Australian cricket investigation finds cricket a safe game

Joy Chakravarty 07:52 08/12/2014
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Mail
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Danger will always be part of the game

    Three weeks before the tragic death of Phillip Hughes, the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare released their findings of a year-long study on the most dangerous sports in the country, and cricket ranked a lowly 13th on that list.

    – Clarke to lead Australia in India Test- Hughes named 13th man

    The comprehensive study, carried out during the 2011/12 Australian season, focused on sports that caused injuries requir­ing hospitalisation.

    Australian Rules football topped the list with 3,186 incidents that required medical intervention, while only 913 cricket-related injuries were serious enough to warrant a visit to the hospital.

    That is very much in line with the fact that there are only eight known cases of death in cricket directly resulting from injuries sustained on the field. 

    However, the worrying fact is that six of these eight deaths have occurred since 1993, by which time most batsmen and close-in fielders in the sport had already started wearing helmets and other protec­tive gear.

    This is also despite the fact that pitches around the world are covered now. There are very few tracks that have the bounce and pace of WACA in Perth and regula­tions imposed by the governing body limit the number of bouncers that can be bowled in an over.

    And most importantly, modern-day cricketers certainly do not want to hurt each other. Gone are the days of Douglas Jardine, who specifically ordered Harold Larwood to target the batsmen’s bodies in the infamous Bodyline series of 1932, or bowlers like Jeff Thomson, who once said in an interview that he loved to see blood on the pitch.

    There is a school of thought that believes the sharp rise in the number of batsmen getting injured is because they are getting lulled into a false sense of security because of the safety equipment.

    Some modern batsmen, like Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Graeme Smith and Younis Khan, have even allowed the ball to hit their bodies – their version of a defen­sive technique. And yet, cricket equipment, especially the helmet, hasn’t evolved fast enough to be foolproof.

    Pakistan’s former opening bats­man Rameez Raja agrees and remi­nisces: “In 1988, we toured West Indies and we played really well against one of the fastest attacks of all times that included Malcolm Marshall and Curtly Ambrose.

    “Five days after we came back from that fiery series, I was at the nets of Lahore Gymkhana, facing a club-level medium pacer. Perhaps I wasn’t concentrating enough, and I got hit by a bouncer on my temple. I think I was lucky to get by with just 11 stitches and it wasn’t anything more serious.
     

    “But there is no doubt that the technique in our days, and the time when the wickets were not covered, was far superior. We would dare not take our eyes off the ball until it was past our heads.”

    The cricketing fraternity understands that Hughes’ was a freak accident, but as Cricket Australia chief James Sunderland pointed out, one death is one death too many, and the sport needs to undergo a scrutiny so that another incident like this does not happen.

    There really are only two ways to prevent another tragedy in the future – technical enhancement of the cricket equipment, or changes in the laws.

    The laws are almost on the brink of being exhausted. Already, the bowlers are allowed only two bouncers per over in Test matches and one in the shorter formats.

    “How much can you limit the bouncer? You can’t go any lower than one per over surely. And let’s not forget that bouncers are one of the biggest weapons of any fast bowler,” said Waqar Younis, one of the most feared fast bowlers of all-time and currently the coach of Pakistan.

    Former Indian opener Anshu­man Gaekwad, who spent two days in the ICU after being hit on his ear by a Michael Holding bouncer in the 1976 series against the West Indies, shares Waqar’s sentiments.

    “There is an element of risk involved in every sport. What happened to Hughes was very sad, but we must realise it was a freak accident. Please do not limit the bouncers further or ban it,” said Gaekwad.

    The other way to look at the issue is to ban the hook shot, since most of the head injuries while batting have resulted while executing it," Rameez added.

    Also, it’s not just the batsman who is at risk. Close-in fielders (India’s Raman Lamba died while fielding at short-leg), and even the umpires are in the firing line.

    In the case of a fielder at forward short-leg or silly point, the instinc­tive reaction as soon as a shot is hit, is to turn around and present your back.

    That is definitely much more dangerous than facing the batsmen, considering the front of a fielder is much better guarded (helmet, shin pads, chest guard) than his back.

    In the aftermath of Hughes, the focus has been on the design of a cricket helmet.

    There are two constraints get­ting in the way of better helmet design – a batsman needs to move his head, and he needs to see the ball clearly.

    When England’s Stuart Broad was struck on his nose by a Varun Aaron delivery earlier this year, it was seen as much as a triumph of the design, as its failure.

    The ball sneaked through the gap between the top of the grille and the peak. It may have rearranged Broad’s nasal bones a bit, but the helmet did come in the way and reduced what could have been a deadly impact had it not been there.

    An International Cricket Coun­cil study on the safety of cricket helmets points to three danger areas: the Broad-like situation where the ball goes through the peak of the helmet and the grille, the grille itself deforming and making contact with the face, and the impact around the side and the back of the helmet.

    Angus Porter, chief executive of the London-based Professional Cricketers’ Association, says new standards have already been set for helmet manufacturers, which are a lot more stringent, but it still does not cover the particular exposed area that led to Hughes’ death.

    The peaks, which used to be fused earlier, are now moulded and made as part of a one-piece hel­met, which has made it stronger. The new designs could also see a fibreglass front covering the area in front of the eyes.

    But even state-of-the-art design is no guarantee against injury. As Porter said: “What we have to do is to make sure the helmets are as well designed and offer as much protection as they can.”

    Recommended