By Adrian Meredith
MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: When Phillip Hughes first burst onto the first class scene, he was unbelievably good.
He had an unorthodox technique, with his feet all over the place like he was going to trip over himself, but that, if anything, was why he was so good.
Bowlers were confused as to what to do and tried to get him out but instead were hoiked over the fielder's heads, or over the boundary. Hughes would trick them and had so much freedom.
But English bowler Steve Harmison had an idea how to get through Philip Hughes by using his technique. He started off with a barrage of yorkers and yorker-like deliveries to mess with his feet and then he'd mix it up with some outswingers and inswingers, all of which require expert footwork.
Since Hughes has terrible footwork, he'd get out, either caught behind, caught at slip, clean bowled, or LBW. And it was a virtual guarantee. Hughes might get lucky and get a couple of runs out, or the balls might not land in quite the right way, but eventually they would get him.
It required a swing bowler like Harmison for it to work the best; but fast bowlers could do it too - even medium pacers. The bowler had to be a pretty good bowler to do it effectively - most first class bowlers, even if they knew how to do it, couldn't execute it. Really only top class international bowlers could do it.
The result of this, of course, is that Hughes is going to have pretty good first class results, as most first class bowlers aren't good enough to execute the Steve Harmison mode of dismissal. But whenever he came up with an international match against decent opposition, regardless of the format (though he has never played ODIs or T20s) he is going to be out cheaply.
Now, Philip Hughes isn't the only batsman ever to have his technique found out. In Australia, Steve Waugh was found out by his temptation to play hook shots and get out a lot - though he also got a lot of 6s. Waugh made a lot of runs by hooking at first class level but international bowlers were a lot smarter and it was a guaranteed out. Waugh responded by changing his technique firstly in a very simple way - he cut out the hook shot. He even cut it out from first class matches, even though most first class bowlers weren't good enough to get him out. But eventually Waugh worked out how to play the hook shot safely, even against quality international bowlers. He changed his technique.
Ricky Ponting was found out several times throughout his career, and each time he changed his technique.
Viv Richards was found out, and changed his technique several times over. Kevin Pietersen. Even Don Bradman had his technique found out - several times - and each time he changed his technique. Each time that bowlers found a way to get him out cheaply, he changed it.
The problem is that Phillip Hughes hasn't changed his technique. He has had 3 years now. He has not changed a thing.
In the past 3 years, he tried to change it but no matter what he did he kept getting found out. He was frustrated and angry and his scores plummeted. Then he decided to go back to what was working, started getting better scores, and was recalled to the international team.
Oh, he succeeded against Zimbabwe A. But Zimbabwe A were not an international side, they don't have world class swing bowlers who know how to copy Steve Harmison's techniques. They probably don't even have access to video footage to show how to get Phillip Hughes out.
Phillip Hughes was recalled to the Australian test team and failed abysmally. In his first time in the test team he averaged over 50. In his second time, he averaged 20. Bowlers kept repeating Steve Harmison's techniques and Phillip Hughes kept falling for it. Again and again he gave his wicket away cheaply.
Since then, Hughes has gone away and played in the exact same way he did before he was originally called up to the Australian test team. His technique hasn't changed. But most Australian state bowlers aren't good enough to copy Harmison's techniques. So he has scored reasonably well.
And now, somewhat blindly, the Australian selectors have recalled him.
Yet in his case numbers are irrelevant.
Hughes could be averaging 100 and it wouldn't matter. He could be in the form of his life and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
While his technique is unchanged, he is going to keep getting out cheaply to any quality international bowler who can copy Steve Harmison's technique.
Now, Sri Lanka don't have a lot of good swing bowlers. I have no doubt that Lasith Malinga could copy the technique but he isn't playing in tests. It is quite possible that none of Sri Lanka's bowlers are good enough, or the right kind of bowler, to be able to copy Steve Harmison's technique.
It is quite possible that Phillip Hughes will succeed against Sri Lanka.
Now, I don't know for sure if he will. It is possible that one of Sri Lanka's bowlers is good enough, and does have enough access to video information, and good enough coaches, to be able to get Hughes out cheaply. I don't know for sure.
But even if Hughes succeeds against Sri Lanka, he won't succeed against England, or India, or South Africa, or Pakistan, or New Zealand, or West Indies. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the only 3 teams that don't obviously have the right kind of bowlers - but even they may be able to get him out cheaply. Perhaps Angelo Mathews or Perera can get one through. Perhaps even a spinner can use a spin variation of Harmison's technique and deal with him quickly.
It is reminiscent of the Zimbabwe-born English player Graeme Hick.
Graeme Hick, like Steve Waugh, was a happy hooker. He was great normally but kept getting out to bouncers. All that a bowler had to do to get him out was to bowl bouncers. With the right field settings, Hick was an easy victim. Hook managed huge amounts of runs at a very high average at first class level, but never played tests, because in tests they were allowed to bowl bouncers, and he was an easy out. Oh, he played a few tests with success early in his career, but once he was found out, he was a goner. But Hick ended up playing a wealth of ODI games, mainly because they changed the bouncer law for ODIs to ban bouncers. He did very well. But then, when they changed the test law to limit bouncers, they considered him again.
The problem with Phillip Hughes is that it is incredibly unlikely, nay impossible, for them to change the laws to ban bowlers doing the kinds of things that he is going to get out cheaply to.
Another problem that Hughes has is that no other batsman plays like him.
Don Bradman managed it in spite of an unorthodox technique, and in spite of no other batsmen being like him - he managed to change his technique.
But is Hughes as smart as Bradman was? Is he good enough to work out his own techniques?
If he is, good for him, and Hughes deserves a spot in the test team.
Until then, though, he needs to stay at first class level only.
This was the dumbest choice of the 4 options. Of the 4, I would have picked Usman Khawaja, though I wouldn't have minded Alex Doolan either. Rob Quiney had already failed so I'd hate to see him given another shot. For me, I wanted either David Hussey (who well and truly deserves it but they say is too old) or George Bailey (who has worked up to it brilliantly). For me, it should have been a choice of Hussey or Bailey. I don't know why the selectors had 4 that were all bad choices, and why they chose the worst of the 4 options.
There are good batsmen in Australia. But Hughes isn't one of them.
The success or failure of Phillip Hughes in the upcoming series will depend on whether Sri Lanka has a bowler who can repeat the Steve Harmison method, and whether they have coaches good enough to show them how to do it. If they do, Hughes will fail. If they don't, then Hughes may actually succeed - but that is if anything even worse, as then we may be stuck with him for a while.
I may be wrong and maybe Hughes has secretly worked out his technical flaws; but I doubt it.
