I've just finished reading Golden Boy: Kim Hughes and the Bad Old Days of Australian Cricket , Christian Ryan's biography of Kim Hughes and have a few thoughts to offer (to add to Michael Jeh's piece). First off, this is a good read. Ryan writes fluently, and conveys the sheer physicality of cricketing action remarkably well. There are many colorful turns of phrase, and they are all needed when describing a) a cricketer as interesting as Hughes and b) a cricketing culture as hard-boiled as the Aussie one. Ryan's English is unmistakably Australian, with its directness and verve, and he has done well to construct the book as a kind of oral history, based on extensive interviews with many of the participants--players, coaches, journalists--in the Hughes saga.
I've always wondered whether my unbridled admiration of Hughes's dazzling, fleet-footed strokeplay was an aberration and I'm glad to find out that other kids (including some that went on to become Test cricketers) thought just as highly of his dancing down the pitch, his cover driving on bended knee, and his luscious pulling and hooking of the world's best fast bowlers. It's a pleasure to read about the three Test innings played by Hughes that have entered cricketing lore as all-time classics: the 213 at Adelaide vs India in the 1980-81 series, the 100* at Melbourne against the West Indies during the 1981-82 series, and the 84 against England during the 1980 Centenary Test at Lords. If you like extravagant strokeplay, you should buy the book just for the photographs of Hughes batting in the Centenary Test. There is one photograph in particular, that will leave you breathless, and wondering "How the hell does someone play that?" (If you are curious, go to Patrick Eagar's website, search for Kim Hughes, and browse; you'll know when you hit it).
When it comes to describing the bad old days of Australian cricket, the Chappell-Lillee-Marsh saga of relentless conspiracy and non-cooperation is depressing but in the end, it is just one component of a larger dysfunctionality in Aussie cricket at the time. Ryans most salutary contribution to Australian cricket writing is debunk some persistent Aussie myths about the cricketing scene (besides mateship). No one who reads this book will ever again believe that when it comes to sledging, what happens on the ground stays on the ground, and that folks just shake hands after a game and make up (at the least, such feelings about on-ground conflicts don't seem to be universally held amongst Australians). At times, in Ryan's telling, Australian cricket seemed to have as much factionalism as Indian cricket, and that's saying something. But it is no surprise to find out just how badly cricketers were treated by administrators. At times, one marvels at the sheer feudalism of crickets managers.
As I wrote to Christian earlier today, there is an interesting book waiting to be written about the relentless image construction of Australian cricketing lore and history, as conducted by CA/ACB/PBL/NineMSN et al over the last 20-25 years. The souvenirs hawked on Channel 9 are just one part of it. Christian has already contributed to this process with his revelatory article on the singing of Under the Southern Cross and it's place in dressing-room post-match rituals. Next in line should be a piece on the mythology of the baggy green, which Ryan alludes to in the book, which Ian Chappell has already sought to dispel, and which might, in many ways, be by far the hardest to do.
Kim Hughes was not a simple man; he had many personal and cricketing faults. But in full flight, he was a sight to behold, and brought pleasure to many cricket spectators, including a young Indian schoolboy in India in 1979, who intends to write a blog post describing that obsession in the next couple of days. Ryan has written a book as only a fan of Hughes the batsman could, as one who struggles to understand why the glory of a an epic innings is not consonant with the considerably less glamorous facts of the politics of cricket. I'm glad he has written this book; I hope he has others in store.
This is a very good article. Kim Hughes was definitely underrated. He was overshadowed by other cricketers. It reminds me of Dirk Welhalm, another cricketer who had scored a century on debut but only went on to play 6 tests for Australia. Maybe we should also have an article on Dirk Welhalm.
I would definitely like to read the autobiographies of Kim Hughes and of Dirk Welhalm. What are the names of the books and where can I find them in India.
Posted by: Maurice Dela Zilwa at May 6, 2009 11:10 AM
Kim Hughes as a Batsman and a Cricketer had all the flair that most other Cricketers dream of.
As a batsman he was definitely one of the best in the world and some of his innings were just poetry.
As a Cricketer Kim was caught between two worlds (the Old & the New) had bore the brunt of frustrations of the Old Brigade.
I also think that the Administration handled Kim the wrong way, specially by giving him the Captiancy when he should have just done best, what he does so well, bat and bat and bat and delight one and all. As a result Australia lost one of her greatest batsman, in his prime.
Posted by: VJ at May 6, 2009 12:16 PM
Kim Hughes was a tremendous bat. He was fearless. And scored runs against all attacks. His 213 at Adelaide, he also had a 100 in Brisbane against in '79-80 against an attack that included roberts, holding, garner, croft, and collis king
Posted by: deepak rao at May 6, 2009 6:09 PM
I also found it a good read although depressing at times.Growing up in Australia,Hughes was my boyhood hero....a fantastic batsman and just seemed different to the others in the team.
His departure from the team was so sad...so many mysteries from that period....one question,if 2 senior Pakistani or Indian players had won a large amount of money betting on their team to lost a Test in a team captained by a guy they disliked and frequently undermined as well as calling for him to be dismissed in the press,would anyone have just dismissed it as one of those things? Would those players still be regarded the way Marsh and Lillee are now?
Posted by: phanto at May 7, 2009 11:45 AM
Interesting comment on the need for a book reviewing the legacy of WSC. Hughes was the most high-profile victim of the schism, and his reluctance to speak out is understandable because the Benaud/Chappell/Lillee et al. view of history has it that WSC improved everything (to paraphrase Paul Keating, "the revolution we had to have"). Crap ... The ACB was financially healthy in 1977 when Packer came along, forced them to go broke, signed a commercial deal (under extreme duress) to become their partner and then bled cricket dry for more than a decade. The players who didn't benefit were those who didn't go to WSC. Those who did, lined their pockets (which is their perogative) but have insisted ever since that they saved cricket. Time for a rethink, methinks....
Posted by: Kim Van Wyk at May 17, 2009 3:36 AM
Kim Hughes is a legend such a ledgend that my dad named me after him. i read the golden boy article and really enjoyed it, Kim was a great player with alot of heart and for him it was only about the game and the skill!! The world needs more players with that type of heart!!!
Posted by: shayne forster at May 18, 2009 3:09 AM
No doubt about Kim Hughes ability to play.He was fearless but unfortunatley did not get the credit he deserved.Imagine having to put up with the antics of Lillee and Marsh both of whom where from his home state and gave little or no support for his leadership.He was much muligned but he let the bat do his talking. I remember when he resigned in tears after the West Indies series it was a shame.He had a lot more to offer world cricket.
Posted by: Javed Munir Dar at May 20, 2009 9:13 AM
I have the honour to see the batting of Hughes, he was really a dashing and stylist batsman, i know people like Benaud, Chappell, Lillee & Marsh never supported him which is a shame because such things never suits to such great people, they should have shown mignanimaty as per their stature,
Posted by: Chris de Silva at June 4, 2009 9:11 PM
Ever since I first met Kim Hughes as a boy I have been a fan. He had time for every one and boy could he bat. Even to this day I have arguments with people about his talent and sometimes you do wonder if you imagined his genius with the bat. It is nice to see others share my admiration for his skill. I think Kim was born 25 to 30 years to early. He would be sensational in todays game. No detractors saying he was to attacking and brash and he should bat slower. I think he made a mistake pursuing the captaincy but what young man would refuse the opportunity to lead his country. I have ordered Christian Ryans book and can't wait to read it. This is a long awaited publication and it is a shame Kim did not tell his own story.
Posted by: Vic Nicholas at September 26, 2009 11:44 AM
A breath taking batsman who would play innings of rare artistry. In Australia we long suspected that Hughes was undermined by Lillee and Marsh...but after reading this book, I was saddened to find that it was much worse than anyone could have imagined. I feel greater respect Kim Hughes and I have taken other leading lights of Australian off the pedestal they once occupied. Sad, sad times.
Samir Chopra lives in Brooklyn and teaches Computer Science and Philosophy at the City University of New York; his academic interests include the philosophical foundations of artificial intelligence and the politics of technology. In his third undergraduate year, he captained Mathematics in the departmental cricket competition (and lost to Chemistry in the first round). Samir played C-grade cricket in Sydney and makes guest appearances for his old club when possible (and desirable). Samir runs the blog Eye on Cricket and the cricket page at The Faster Times.
Paul Ford is a co-founder of the New Zealand cricket supporters' cult, the Beige Brigade. He was once described by a current New Zealand cricketer as "looking spastic" even mucking about with an Excalibur and a tennis ball in the backyard. Paul bowls right-armed Nathan Astlesque "nudes", his batting would make Ewen Chatfield look elegant, and he is a committed fielder. He sometimes grows a beard to hide his double chin and inhabits a periphery of cricket that Cricinfo is proud to be glimpsing through this blog.
Stephen Gelb grew up in Cape Town, a short walk from the beautiful Newlands ground. Always a better student of the game than player, his passion for cricket survived eight years as a student in Canada, where he learned to love baseball too. He lives in Johannesburg doing economic research at The EDGE Institute and teaching at Wits University.
Mike Holmans, a database consultant by profession, has spent thirty summers (and a few winters) going to the cricket. Brought up in one and working in the other, his dearest wish is for a season to end with Yorkshire winning the county championship by beating runners-up Middlesex by one wicket with five minutes to go. If it’s also a summer when England win the Ashes, so much the better.
Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane - Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. His views on cricket might best be described as those of a "modern traditionalist". Michael now works closely with elite athletes in his job as a manager at Griffith University in Queensland.
Saad Shafqat takes special pride that his cricket-watching life began during the three-month interval between Javed Miandad's debut Test in Lahore and Imran Khan's 12-wicket haul at Sydney. Although a practicing neurologist based in Karachi, cricket has never been far from his activities. He has co-authored Javed Miandad’s autobiography Cutting Edge and has been a contributor to Cricinfo since 2005. His regular column Reverse Swing appears fortnightly in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily.
RSS Feed
