitch lengths for lower age groups; put the above situation in the new format, and you have a recipe for injury after injury if helmets are banned until open age cricket. It's an archaic view, and one that insists on using pain as an educator. Tell me, do you also advocate the use of the cane in schools as well?

2016-10-13T05:16:50+00:00

Andy

Guest


How is this not in line? There are concerns raised, however incorrect they may or may not be, by the family, these are being addressed as is everything else about the incident. This inquest is finding that everyone on the field; players from both teams and the umpires, had no such concerns. Questions are being asked and answered. The Hughes family is obviously emotional and they are looking for someone to blame, at this point i havnt read anything to say that the coroner feels in any way the same. The only person who is saying otherwise, other than the Hughes family, is Matt Day who wasnt on the field and recalls hearing something whilst in a group of several guys, from Bollinger, that he sledged Hughes. At this point no one else has said Bollinger said that and Matt Day can only remember the gist of what Bollinger said and not exactly what he said.

2016-10-13T05:08:37+00:00

Ches

Guest


What is the family trying to achieve?

2016-10-13T03:56:46+00:00

Damo

Guest


Unfortunately it appears that most of the time was spent questioning NSW tactics, sledging and conerns over targeting Hughes than actual medical procedures and responses or other safety issues. Today Greg Hughes was heard saying 'lying' as Alex Kountouris was questioned about tactics used against Phillip. The line of questioning had not been in line with the stated intent of the inquest.

2016-10-13T02:03:38+00:00

Andy

Guest


I know that we all feel for the Hughes family but i think we need to separate those emotional feelings when talking about this inquest. This inquest is not for the family and its not even for Phil Hughes, the inquest cannot and is not looking to charge anyone or find fault either criminally or civilly, its primary concern is to find out how we can make sure what happened doesn't happen again. An inquest is for the future and i think thats really important for us to recognize. This inquest isnt looking to change cricket in anyway.

2016-10-12T23:33:10+00:00

Col. Wilhelm Klink

Guest


There is a lesson in this we must teach junior cricketers. When batting never take your eyes off the ball. Hughes turned his head into bouncer, he should have watched it. Personally I reckon helmets should be banned until open age cricket in order to teach proper batting technique.

Read more at The Roar