Bouncers in the old days

[Glacier]

How dangerous would they have been? Were many batsmen hit by them or was it very rarely that someone got hit?

I'm asking this because nowadays, every few matches or so someone seems to get hit on their helmet. Obviously, batsmen now are more inclined to pull but quite a few get hit simply trying to evade the ball.

Personally I have been hit just above my eye socket from a throw a few meters away from me. It didn't really hurt on impact but it did leave a huge mark and painful bruising for a few months.

Hence, I would imagine a delivery of over 90mph would be pretty much fatal if you got hit. Add uncovered pitches into the equation and I can't help but wonder that there would have been a fair few casualties.

 

[wpdavid]

How dangerous would they have been? Were many batsmen hit by them or was it very rarely that someone got hit?

I'm asking this because nowadays, every few matches or so someone seems to get hit on their helmet. Obviously, batsmen now are more inclined to pull but quite a few get hit simply trying to evade the ball.

Personally I have been hit just above my eye socket from a throw a few meters away from me. It didn't really hurt on impact but it did leave a huge mark and painful bruising for a few months.

Hence, I would imagine a delivery of over 90mph would be pretty much fatal if you got hit. Add uncovered pitches into the equation and I can't help but wonder that there would have been a fair few casualties.

Less than you'd think. Mainly because batsmen made sure they got their unprotected heads out of the way.

 

[stumpski]

In the first 100 years of Test cricket (i.e. before helmets came in) there were only two really serious injuries involving head injuries - unless I've forgotten any - those involving Nari Contractor and Ewan Chatfield. Quite surprising really.

Even in first-class cricket I only know of one fatality in the 20th century - a player called Abdul Aziz died after being hit over the heart during a domestic match in Pakistan in the late 50s.

http://content.cricinfo.com/pakistan/engine/match/385932.html

Even that probably wasn't a genuine bouncer - just 'back of a length' as they say nowadays.

 

[Glacier]

Less than you'd think. Mainly because batsmen made sure they got their unprotected heads out of the way.

I remember Kallis being hit recently by Johnson and he actually was trying to get out of the way.

Edit: With uncovered pitches, wouldn't deliveries have bounced unpredictably, making it even more difficult to know when to duck or play.

 

[Maximus0723]

Less than you'd think. Mainly because batsmen made sure they got their unprotected heads out of the way.

or b.c players didn't bowl that fast?

 

[Richard]

If you get hit on the head by a cricket ball at 50mph, you're still in plenty of danger of having serious damage done.

 

[Richard]

In the first 100 years of Test cricket (i.e. before helmets came in) there were only two really serious injuries involving head injuries - unless I've forgotten any - those involving Nari Contractor and Ewan Chatfield. Quite surprising really.

Bert Oldfield?

Who reckoned that but for his BaggyGreen Larwood would have killed him in that Adelaide Test.

 

[Richard]

Less than you'd think. Mainly because batsmen made sure they got their unprotected heads out of the way.

Yeah, it's simple cause-effect. No protection = more care about whether you got hit or not. More protection = everso slightly reduced care about that.

Many bowlers and batsmen of the '70s have commented that batsmens' techniques for playing the short delivery are appalling now - because they can, relatively speaking, afford to be. You're no longer likely to be playing with your life.

 

[Goughy]

There are a number of points.

There were less fast bowlers around, bouncers wre bowled less (there were, IMO sad, series where gentlemans agreements were in place not to bowl bouncers, and the technique playing short balls was different.

Players get hit now as they play the short ball differently. Todays players do not watch the ball all the way. Not an issue as they dont have to as they are protected but there is a considerable difference.

 

[oitoitoi]

I don't think in the history of first class and test circket that a batsmen has ever been killed by being hit in the head, fielders have however.

 

[Richard]

As David notes, Abdul Aziz was. Think he's the only one I've ever heard of though.

EDIT: apparently he was hit on the heart. I always thought it was on the head.

 

[zaremba]

Didn't Ken Rutherford get badly injured by being hit on the bonce whilst batting?

 

[zaremba]

Mike Gatting got a free facelift from Marshall as well, obviously

 

[oitoitoi]

Jimmy Adams wasn't the same batsmen after he had his cheekbone smashed by Andre Van Troost of Somerset, became more and more defensive.

I was once hit by a fairly quick lad with a full toss to the chest in the nets, he must have been about 70-75 (military medium by international standards) and hideously erratic, I couldn't get out the way or hit it as it swung massively (one of those cheap laquered balls from India, you know they swing incredibly for about 5 overs then die). Dropped me like a stone, had never felt like I couldn't breathe at all like I couldn't there, not a fun experience. There was a seam mark next to my nipple for about 2 days, weirdly not much bruising mind. Worst part was he'd already batted so I couldn't get my own back.

Mark Vermeulen got a really nasty one to the face whilst wearing a helmet, somehow it got through the gap and hit him really square. It was a compression fracture accross one side of his face, I remember watching and it looked like someone had pressed one side of his face back by a cm or so with their hand, very very nasty. Incredibly he walked off the field with great composure, I would have demanded a bloody airlift after that. He suffered a severe change in personality after that apparently and eventually torched the Zimbabwe National Academy, poor chap's making his way back into the game now though.

 

[oitoitoi]

Mike Gatting got a free facelift from Marshall as well, obviously

Where exactly did it hit you? Lol, classic...

 

[fredfertang]

In 1870, at Lord's, John Platts, a Derbyshire fast bowler, playing for M.C.C against Nottinghamshire, bowled a ball which caused the death of George Summers. The Summers was struck on the head and died from the effects a few days afterwards

 

[Goughy]

Of course if we go far enough back we have a death from getting hit on the legs repeatedly. Not the obvious way to get killed by a cricket ball.

 

[oitoitoi]

Of course if we go far enough back we have a death from getting hit on the legs repeatedly. Not the obvious way to get killed by a cricket ball.

Pray tell?

 

[Goughy]

Pray tell?

Actually, I may be misremembering something. Ill do some checking. The incident with Mynn is similar but not the one I thought I was referring to. I hope Im not wrong.

 

[Burgey]

Didn't Roland Butcher die after being hit in the head?

Edit: Roalnd will be disappointed to read that, no doubt. Apparently he was clocked in the eye which threatened his career.

There was a kid playing in the Riverina about 3-4 years ago who was about 19 - got hit in the chest, apparently just in the wrong spot and at the right moment of his heart beat cycle - killed him.

As to the question - I don't buy that the bowlers were that much slower up to the late 70s than they are now. There were probably, in some eras, a greater number of juicy pitches, but of the ball misbehaves from a length and hits you, well it's not really a bouncer that's done the damage, is it?

I just think that batsmen now take bowlers on more often, in the (more than likely subconscious) knowledge that their helmet will protect them most of the time.