• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

i find it very hard to understand how...

Flem274*

123/5
...batsmen regularly used to face up to 150kph in the pre-modern pro era without helmets and no one died. we should also have a lot more career ending concussions on record than we do.

getting hit in the head isn't something you just shrug off. 150kph is a loooooot more impact than you need to kill someone. a cricket ball at maximum recorded pace probably has more impact than a king hit and a footpath, and both of those kill daily.

posters will say 'short ball avoidance has declined with helmets so they get hit all the time now, they never used to' and that is ridiculous. if a ball is delivered at the maximum speed a human can manage (20-25 years of regular speed guns - 150-160kph seems to be it) then the human batsman, no matter how good, is going to make a mistake. it's a numbers game. if you are touring the world facing fast bowlers in the nets, facing them in domestic cricket, facing them in test cricket, in those tens of thousands of deliveries you are going to make a mistake and get hit. even bradman got out for low scores, every batsman makes big errors.

cricketers have never been more coached or had more opportunity to learn, and no one wants to get hit in the head regardless of whether they're wearing a helmet. the best aussie since bradman got clocked by jofra archer and i wouldn't be surprised if the helmet saved his life. are you really telling me joe goon with his 27 test batting average in the 1970s facing up to thommo isn't about to meet his maker? please.

i've been hit without a helmet at school facing a kid a few years older and while i showed no sign of anything serious immediately (barely reacted i've been told, so it was play on immediately) i don't remember the game after that moment at all. that's sobering, and it was a hit at school kid pace which is what, 100kph slower than mitchell starc?

did cricket just get lucky? i know ewen chatfield almost died on the field, and i've heard other examples, but overall we've been extremely fortunate given the amount of short balls bowled at pace in the past hundred years or so.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
There's only two ways of looking at this: either bowlers weren't as quick in the past, or reflexes were compulsorily honed to a sharper edge through a batsman's upbringing. I personally think it's a little bit of both; I can't imagine bowlers being quicker or even as quick as Shoaib, Lee, Starc, so that would've helped. But also, if you've known since childhood that you're in serious mortal danger every time you face up to a quick bowler, it can't but register somewhere on the level of pure instinctual reaction.
 

JOJOXI

International Vice-Captain
Only real possible answer I can give is that the speed guns are usually measured closer to the point of delivery then when the batsman faces if I'm not mistaken so when the ball reaches the batsman it isn't as quick as those headline speeds. But it does seem surprising there aren't more high profile casualties or even serious after effects, a positive surprise but a surprise.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I read something about batsmen playing back to pace more in the olden days, but since helmets they've strode forward more and got hit more.

Might explain it somewhat, but I agree with Flem and have thought about it before. It's remarkable more cricketers weren't killed.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I can't imagine bowlers being quicker or even as quick as Shoaib, Lee, Starc, so that would've helped.
I don't agree that fast bowling has continually gotten faster, and I believe that Lindwall, Tyson, Thommo, young Lillee, Holding & Larwood were as fast as, if not faster than, the modern guys you mentioned.

I love this quote from Tiger OReilly:

The Australian Bill O'Reilly explained most eloquently what it was like to face Larwood. "He came steaming in and I moved right across behind my bat, held perfectly straight in defence of my centre stump. Just before he delivered the ball something hit the middle of my bat with such force that it was almost dashed from my hands. It was the ball."
 

The Hutt Rec

International Vice-Captain
I guess with king hits and footpaths, you're not expecting it and can't brace for impact. With a cricket ball coming straight for your head, you know it's coming and can prepare. Same for boxing in lots of instances, it's when they are caught off guard you know they're really in trouble.

It is pretty crazy though, you'd still have expected more high profile incidents ... even Chatfield wasn't really the direct effect of the blow itself, it was the tongue swallowing which caused the problems.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Could be just present era prejudice that gives you that impression. Its just that you weren't around to see what happened in the past. Reading newspaper articles on trove or books (like Colman's on Eddie Gilbert) you get an idea that guys getting hit isn't something that's unusual - they are just mentioned by the by. I mean counties threatened to boycott Notts back in the day, Headley was ko'd in a tour match. Trueman loved to bounce (but not Statham who could have). There is a telling absence of tailenders getting smited though. Or at least I can't recall. Which probably adds veracity to the claim "we never bounced those who couldn't handle it." I get the impression that bouncing became more prevalent when Chappell had Lillee and Thommo and then the WI turned it into an art form. Maybe that can explain why more batsmen are being hit, because the short one is used more often and indiscriminately.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Cricket was generally a "gentleman's game". I don't think bouncers were the norm. They got bowled less too probably. Bodyline probably stood out as well because it went against the norms in targeting batsmen. Secondly, the techniques were also more suited to play the short ball. Batsmen weren't playing everything on the front foot like nowadays. And bowling bouncers to tailenders was just poor form so it wasn't generally done. So, a lot of factors combined to give you what we see.
 

Flem274*

123/5
big range of answers. i like bambinos because it made me think about attitudes to concussion.

saw a few probable knock outs in school cricket, and unless the player went down like a knocked out person immediately no real concern was shown. this was only 15-20 years ago, so i can imagine things being even more casual earlier.

nowadays if you got hit without a helmet in school cricket by the average teenage seamer i think you'd at least be sitting out the rest of the game, which is a good thing. pros getting smoked is one thing, pretty silly for saturday school sport (as much as i'd have disagreed as a kid).

anyone know if helmets are mandatory now in schools? we had one in the team kit that we never used. helmets were only a thing for rep kids.
I don't agree that fast bowling has continually gotten faster, and I believe that Lindwall, Tyson, Thommo, young Lillee, Holding & Larwood were as fast as, if not faster than, the modern guys you mentioned.
i doubt they were faster. it takes true freaks to crack 160 clicks
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Concussions were pretty poorly understood in the 20th Century, which kind of helps explain why we didn't see much of a record of head injuries historically.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is it possible front on hits are nowhere near as damaging, and far more common compared to the back of the neck hit Phil Hughes got?

They say a few inches either side and he would have probably been fine...ish

Like maybe heaps of batsmen got undiagnosed concussions over the years from bouncers but none were really at much risk of dying
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
A lot more of the batsman's psychology must have gone into being better at leaving the ball or not getting hit otherwise for the purpose of avoiding physical harm back in the day as opposed to the current norm of protecting your wicket above all else.

This probably would have contributed to a culture where batsmen who were not extremely good at the former would not have made it to test cricket even if they were otherwise excellent.
 
Last edited:

Teja.

Global Moderator
Nevertheless, I broadly agree with Flem's point though. It's crazy that more people didn't get seriously hurt all the time.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
I honestly believe that before helmets, batsmen tended to watch short, fast deliveries more closely - often swaying out of the way at the last minute. With the advent of helmets, many batsmen abandoned that tactic and turned away from the ball instead. I'm wondering if helmets gave batsmen a false sense of security - expecting the helmet, not their reflexes, to prevent injury.

There were certainly injuries back then but, as has been pointed out, concussion wasn't so readily identified.

Two players from a bygone era spring to mind. India's Nari Contractor, who previously had had two ribs broken by Brian Statham (who rarely bowled bouncers) was captain of India when this incident occurred.

"Contractor led India to a series win against England in 1961–62 and captained the side to Caribbean the same season. There, in a tour match against Barbados at the Kensington Oval in Bridgetown, in March 1962, he was on 2 not out while opening the batting with Dilip Sardesai during his side's first innings, when his attention was for a moment distracted as he faced Charlie Griffith in the fourth ball of the second over. He saw somebody open a window in the pavilion, and consequently was unable to concentrate on the ball following its delivery by Griffith, seeing the ball "just inches away before it hit" him. Contractor took a blow at the back of his skull fracturing it. A blood clot had developed inside his skull and pressing against the brain paralyzing him from the waist down. Two surgeries were performed to remove the clot. Requiring blood transfusion for the purpose, the West Indies captain Frank Worrell donated blood, alongside Contractor's teammates Chandu Borde, Bapu Nadkarni and Polly Umrigar. Contractor's life was saved but his international career was abruptly ended as a result. In a recent interview, he mentioned as his only regret that he wanted play just one Test after the injury, but people did not want him to."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nari_Contractor

I also recall reading how English opener, John Edrich, would take on short pitched deliveries. His theory when hooking was to get directly behind the flight of the ball. A broken nose, on several occasions, bore testimony to that tactic. In one game he was struck in the head by a Peter Pollock delivery and, late in his career he suffered a couple of fractures courtesy of Dennis Lillee.
 

Kraken

International 12th Man
big range of answers. i like bambinos because it made me think about attitudes to concussion.

saw a few probable knock outs in school cricket, and unless the player went down like a knocked out person immediately no real concern was shown. this was only 15-20 years ago, so i can imagine things being even more casual earlier.

nowadays if you got hit without a helmet in school cricket by the average teenage seamer i think you'd at least be sitting out the rest of the game, which is a good thing. pros getting smoked is one thing, pretty silly for saturday school sport (as much as i'd have disagreed as a kid).

anyone know if helmets are mandatory now in schools? we had one in the team kit that we never used. helmets were only a thing for rep kids.

i doubt they were faster. it takes true freaks to crack 160 clicks
Not sure what it's like in NZ, but in Sydney at least, it's mandatory to wear a helmet all through juniors, which generally ends at under 16s. I've only ever batted without a helmet once (and only because it was far too hot and the bowling wasn't anything to be worried about), but otherwise I actually feel extremely uncomfortable not wearing one.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Could be that tailenders being expected to hold up an end and contribute runs may have adjusted the thinking of fielding sides. I’ve nothing more than anecdotes but stories of tailenders having a fling and getting soon out doesn’t seem to apply in modern times. I imagine you’d patiently bowl a length in the short expectation of a wicket but if you’re up against a stubborn Leach type you don’t won’t to spend too much longer in the field so you’d consider roughing him up. And if you’d do it to an eleven you’d let the whole order have it.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think its like anything else. When there is no option, you get things done. Back then, they got whatever was the best protection they could get and they faced up.
 

Top