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.