The Curious Case of Phillip Hughes

Corresponding with Ricky Ponting’s recent slide in form was a slide down the batting order. From his customary first-drop position Ponting moved down to no 4, presumably to further shield him from the swinging ball, and since then the Australian top order has looked decidedly ramshackle.

With Ponting now retired, the chance has arisen to rebuild the Australian batting line-up and give it a good trial run against Sri Lanka ahead of the coming Ashes series. But the selectors have painted themselves into a particularly interesting corner.

Not that long ago, new batsmen to the Australian team were introduced slowly. The senior, more experienced batters moved up the order and took more responsibility, while the rookies were given time to find their feet. Indeed, some of the recent greats, Damien Martyn, Dick Ponting and current captain and run-machine MJ Clarke, all started their Test careers as no. 6 batsmen before eventually graduating up the order.

This type of thinking changed when Steve Waugh found himself comfortable at 5 and refused to budge. The idea was that you left players where they were most comfortable and therefore most likely to succeed, maintain a strength rather than try to patch a perceived weakness and possibly expose another.

Accordingly, the current Australian team finds their best, most in form, batters at 5 and 6, with three other batsmen who all prefer to open. So, what did they do? Select another opener, of course.

Ironically enough, it was a lack of specialist opening batsmen that created this current glut of openers. After Hayden and Langer departed, middle order players like Katich and Watson were forced to the top as Australia searched for someone who could negotiate the new ball.

Phillip Hughes was first given his chance in the PHL era (Post Hayden & Langer) against an intimidating attack on South African soil, and at just age 20, he made two centuries and a 70 in his first four innings. He then experienced horror runs against England and NZ that saw his technique questioned and dismissed and his confidence sink to “Maverick-post Goose’s-death” levels (I’ve used that joke already, right?). He now returns for his third Test stint, armed with a technique that has been rebuilt more times than The Melbourne Eye, presumably to bat out of position at first drop.

The incumbent number 3, Shane Watson, is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma, and in a way, the key to the entire success of the Australian batting. He is clearly one of the best six batters in the country yet, almost in spite of all his talents, he has become the James Dean of top order bats, looking beautiful and departing early, and averages only 36 in Test cricket.

On paper, considering he is needed to bowl his excellent stump-to-stump seamers, Watson seems a natural fit to bat 5 or 6, yet, as previously mentioned, Australia’s two best bats are already firmly entrenched in those positions. (And while we’re here, yes, it is worrying that Mike Hussey is still the second best batsman in the team.) Further confusing the issue, Watson seems to bat better the higher up the order he plays and has a history of failing “mentally” when approaching milestone scores.

This is where the question of Clarke moving himself up the order needs to addressed: The team’s best batsman needs to be in the top 4. The aforementioned Steve Waugh could get away with batting 5 because of who was in front of him. Michael Clarke, currently in the form of his life, doesn’t have that same luxury. And now is the time to act.

Ed Cowan and Davey Warner need more time as openers, Clarke should bat at 3, Watson 4 and Hussey and Hughes at any point after that. If one of the openers should need replacing, or if Mr Cricket finally calls it a day, Hughes can reclaim his spot at the top and the new man in the team slides in at 6, just how they used to do it. (Ultimately, I would be shocked if anything happened, other than Hughes batting at 3 and Watson 4. And I can understand the reluctance to move Clarke, although it could be argued that he may as well seeing as though he normally finds himself striding to the middle after about 15 overs anyway.)

For now, it is chance number 3, batting at 3, for Phillip Hughes. He is still only 24, even though it feels like he’s been around forever, and he has a weight of runs behind him in all forms and at all levels of the game, something I like to call “The Mike Hussey Rule”, or, to paraphrase Rasheed Wallace, “bat don’t lie”.

Still, the questions abound: Can he bat down the order? Should he be opening? How many runs does he need to stay in the team? Is he a long-term no 3? What happens if he gets caught at 2^nd slip, again, for not much? Can he survive being dropped again?

But here’s where it gets truly curious: With so many runs, such a unique technique and such an ugly recent history, is Hughes just good enough to dominate domestic attacks but just flawed enough to be found out at International level?

There’s been a lot in the press this week about Hughes’ improvements and the mentoring sessions he’s had with old coach Neil D’Costa, who summed up the situation quite succinctly.

“He's the leading run-scorer in the Sheffield Shield,” said D’Costa, “Either our domestic bowlers are shit, or he's improved.”

Not quite an answer, but, as is seemingly always the case with Hughes, an interesting proposition.