Vertebral artery ruptures are almost uniformly fatal. Only the superb care that was rendered to Phil Hughes allowed him to survive at all.
— Gary Hartstein (@former_f1doc) November 27, 2014
This is a post about cognitive dissonance. The individual is me, and the discomfort is mine. The contradictory beliefs, ideas or values are that I am part of the enormous, overwhelming tsunami of grief which has followed Hughes' passing; and yet part of me finds it confusing, and yes, even discomforting. Why this massive international outpouring? Is this all a bit too much, postponing or cancelling test matches? Is it even reasonable to question grief rationally? Let me dig into this and see if I can make sense of it. I can't guarantee I will.
First of all, and above all, I am part of this.
Still struggling to believe this. RT @TheAdelaideOval: RIP Phillip Hughes #AdelaideOval #Adelaide pic.twitter.com/P7h51Gbcmd
— Dr Yobbo (@DrYobbo) November 27, 2014
Hughes' passing hurt viscerally. I'd always pulled for Hughes; loved watching him bat, precisely because he batted like he had a hinge in the middle. Furiously, gloriously flawed; flipping the bird to Proper Technique, slicing ranty quicks over the heads of the approximately eleventy-six fielders strategically positioned between gully and deep third man entirely for his aerial off-side swipes behind square. It's true that as we age, we lose our heroes; those older than us die off or find disgrace, those younger than us can never really be heroes. We don't watch sport the same way we did as kids. The swashbuckling, one-handed-six-hitting Dean Jones of our youth becomes the Prof Deano of shilling for Julie Bishop and 'The terrorist gets another wicket' of our middle age. We don't look up to twenty-somethings. A lot of the opproprium levelled at Michael Clarke, effectively for not being AB, by Men Of A Certain Age probably has its roots in that. But I pulled for Hughes, wanted him to succeed, felt the pain of his multiple failures and repeated droppings.By the scale of the response, I'm guessing I wasn't alone in that. We wanted him to succeed, felt he'd had a raw deal. As Martin Crowe observed, he'd never been given a fair shake; Steve Waugh was given 26 tests to score a hundred, Hughes had a ton in both innings of a test by age 20. Perhaps this is revisionist, but we're allowed to be revisionist through the prism of grief. Rationality goes on bereavement leave. We thrash and wail and we remember the best of the departed and we put out our bats for Phil - even though the family didn't like him being called Phil, which raises the question of how much our grief is allowed to take precedence over theirs.
The correct answer, of course, is 'not at all'. The funeral is Wednesday afternoon in Hughes' old school in Macksville, on NSW's mid north coast. Qantas have put on a couple of extra 737s to nearby-ish Coffs Harbour to ferry mourners from the capitals. They'll include a large Cricket Australia contingent, of course; with the injury scratching of captain Pup, Hughes was a fair chance of getting a test recall for the Gabba test scheduled to start this coming Thursday. It won't start this Thursday, as much for reasons of crushing logistical feasibility as anything; you can't send your entire team to a 2pm funeral halfway to Sydney and have them back next morning for the first session. It needs to be noted that with a crowded World-Cup-hosting Australian summer, short of moving both the Gabba and Adelaide Oval tests back by a few days, the Gabba test can't actually be rescheduled; under current ICC rules, tests require an eleven day window, with three clear days flanking the five scheduled days of play, for reasons of player welfare.
So a rational person (or just someone who doesn't like sport) might note we're moving two or cancelling one Test match against the most important cricket side in the world - or at least that which represents the largest cricketing nation and the most powerful board - for one guy's funeral. And think about how much bereavement leave *they* were given when close friends or family members passed. And note the flags at half mast, the statements from politicians, the tributes from right across human civilization, and ask - is this too much? Is it enough? How much is enough?
I don't know. I'm part of it, and yet I feel like it's over the top. Then again, like a lot of white males uncomfortable with public emotion, I feel like most public outpourings of grief are over the top and have been so, from Senna to Princess Di to Michael Hutchence to Steve Irwin to Gough Whitlam. We're mourning not the person or their achievements but what they meant *to us* in our stylised airbrushed perceptions thereof, which is often nothing to do with the person themselves. Social media tends to amplify human reactions in a feedback loop, and grief doesn't appear to be left out of the equation.
I wonder too if there's a generational thing at play here - that we're becoming crap at death, because we're several generations distant from having to deal with it as part of our reality. We don't lose large fractions of our population to war and disaster and disease any more. (Disclaimer: this is clearly a White Person Deal.) We expect to live to a ripe old age. We're in a society that is incredibly uncomfortable with death, that is fully prepared to stick its fingers in its ears and go LALALALALA if you bring up the fact that yes, we *are* all going to die one day. So when a young, fit, future-unlimited sports hero meets his, we are horrified, not just because it's cruel and unfair and a waste, but because it reminds us we're *all* fucken fucked.
I follow a sport, motorsport, which has a reputation of killing and eating its own. Not as much as it used to; the death roll through the '60s and '70s in Formula One was genuinely horrific, and must have been even for generations who lived through world wars. Any era in which you are obliged to use the term 'posthumous World Champion' in reporting that year's title winner is not one to be repeated. But even so, 20 years since the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger at Imola, we still lose people. Both MotoGP's Marco Simoncelli and Indycar's Dan Wheldon in a horrendous week in November 2011. I was at Brands Hatch in 2008 when young British Supersport rider was involved in the crash which ended his life. More recently, V8 Supercars lost Jason Richards - not through accident but through cancer, but it doesn't hurt any less. Brocky's ghost still lingers. And while Jules Bianchi and Michael Schumacher aren't dead, they're just resting, they're never coming back as the people we knew; this is a different grieving process, chronic rather than acute.
Cricket isn't meant to kill people, and this is part of what underpins the shock and horror. Batsmen get hit in the scone all the time. Whether this is good or bad isn't factored into the discussion; it just is. The same way, perhaps, that concussions just 'were' in the NFL. Whether this remains an acceptable risk, or whether a Senna-esque regulatory overreach will follow from the ICC, with the result of sending the head-hunting bouncer the way of rugby's spear tackle and helmet-to-helmet clashes in the NFL, remains to be seen.
Whatever response there is will be too much, viewed rationally, and not enough, because nothing is enough. Nothing is bringing Phillip Joel Hughes back, as nothing will bring any of us back to the people who care about us.
Back in his spot. #putoutyourbats pic.twitter.com/l8ZhcM2DuI
— Hampshire Cricket (@hantscricket) November 28, 2014
Argh this one got me right in the feels.
The Doctor is OUT.

















