Interpreting India's 2024 Elections: 'India's elites have let it down badly'

 

Half Truths about Farmers Demands

 

Personal Guarantee, Debt Recovery and Fraud Tycoons

 

Cricket: Helmets alone offer no guarantees

Michael Jeh in Cricinfo

At times like this, words too can hurt, however unintentionally. Phillip Hughes' accident is not a topic to be tackled lightly. The sensitivities of many need to be considered.

At junior cricket on the weekend, much of the talk among parents was to do with the topic of safety, head injuries, helmets and short-pitched bowling. Many of these parents have never played cricket to a high standard and fall prey to some of the careless and uninformed media hype surrounding this issue. A few of them even took me to task (with good intentions) for not forcing my sons to wear a helmet.

 A year ago, I wrote a mildly provocative piece, questioning the whole helmet-wearing mantra of junior cricket. In light of what has just happened in Sydney, it's topical to revisit that piece, but I trust it can be done respectfully and with due deference to the seriousness of the injury to Hughes. I would hope that respondents to this piece, regardless of which view they subscribe to, will respect the gravity of the situation and respond accordingly. This is a time to unite, to debate, to question but not to vilify.

At the time I wrote my piece, it never occurred to me that an accident of this nature would happen, despite the ever-present possibility, I suppose. That it has happened so rarely is itself a surprise. Given the number of close shaves and actual hits, it was almost inevitable that a projectile thudding into the head at 130kph-plus would eventually result in a catastrophic outcome. Despite recent events, I still stand by my opinion that helmets alone do not negate the threat of serious injury, as has now tragically been proven.

In the case of Hughes, it's not like it was a particularly vicious delivery anyway. If anything, he was beaten for lack of pace. He was through the shot a tad early, hence it clocked him just above the left ear. The helmet proved less than invincible, sadly. So the mere wearing of a helmet is no immunity.

Similarly a knee-jerk reaction against short-pitched bowling would be wrong too. The delivery was neither vicious nor intimidatory - Hughes was a good player of the pull shot, and was just unlucky that he was early on the shot. Accidents happen.

I wrote that piece last year with a focus on why I thought helmets for the very young might affect their balance and footwork, which was more about improving batsmanship than worrying about injury. Nevertheless, I broached the topic of young kids sometimes forgetting the art of ducking, weaving and avoiding the short ball because they have grown up learning to bat fearlessly, taking on the short ball with a bulletproof attitude. My sons (eight and 11) still don't wear helmets, but we spend a lot of time in the nets (and hallway) learning to keep their eyes on the ball and getting out of the way. They don't pull and hook instinctively, which may be a disadvantage in terms of run-scoring, but I can see the benefits in terms of the lightness of their footwork and a head that is not unbalanced by a helmet. At that age, no one is quick enough to bowl short stuff anyway. Full tosses and top edges represent the biggest threat. More wicketkeepers get hit in the mouth than batsmen.

My sons (eight and 11) still don't wear helmets but we spend a lot of time in the nets (and hallway) learning to keep their eyes on the ball and getting out of the way

Throughout my modest career, I rarely wore a helmet, including the time Shoaib Akhtar hurled thunderbolts at me, intent on knocking my block off. My reasoning was that I was uncomfortable wearing a helmet, it restricted my vision, and I was happy to back my instincts to keep swaying out of the way. He peppered me with bouncers, as he was entitled to, I kept ducking, and it didn't end in tears.

My theory was that I didn't take on the horizontal-bat shots against the short ball until I was well set, but even that theory is flawed. Hughes was 63 not out, going well, in good form, played the short ball well, wearing a helmet. So where are the guarantees? There are none!

My sons have chosen to follow in my footsteps (in junior ranks anyway) and we concentrate on footwork and keeping your eye on the ball. History may well judge me foolish but I still maintain that helmets alone are not enough protection for a batsman who is determined to camp on the front foot and take on anything short. It might work for geniuses like Sir Viv Richards but for the rest of us mere mortals, it is poor advice to tell young cricketers to don a helmet and then hook and pull indiscriminately. At a young age, I prefer to teach my sons to have balanced heads and good footwork. But it needs to be acknowledged again that I have yet to see anyone bowl a genuine bumper at that level. For now, it's just Dad pinging tennis balls at their head from short range.

This excellent piece, published on ABC Online explores this argument more eloquently. It speaks to the generation of modern batsman who hook and pull instinctively, sometimes off the front foot, only ducking as a last resort. So many good reasons for that. Faster scoring rates, more aggressive intent, heavier bats, T20 thinking (even in the longer formats), and a marked reluctance to keep allowing dot balls to sail through at head height to the keeper.

I only have my gut feeling to back me up on this but it seems to me that there a lot more instances of batsmen being sconed these days. Yes, there is more cricket played (and televised) but even allowing for that, I think more batsmen are being hit because they simply haven't learned the art of playing short-pitched bowling correctly. They have been taught to hook and pull, which is reflected in increased run-scoring opportunities, but that alone doesn't make it "correct".

No theories or statistics can comfort the Hughes family at a time like this. No fault should be laid at the feet of the batsman or bowler or curator. Take away the short ball (as some alarmists are advocating; do they really "get" cricket?) and you might as well play French cricket. The wearing of helmets is an individual choice and it is rare to see anyone eschewing that protection these days. I coach young lads who have been so conditioned to fear the ball that they wear helmets even when standing back to a fast bowler while keeping. Their techniques are shot to pieces, they are scared of the ball, they don't catch it under their eyes, but they feel safe. My fear is that so many of these kids will leave the game at around the age of 14, when these faulty techniques result in poor performances and a corresponding lack of love for the game.

The Phillip Hughes accident will inevitably trigger a wave of caution that will only exacerbate this tendency, I fear. Yet, the nature of sport, especially a sport like cricket, can never truly eliminate risk. As for my sons - and this is a personal choice, I stress, until they are old enough to face genuine short-pitched bowling - I will continue to teach them to duck and weave and watch the ball. Helmets alone offer no guarantees - even the very best players in the world cannot legislate against freak accidents. They don't come much better than Hughes, as a cricketer and a bloke.