Understanding Hughes' ouster

Phillip Hughes – from golden boy to Twitter in three Test innings. It’s hard to fully comprehend the logic of the decision to drop him for Shane Watson until you put it into context with the overall balance of the team. And therein lies Hughes’ problem. It's not that they really wanted to axe him but it's all part of the problem when a star player hits the skids. An opening bat for a fast bowler - that's the currency we're talking about today.

Hughes has effectively paid the ultimate price for Mitchell Johnson’s horror stretch it appears. Ironically, both players finished the South African tour riding the heady wave of success. Since then, Hughes has three indifferent innings in Test cricket, Johnson has had four bad innings with the ball so Hughes is dropped so Johnson can live to fight another day. That’s a team sport for you!

Even though the selectors may never admit as much, it sounds like the Hughes decision has been made to keep Johnson in the side rather than to drop Hughes per se. The balance of the side obviously required some insurance against Johnson’s form loss so rather than just swapping Johnson for Stuart Clark, it looks like poor old Hughes gets the rough end of the pineapple. Shane Watson, fine batsman that he is, can probably thank his bowling skills for his inclusion at the top of the order. Who was the last opening batsman selected for his bowling I wonder? Maybe back to the days when India used to pick a medium pacer just to get the shine off the ball for the spinners to do their magic.

If Watson succeeds in the role, that opens up Pandora’s box. Do they then persist with him and try to turn him into a poor man’s Jacques Kallis? Will his fragile body hold up to that workload? Who was the last opening batsman who averaged 4.67 in first-class cricket (as an opener) to have been selected at the top of the order. In some senses, Watson has nothing to lose. A streaky boundary through slip and he’s just about beaten his average for this batting position.

If Watson fails, is he owed a few bits of the cherry before he too is then unceremoniously dumped? Surely they must now persist with him for a few Tests, allowing him the luxury of some breathing space. Not that Hughes was afforded such courtesies mind you! This was a man who scored two Test hundreds in one game not so very long ago against arguably the best seam attack in world cricket, on their home pitches.

What happens if Johnson has another bad game and gets dropped? Does that mean the balance of the side is restored and Hughes comes straight back into the reckoning? That would be most unfair on Watson, regardless of whether he scores runs or not in this Test.

What it means is that Australia, for so long the bastion of loyalty and stability, has now set a dangerous precedent for the ‘chop and change’ culture that they took so much delight in vilifying England for. Clearly, recent form has no place in the current selector’s thinking. Marcus North must be a bit nervous in case Watson or Andrew Macdonald start coveting his place. After all, his last Test century was more than one Test ago!

While Australia tinkers with out-of-form selection headaches, England has the delicious opposite. Their biggest conundrum is whether to bring in the rampantly in-form Steve Harmison or stick with their winning formula. In this sense, I’d rather be in England’s shoes but one more poor showing from Stuart Broad, if it coincides with a loss, could spell curtains for him. He probably owes his spot in the team to Flintoff. Hughes owes his loss to Johnson.

Delicious ironies indeed – that’s why cricket is unsurpassed as a game of intrigue and utter fascination. Both teams are playing the same game but might as well be on different planets. Funny how one win at Lords, having just scraped a last-wicket draw at Cardiff, can change the course of someone’s career. Just ask Hughes. Or check out his Twitter page!