Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Wasn't an Indian batter killed after a blow to the head in the fifties? Injuries happened before helmets. It feels a real leap of faith to presume that protection is making the game more dangerous. The idea that they make the players take chances is very persuasive, but if true, maybe that genie isn't going to go back into that bottle. Batters aren't going to stop wearing helmets. Hopefully, protection will improve. More than hopefully, Hughes will get better. The idea that less protection means fewer injuries is too counter-intuitive, given life depends on it. The T20 industry too depends on the kinds of unorthodoxy that would die out without the helmet. And the players won't have that.

I'm certainly not advocating less protection. However, improved protection should go hand in hand with better coaching of players in the art of batting and dealing with the sort of delivery which may cause injury to the head. How often do we hear commentators praise a well directed short pitched delivery which has a batsman in all sorts of trouble in dealing with it - quite often in my experience. International cricket in particular can be a very hostile environment - is it not pointless just to concentrate on protection without addressing flawed technique?

'Vulnerable to the short pitched delivery' is a term I have heard about any number of international players - and it is worrying.

However let us not detract from the current prime concern - Phil Hughes' welfare and hopeful recovery.

The modern game, especially outside of Tests, is founded on unorthodoxy. Suggest batters need to treat the short ball with respect and then level that with the dilscoop. The batter goes to ground before the ball is bowled. The batters charge the fast bowlers. I prefer the test way of going about things, and I'm glad cricket has moved on from the wall of bouncers that we got from (especially) the WI pace attack- at times. The limited overs game would go back ten years though.

'Former West Indies batsman Phil Simmons says he hopes Australia's Phil Hughes is as lucky as he was with his recovery from a serious head injury. Hughes is in a critical condition after being struck on the head by a bouncer in a state match in Sydney on Tuesday. Simmons was hit by a David Lawrence ball in 1988 but made a full recovery following life-saving brain surgery. "I was out of hospital in eight days, which none of the doctors expected. I hope he pulls through," said Simmons. Simmons was the same age as Hughes - 25 - when he took a blow on the head from a Lawrence short ball in fading light in Bristol during a tour match against Gloucestershire. His heart stopped and he required emergency surgery at Frenchay Hospital. But Simmons, who unlike Hughes was not wearing a helmet, made a full recovery, playing in a charity match in the Caribbean four months later before resuming his international career the following year.'

Aidan11 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30198194

I remember this well....

It's hazardous being named Phil:

"My wife called me as soon as it happened," added Simmons. "He is the same age as I was with the same name. I think there's an omen somewhere that he will pull through and I hope so."

I'm certainly not advocating less protection. However, improved protection should go hand in hand with better coaching of players in the art of batting and dealing with the sort of delivery which may cause injury to the head. How often do we hear commentators praise a well directed short pitched delivery which has a batsman in all sorts of trouble in dealing with it - quite often in my experience. International cricket in particular can be a very hostile environment - is it not pointless just to concentrate on protection without addressing flawed technique?

Phil Hughes was known to struggle to the short ball, just look at his test debut where South Africa probably didn't bowl him anything full for the whole series, and then in the follow up in England he was dropped after two tests because England also bounced him (I think Harmison opened him up in a warm up match, Flintoff finished him off by the 2nd innings at Lords).

Its ok to question flawed technique, but do you really think a highly rated cricketer like Phil Hughes (it was only last week Michael Clarke referred to his raw talent meaning he could still become a 100 test match player for Australia) would have a short ball problem identified 5 years ago and hadn't moved to address it? Had access to the best coaches who have also acknowledged this weakness? Had the time and worked hard to correct it?

Sorry, but every single cricketer in the world works hard to consistently improve their technical flaws. He is a 25 year old player who has about 25 tests to his name too, so how many old style cricketers are that experienced in 5 day cricket at that age? You cant blame OD cricket or T20 cricket, Hughes had a technical focus for a long time (as I said, before he had played a test SA had done enough homework to insist on bouncing him every ball).

You seems to be complaining that coaches aren't teaching players to be perfect? If it was as easy to teach batsman to become technically flawless as you seem to suggest, then why isn't everyone Sachin Tendulkar?

I think aswell, about some of the injuries we have seen in recent Ashes in my life time, to stick out by memory.

The first was at Lords 2005 when Harmison hit Ponting hard enough through the helmet to cut his face open and draw some blood..... name me a better hooker and puller then Ponting in the modern game? He clearly didn't have any technical issue with the short ball, but he got hit by a well directed and quick short ball.

The other was Alex Tudor who got knocked out by Brett Lee. Tudor himself had said that Australia had taken the new ball in that match, and balls that previously had bounced over heads from a similar length were skidding with the new ball. The ball that smashed into his head didn't bounce as much as he thought, and hit him while attempting to duck out the way....... is that a technical issue?

I don't think its necessarily a technical issue that is seeing these incidents occurring more in the helmet era, its more to do with batsman taking greater risks especially with well directed short balls in the knowledge that if they do get hit they should be ok. In the pre helmet days pretty much anything arrowing in towards your head was avoided because you knew if you got hit on the head you were in serious trouble. Can't remember any serious head injuries occurring when I was watching cricket in the seventies when you had the likes of Lillee, Thompson and Holding bowling alot of short pitched stuff. In anycase the bouncers arrowing into the head aren't that difficult to avoid as they require minimal movement to get out the way of, its the ones targetting the upper body which can be a nightmare to play.

budgetmeansbudget wrote:I don't think its necessarily a technical issue that is seeing these incidents occurring more in the helmet era, its more to do with batsman taking greater risks especially with well directed short balls in the knowledge that if they do get hit they should be ok. In the pre helmet days pretty much anything arrowing in towards your head was avoided because you knew if you got hit on the head you were in serious trouble. Can't remember any serious head injuries occurring when I was watching cricket in the seventies when you had the likes of Lillee, Thompson and Holding bowling alot of short pitched stuff. In anycase the bouncers arrowing into the head aren't that difficult to avoid as they require minimal movement to get out the way of, its the ones targetting the upper body which can be a nightmare to play.

I would agree with that , could even be an element of complacency, thinking "it doesn't matter if I get hit I have a helmet on"

budgetmeansbudget wrote:I don't think its necessarily a technical issue that is seeing these incidents occurring more in the helmet era, its more to do with batsman taking greater risks especially with well directed short balls in the knowledge that if they do get hit they should be ok. In the pre helmet days pretty much anything arrowing in towards your head was avoided because you knew if you got hit on the head you were in serious trouble. Can't remember any serious head injuries occurring when I was watching cricket in the seventies when you had the likes of Lillee, Thompson and Holding bowling alot of short pitched stuff. In anycase the bouncers arrowing into the head aren't that difficult to avoid as they require minimal movement to get out the way of, its the ones targetting the upper body which can be a nightmare to play.

Did either of these bowlers go quicker than now day players? I mean really? Its appreciated by the ICC that none of the speed cameras used to clock bowlers are sufficiently accurate to ever get a reading, and anecdotal evidence from guys facing these names would always be "yeah, Thommo was fastest". Yet, we know that in the realms of sport science to argue an unfit bloke in the 70's had more explosive capacity than a fully fit pacer nowadays, with proper exercise regimes, and scientific what have you's.

I think one misconception made is nothing has changed in cricket with regards to pace. Look at Australia now, Johnson, Harris, Coulter-Nile, Siddle, Abbott, Cummins (not sure, but I think Hazelwood), Starc..... all of them are capable of bowling in the lower 90's, in Johnson's case he is quicker. If this was the seventies we would be talking about the fear of playing against this very quick bowlers forming an overall attack, on pitches that are quick and bouncy, but we don't perceive the pace attack in the same way now. Its almost like anyone who cant bowl 90mph is a medium fast bowler.

Wasn't the ball Abbott bowled Hughes clocked at 91mph? That's seriously fast

Not sure it was pace that did for Hughes as being hit on the left side of the head suggests he was prepared for that pace of delivery or was even a bit early on the shot. I think he was just unlucky but at the same time he took on a ball arrowing towards his head which batsman without helmets in the past probably would have swayed or ducked out the way of.

Hughes has passed away having never regained consciousness. Thoughts go out to the family and Abbot.

RIP Phil Hughes.

Very sad.

I hope Sean Abbott is doing OK.

Very sad. Just thought, and hoped he would come through.

rip

RIP. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and team mates at this tragic time.

In shock when I saw the report

RIP

Just listening to the news report now. Tragic news.