Impact of Phil Hughes Tragedy on the Fast Bowlers

[PokerAce]

We all know how big a tragedy Phil Hughes incident was and no words can suffice. However it would be just silly if it had an impact on the number of bouncers being bowled.

A short pitched delivery is a genuine weapon for a fast bowler and if the incident leads to the being reluctant to bowl short pitch balls from now on, it would be just ridiculous. The short pitch ball is not meant to kill someone, but definitely to rattle the batsman and that is fair game.

The reason why I write this is in the Kiwis innings victory over Pakistan (congratulations to the Kiwis for it) the Kiwis bowled a total of 189.1 overs (1135 deliveries), and didn't bowl a single bouncer.

A tragedy by all accounts, but a freakish one, cannot be reason for fast bowlers to pack in the short pitch delivery and never to use it again. The bowlers just have to bring the good old nasty short pitch delivery back, and soon.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I think both the death of Phil Hughes and recent developments in other sports re : repeated head injuries give ample cause for reflection on the default cricket attitude towards these dangers.

There's been a certain machismo to it in previous years. Players might talk about the danger Thompson posed in 74/75 in awed tones, but the truth of the matter is that Thompson comes across as someone who didn't really care if he hit people in interviews and it was lucky nobody got really seriously injured. Just last year we saw the channel 9 guys guffaw as Brett Lee cracked village cricketer and celebrity asshole Piers Morgan's wrist and ribs on live tv. Chanderpaul is on youtube getting knocked out and then carrying on batting.

Just personally, I've broken bones batting, and I got hit on the head enough times for me to be at least a little bit concerned at the data coming out about the cumulative dangers of minor concussions. I used to field really close at short leg, knowing I might get a nasty hit if I wasn't quick enough. And I've bounced players knowing full well I might hurt them, but feeling like it was ok because they signed up for it and they were trying to score runs off me.

Some of this stuff has always bothered me a bit, but seeing a guy killed on the field really codifies it. Sure, a batsman like Hughes would escape injury in that situation 999/1000, but what about the bouncers Monty Panesar got doled out in the last Ashes? Are we still cool with trying to bounce out a genuine rabbit?

I don't think I want cricket to be a game where Monty Panesar gets hit a bunch of times, and I think there's sometimes an anti-social edge both to the extremes of aggressive bowling and the sledging that goes with it that I hope an actual bona fide tragedy might go some way to ameliorate.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

good post, T.J.

I think introducing rules or extra equipment (though I do not think having umpires wear some form of hard hat is a terrible idea) is unnecessary, there are rules in place already to stop bowling getting too aggressive, protective gear. it's not like hughes was the first person ever hit, there's a guy from new zealand, Flynn I think his name was, who I remember losing his teeth against england. horrible but not life threatening and not the first person to lose teeth playing sport. an element of danger exists in all sport because if someone draws the line short of taking any risks someone else will cross it for a competitive advantage. however, I do think perhaps more could be done to codify the "spirit of the game" thing, it used to stop things like you're describing (bouncing fellow bowlers always used to be thought of as against the spirit but in reality the idea of playing fairly is dead and that should be addressed.


Also, I was saddened to realise that one of the most tragic aspects of the phil hughes incident is that it could have been piers morgan killed instead.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'm agreed that bouncing a tail ender who has no ability, like a Panesar is harsh, but then again I think it's a professional game and is a lot fairer than bouncing a 12 year old playing in an adults game on the weekend or something, which doesn't really happen. So while it's something that I don't like seeing, I can understand why it happens.

I hope this accident has more of an impact on batsmen than bowlers though. For years now, a lot of batsmen have taken on the short ball with poor techniques, because they think they can get away with it, due to helmets etc. Hopefully this makes them all get better at playing the shot, as there is no batsman in the game who is not capable of ducking out of the way, so it's a choice to play the shot. And I think the likes of Viv Richards (I think?) saying that the players of yesteryear were a lot better due to a lack of helmets, is spot on.

 

[PokerAce]

I am sorry guys but I just cannot agree that because there was a freak accident, the short pitch delivery needs to stop.

The idea of a short pitch delivery is not to kill the batsman, and its often a genuine wicket taking delivery, especially with tail-enders. Why should a wicket taking option be done away with.

The batsman in any case wear all kind and manner of protection from helmets to arm guards and what not. Sure the helmets need to be looked at again, but I think the short pitch deliveries just have to continue.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I
I hope this accident has more of an impact on batsmen than bowlers though. For years now, a lot of batsmen have taken on the short ball with poor techniques, because they think they can get away with it, due to helmets etc. Hopefully this makes them all get better at playing the shot, as there is no batsman in the game who is not capable of ducking out of the way, so it's a choice to play the shot. And I think the likes of Viv Richards (I think?) saying that the players of yesteryear were a lot better due to a lack of helmets, is spot on.

that's become common to all sports with protective clothing, american football has a far worse injury record than rugby because all that armour makes them throw themselves at each other with absolutely zero regard for their safety. protective padding has been removed from amatuer boxing too because the amatuers were just sticking their head out without worrying enough about some belting them full force.

 

[manav599]

What happened to Phillip Hughes was a very sad accident. Yes safety equipment should continue to be upgraded but accidents always find a way. Banning the bouncers is totally insane. An umpire died a couple of years back from a throw, last week one died of a straight drive. That ways we should go back to underarm bowling, grounded shots and throws. However at this moment, its up to innovation of equipment companies to bring out better companies.
As for players, they should realise the importance of keeping eyes on the ball but still they just cant keep thinking too much about it. However good your technique is, you will always miss a few, get hit by a few. Todays cricket will never allow you to sway away from every short pitch ball. Plus such things can happen even on a length delivery by top edges and all.
Yesterday's practice video of Australia is the perfect example of moving on. They were obviously the most affected but they got back to doing what was required. Bowling bouncers to teammates in practice so that both the bowlers and batsmen are prepared for it in a real match.

I don't think I want cricket to be a game where Monty Panesar gets hit a bunch of times, and I think there's sometimes an anti-social edge both to the extremes of aggressive bowling and the sledging that goes with it that I hope an actual bona fide tragedy might go some way to ameliorate.

I will disagree with this mate just because someone isn't good at playing bouncers doesnt mean no one should throw one at him. If a player feels vulnerable, he should work on his technique. Moreover avoiding hit is more about reactions than technique. Today we already see No. 11 scoring fifties. So cant say tailenders cant bat at all. And then how can you distinguish on who is a tailender and who isn't? If you are not going to ball bouncers to No. 9,10,11 all good batsmen having short ball weakness would be batting there.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

I will disagree with this mate just because someone isn't good at playing bouncers doesnt mean no one should throw one at him. If a player feels vulnerable, he should work on his technique. Moreover avoiding hit is more about reactions than technique. Today we already see No. 11 scoring fifties. So cant say tailenders cant bat at all. And then how can you distinguish on who is a tailender and who isn't? If you are not going to ball bouncers to No. 9,10,11 all good batsmen having short ball weakness would be batting there.

You don't seem to have understood my post so you can't really disagree with it yet.

 

[Ahmad94]

Short ball can never be removed from the game because it will make bowling so predictable. It was a freak accident that has occurred once before in the history of cricket.

If you want to remove the bouncer, you might aswell remove the yorker as it can break toes. And then we might have to remove the full toss as it can be hard to hit because it surprises the batsmen and following that we can remove quick deliveries (max 120 kmph) so that the chance of batsmen hurting themselves decreases. Eventually the bowlers will have to roll the ball to the batsmen under arm like we did in year 3.

Grow up. The bouncer is part of the game. Yes, what happened to Phil was a freak accident and very sad but you can't change the game because of it. Increasing the safety of the equipment is probably your best bet.

 

[joejoe018]

That ways we should go back to underarm bowling, grounded shots and throws

No way.

 

[angryangy]

Cricket's a funny game, that's why it can be both terrible and unfair to bounce Panesar, or Piers Morgan, for that matter, but totally fair to work over a number 5 with a short ball problem. To that end, people should really read the rules to remember what is and what isn't fair.

It's purely down to what is fair in the situation. If the wicket is awfully uneven, it might not be fair to bounce anybody and therefore you might have to call the game off. Generally for batsmen, it is necessary to be able to force them to play back to the ball. If they don't need to use footwork, the game gets horribly unbalanced. And there already exists a problem in the game in terms of techniques, because the focus has increasingly been on hitting the ball hard and not on being able to survive good bowling. That's when you start to ask is it fair to bowl at batsmen's weaknesses at all, if they have actually eschewed reasonable defence. I'd hope a bit of common sense comes into play before that happens.

 

[manav599]

No way.

I hope you read my full post and not just quoted a sarcastic comment of mine