Helmets have made modern batsmen worse at playing the short ball

See, now that's an argument I can get behind! Why didn't you say that in the first place? Now, an explanation to your premise, or the accepted wisdom at least, is that batsmen have complained for years that they don't like being bounced in the nets, because of the shorter pitch distances and the enclosed spaces making it a little bit claustrophobic and scary. Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone in practice - get bowlers bowling off a proper length, which might help with some of this no-ball malarkey that keeps recurring, and tell them to bowl bouncers as if it was a match. 1 out of every 6, maybe more. If it's that scary copping bouncers in the nets, facing them out on the field might not seem so bad by comparison.

I think it would be quicker if I explain what I think is true rather than trying to call out all the obvious BS. There is one reason and one reason only for why any given batsman is bad at short balls - they haven't practised facing them enough. That's literally it. Every other factor is insignificant. If you spend three quarters of an hour practising your cover drive in the nets and the only bouncer you get is from your smartass offspinner dicking around, you will not be prepared for bouncers in a match when they come your way. And I'll be keeping my seatbelt, thanks.

You mean how people now drive faster and more carelessly because they feel they have the illusion of safety? The same way helmets encourage batsmen to stand still or get on the front foot and not leave themselves room to duck or sway out of the line? Your second sentence makes no sense. Fear of serious harm did hone people’s senses. That’s why they used to step inside the line of the ball. Batsmen get into strife because they have now fitted a little plastic guard that has restored that sense of invulnerability prior to what happened to Phil Hughes. Your last sentence is wrong too. Bowlers are bowling less bouncers because they’re now restricted by the rules to only 2 per over. There used to be a lot more prior to that. I think your entire premise is incorrect.

Helmets have done as much to make batsman worse at playing short balls as seat belts have done to make drivers worse at driving. If the fear of serious harm somehow honed people's senses in pre-helmet days then why do batsmen still get into strife turning their heads to short balls exactly like Phil Hughes did? They should all know by now that doing so can get you killed. The only way I can imagine that helmets are contributing to an increase of incidents is if fast bowlers are bowling more of them at every kind of batsman in the belief that the helmet will protect the batsman from any serious harm.

Brilliant stuff Rick. I've read numerous comments over time on The Roar of those ignorantly propagating outlawing the short ball. I grew up in a period of absolutely no helmets and no restrictions on bouncers. What kept things in check was the unwritten rule of not short pitching the quick bowlers or tail ender batsmen . Simply put it would come back to haunt you when the compliment is returned. In addition it was clearly recognized to be more dangerous for less accomplished batsmen. I never saw any batsmen seriously hurt at first class level. They were far better technically at playing the short stuff as you have so succinctly explained.. Necessity was the mother of invention. If you didn't want to learn to deal with bouncers get out of the game. I remember a cricketer Kevin McKenzie playing for Transvaal ( his son is Neil McKenzie SA batting coach) . Kevin was known as the happy hooker and used to taunt and challenge the quick's to bounce him so he could hook them and this on the Wanderers surface which was just as lively then as it is today.

If you listen to that story David Lloyd tells, having a box didn't help one bit

I reckon boxes have adversely affected batting too. Can you imagine how closely you'd watch a ball from Thommo if didn't bat with protection.over your tackle?

It’s a great article Spruce and I think it’s one of those skills – to cast a wide net - like stonemasonry, blacksmithing, stained glass windowmaking and a host of others that technology has made irrelevant, and something is immeasurably lost or diminished from the game as a result. Helmets have greatly changed techniques, I agree. Part of the reason why I think they should loosen up the field restrictions around fielders behind square leg for starters, along with a few other things. But anyways. I am trying to find the same sort of beauty as a back foot hook for six in a flat batted swat back over the bowler’s head for six from some chump hiding behind a couple grands worth of protective equipment charging down the pitch at the bowler but it just doesn’t seem to be there. Finally I’ll give him a shoutout here even though he’ll never see it, but there is a bloke in my local cricket comp called Nick Dugdell I’ve umpired – late 40’s, social cricket, but for a bloke with glasses and no helmet he is deadset the best player of a back foot hook shot I’ve seen, at his age he’s still monstering decent paced quicks half his age for huge sixes over backward square leg, effortless swing of the bat and perfect technique. Inside the line of the ball and wham. Beautiful to watch, in part because you know he’s one misjudgement away from wearing it. I can respect raw courage and confidence like that.

How does a helmet restrict vision and movement? There are very slight changes to vision through the grille, but that's minimal and doesn't seem to affect batsmen when the ball is aimed anywhere but the head. Batsmen just panic.

Most of the pull shots played these days drag the ball from outside off, when it's in line with the body, they cramp up and the best they can do is fend it off the hip on the leg side. Anything down leg they just get a free run for a wide.

I don't think they do feel bulletproof, because they still duck in fear a lot of the time, they just do it wrong. Turning your head away is the last thing you should do, you should keep your eye on the ball, especially if you're wearing a helmet with a grille. Watch the ball and move out of the line. Even with anchored feet it's not that hard to move your head, just watch bowlers getting out of the way of drives, they can always get their head out of the way yet they're much less prepared, but they're always watching the ball.

Its like saying a batsman should never snick the ball its not that hard, if you have a helmet it restricts vision and movement, it makes being hit much more likely, but the expectation is you don't get severly injured if you do get hit. if you don't have a helmet then safety is going to be reliant on the batsman being able to avoid the ball. I remember Viv Richards getting hit, it was later in his career and against a Sri Lankan bowler but he was lucky, I never saw him get hit before that. Larry Gomes was not so lucky , he had the hair and could not wear a helmet, same bowler left him with a bloody mouth. I also think Viv Richards was led astray by a heavy drinking Botham , and that led to him losing it and his high test average,and he started dropping catches.

My thoughts too. Ever since the death of Phil Hughes, if a player gets hit in the head there's a sense of nervousness and unease which is understandable and yet they ignore the elephant in the room which is that in the majority of cases, the batsman has contributed to their injury by playing the shot poorly. There was a hush when Dan Hughes got hit by that Siddle bouncer in a BBL match last year but no one says anything about him just planting his front foot and swinging at the ball wildly. I've heard some people say before "how did Viv Richards play safely in an era without helmets?" and all you got to do is look at the technique he shows when hooking or pulling. Get your head outside the line of the ball. It's not that hard.

Yeah its fair to say batsmen feel bulletproof behind their helmets and that has sculpted the way they play the short ball today. Have to agree, that would make them worse players of the short ball. Ian Chappell would love this article

I think gloves are the biggest handicap, if you don;t have gloves you can play cross bat shots because you don't want your hands near any short balls. Take away the helmet and the gloves and it would be very attractive cricket.

The modern style of batting is basically pressing forward clearing the front leg and throwing the hands through the line of the ball. Absolute rubbish to be honest and certainly not conducive to hooking or pulling. Having said that, the good players can all still hook or pull, kholi, smith, devilliers, root, even cook.

Outstanding article. I guess the subcontinental cricketers have an excuse as they rarely play on such bouncy pitches while developing their technique and footwork, let alone many outstanding fast bowlers. Watching Australians who have played on bouncy decks their whole lives still have no idea how to face a fast ball is staggering. Even when they've got a grill to protect their head they still take their eye off the ball! I think they need to spend 5 minutes a week with a helmet on having somebody toss a ball against the grill just to get used to the idea that the ball isn't going to come through.

They won't use their gloves and bat either to blunt a throat ball. This why I'm against subbing concussed batsmen who would rather get hit in the head than risk getting caught. And the disappearance of back foot play takes out a very spectacular aspect of the game. The hook and pull off the back foot are glorious things.