i find it very hard to understand how...

[Starfighter]

. and it was a hit at school kid pace which is what, 100kph slower than mitchell starc?

100 km/h slower than Starc is 45 km/h. You gotta loop the ball way up in the air for that. Like, proper miles over head height loop.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think helmets have made it more difficult for batsman, because they think they can actually do more when they are batting, and take their eye off the ball.

In the days of batting in caps and being bareheaded, you saw batsman very rarely get hit because they always followed the ball closely, and didn't have the distraction of a helmet or chin guard to interupt their concentration

One of the earliest forms of a helmet was Patsy Hendren of Middlesex, who in 1933 at the age of 44 had his wife make him a three peaked cap, the normal peak of his cap, with the other two peaks hung towards the sides of his head, with sponge rubber lining inside.

After the Bodyline series during the previous winter, he decided to try it out, when he played against The West Indies at Lords, mainly against Constantine & Martindale.
He didn't make many runs, and i don't think he used it again.

Yeah, this.

I heard a Malcolm Gladwell podcast the other day where he talked about how auto accidents didn't decrease when ABS braking came in (certain country, can't remember) - because the drivers generally removed the extra buffer on risk they'd acquired by driving faster. Same with helmets, in a round about way. Risk of injury is decreased but they're bringing more head contact into it by hooking in front of their face where they'd previously have found a way to get inside, outside or under it. I imagine batsmen these days watch the ball with less attention, as a general rule. They can't see the ball as well with the visor potentially, either. They generally negate the extra safety afforded to them by (not consciously) doing things that create more risk of being hit in the helmet.

 

[Kirkut]

I'll give a controversial opinion which might upset some members here - Bowlers were not as fast as they were thought to be, not saying that Lillee and Marshall are not among top 5 ATG test pacers but probably not everyone bowled at 90 mph on a consistent basis.

 

[Kirkut]

You can watch the whole video and listen to the commentators saying that Waqar's fastest ball was 138 kph in the game, and this is his prime. But who cares about what numbers the speed guns say when Waqar was bowling gun deliveries? Speed guns are for nerds.

EDIT: Wrong video, sorry. Made changes.

 

[Starfighter]

You can watch the whole video and listen to the commentators saying that Waqar's fastest ball was 138 kph in the game, and this is his prime. But who cares about what numbers the speed guns say when Waqar was bowling gun deliveries? Speed guns are for nerds.

Speed guns worked differently in NZ at that time, they recorded the speed at some distance down the pitch. Sometimes there were really odd results, like Kapil Dev's opening ball in a match whose highlights have long disappeared being 94 km/h and Dion Nash reaching 119. I've seen Waqar recorded at 148 in the SA/Pak/WI tri-series in 92/93, there's a list on Crininfo which claims his fastest recorded ball was 153 km/h from that season. I find that perfectly reasonable.

 

[Flem274*]

waqar also played in the professional era too. i hear you kirkut because im not sure i buy the logic on the helmet factor (more in a moment) but there's a difference between skepticism of pace in the pro vs amatuer eras. cricket also spent decades being semi-pro (you could get a lucrative county contract or play world series cricket, but national reps were often paid a pittance and the pay gaps you see today used to be even worse - the nz domestic cricketers only took strike action less than 20 years ago).

i also don't think pace is an issue, because 130kph is still enough speed to kill you, as we unfortunately know. larwood could have hucked it down at 115kph and still risked killing someone.

i don't think wearing a helmet gives batsmen the idea they're invincible. no one wants to get hit, helmet or no helmet, and that's why short pitched stuff still works a treat.

it is a bit of a side argument however, because batsmen did not used to be wearing helmets for decades while facing hostile bowling. even if avoidance technique was better (i have sympathy for this view), professionals still make mistakes. if you face thousands of short balls, you're gonna mess up. no one except bradman would have a chance at executing their duck/sway or hook every time.

so yea i think we're very lucky no one died in test cricket back then, because the conditions were perfect for someone to face the wrong ball at the wrong time.

 

[a massive zebra]

Phil Hughes didn't die in Test cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

true. pretty dumb of me given i referenced sean abbott earlier in the post.

 

[trundler]

true. pretty dumb of me given i referenced sean abbott earlier in the post.

But not out of character

 

[honestbharani]

It maybe that the bowlers subconsciously bowled a bit slower when bowling the bouncers considering the actual risks involved if the batsman is hit but I think that would be projection of thoughts at that point. It is a bit like asking how people rode horses without the sort of protective equipment that we have today etc. When that is the way of life, you just learn and test cricket was still the highest level of cricket then, so you can expect the guys who made it to be really good.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Avoiding bouncers is all about technique.

 

[honestbharani]

It looks like two guys bowling from either end.


<insert Sreesanth bouncer to Kallis image here>

 

[AndrewB]

Charles Davis wrote an article about cricket fatalities.

 

[stephen]

Imagine how terrible it would be to lose someone from getting hit in the ankle.

 

[SteveNZ]

i hear you kirkut because im not sure i buy the logic on the helmet factor.

So what is it?

 

[Kirkut]

waqar also played in the professional era too. i hear you kirkut because im not sure i buy the logic on the helmet factor (more in a moment) but there's a difference between skepticism of pace in the pro vs amatuer eras. cricket also spent decades being semi-pro (you could get a lucrative county contract or play world series cricket, but national reps were often paid a pittance and the pay gaps you see today used to be even worse - the nz domestic cricketers only took strike action less than 20 years ago).

i also don't think pace is an issue, because 130kph is still enough speed to kill you, as we unfortunately know. larwood could have hucked it down at 115kph and still risked killing someone.

i don't think wearing a helmet gives batsmen the idea they're invincible. no one wants to get hit, helmet or no helmet, and that's why short pitched stuff still works a treat.

it is a bit of a side argument however, because batsmen did not used to be wearing helmets for decades while facing hostile bowling. even if avoidance technique was better (i have sympathy for this view), professionals still make mistakes. if you face thousands of short balls, you're gonna mess up. no one except bradman would have a chance at executing their duck/sway or hook every time.

so yea i think we're very lucky no one died in test cricket back then, because the conditions were perfect for someone to face the wrong ball at the wrong time.

Or maybe the nutrition was excellent. Protein, calcium and phosphorous rich foods meant heads could absorb severe blows including Ivan Drago's punches

 

[Flem274*]

So what is it?

i explained my thoughts in the rest of the post

 

[pardus]

...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.

To me, a bigger wonder is - how rarely were close-in fielders killed in pre-helmet era. There's absolutely no time to react. Relatively speaking, batsmen - even against fastest bowlers - have it easier.

 

[tony p]

To me, a bigger wonder is - how rarely were close-in fielders killed in pre-helmet era. There's absolutely no time to react. Relatively speaking, batsmen - even against fastest bowlers - have it easier.

It has happened though that close in fielders have died after being hit.

Raman Lamba, the former Indian Test player died in hospital after being hit while fielding at short leg in a club match. He was asked to wear a helmet, but as only three balls were left in the over, he didn't bother. The ball hit him on the head and although he left the field suffered a haemorrhage and went into a coma and died three days later in hospital.

And there was a very serious head injury to Glamorgan player Roger Davis in 1971.
He was struck in the head at forward short leg against Warwickshire by Neal Abberley, and was given the kiss of life on the field by a doctor before regaining consciousness.
He was taken to hospital where it was found his heart and breathing had stopped after being hit. He made a full recovery and played on until 1976.

I'm sure there are many other incidents, but these ones i remember reading about.

 

[pardus]

It has happened though that close in fielders have died after being hit.

Raman Lamba, the former Indian Test player died in hospital after being hit while fielding at short leg in a club match. He was asked to wear a helmet, but as only three balls were left in the over, he didn't bother. The ball hit him on the head and although he left the field suffered a haemorrhage and went into a coma and died three days later in hospital.

And there was a very serious head injury to Glamorgan player Roger Davis in 1971.
He was struck in the head at forward short leg against Warwickshire by Neal Abberley, and was given the kiss of life on the field by a doctor before regaining consciousness.
He was taken to hospital where it was found his heart and breathing had stopped after being hit. He made a full recovery and played on until 1976.

I'm sure there are many other incidents, but these ones i remember reading about.

Raman Lamba incident happened long after invention of helmets. I didn't say close-in fielder deaths never happened, but the incidents (thankfully) were almost negligible in history of cricket, given how long cricket has been played. To me, it's a wonder. If they were more frequent, authorities would have been forced to do something about it (either make a law like they did for bouncer limitation or invent protective equipment much earlier).