Cricket desperately needs a thorough review of rules, safety and equipment.
As research and technology development has exploded in virtually all sports, a gross imbalance between bat and ball has come about in cricket.
Whereas the ball has basically not changed at all, other than the various colours creating some small variations in swing and seam, the bat has seen dramatic change, resulting in an unfair dominance of bat over ball.
Put simply, who would want to be a bowler?
These amazingly meaty, thick-edged, but beautifully balanced bats enable players to smash the ball to and over the boundary line on a ridiculously regular basis. This is occurring with well played, well-timed shots, but too often also with those that are mistimed and mis-hit.
The ball is leaving these batting weapons at ridiculously high speeds. The result being not only many boundaries, but an ever-increasing risk to close-in fielders, bowlers and umpires.
Human reaction time, required to avoid being hit by these cricket balls, is not fast enough and thus players are in genuine danger of being seriously hurt or even killed.
The damage caused to bowler Joe Mennie, at practice, demonstrates as much. Mennie was struck on his, obviously, un-protected head by a speeding ball in his follow-through, resulting in a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain.
Because of the bowling action of a bowler following through after delivery, particularly a fast bowler, they are very close to the batsman when the ball is struck and therefore in a very risky position.
Little can be done to adjust the position of the bowler, therefore reduction of bat power is the only alternative.
Added to the imbalance of bat over ball are also the rule changes, particularly associated with the short versions of the game. A baseball-like ‘pitching zone’ has been introduced, where the ball cannot go down the leg-side, can’t be bowled too wide of the off-stump, can’t be bowled as a full-toss over either waist or shoulder height (depending on the type of bowler), or bounced too often.
It’s not all one-way traffic though. With the introduction of more protective equipment for batsmen, there has been an increase in batsmen being struck, chiefly brought about by poor technique to short-pitched bowling as a result of over confidence of the effectiveness of the protective gear. Evidence suggests that confidence is not warranted, and that concussion will result, even when struck on the helmet.
Cricket Australia needs to urgently look at the rules, equipment and overall safety of the game.
Whiteline
Guest
Outfields too quick Pitches too flat Boundaries too short Seam too flat Bats too big.....half of Warners mishits would be caught at mid on with a traditional bat....to compare him with other eras is a joke...everyone knows it but nothing can be said.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Mennie got hit in a net session anyway, it wasn't even on the field. You did miss the israeli umpire who died after a shot struck back down the wicket ricocheted off the stumps at the non strikers end and hit him in the face. Wouldn't have had time to react to the deviation but that would have happened with any size bat. http://www.smh.com.au/world/cricket-umpire-in-israel-killed-after-ball-strikes-him-in-the-face-20141129-11wxva.html My personal view is that it is safer in some areas, more risky in others. But the area of risk is very very difficult to do anything about - bowlers can't really wear protective equipment and bowl, and you can't put a barrier between them and batsmen like baseball does, so not really sure what is to be done beyond just cross your fingers and hope it's a long time between serious injuries.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
I really think you're making a big issue out of what happened to Mennie. I did some research and of all the notable on field cricket deaths in the last 70 years I could only find one death of a player caused by injuries from the batsmen hitting the ball into him. It was former Indian international Raman Lamba who was hit in the head fielding at short leg in 1998. He wasn't wearing a helmet. All other notable deaths were of either batsmen being hit in the head or chest, one of an umpire being hit by a stray throw from a fielder and some of players that had heart attacks or strokes while fielding. I actually think cricket is safer than ever but if you have evidence to the contrary not just opinion based on one injury to Joe Mennie then I'm happy to hear it.
Brasstacks
Guest
While there is no denying the fact that bats have become much thicker and more balanced, the sixes off mishits are mostly due to the ridiculously small sized grounds that ODIs and T20s are played on. India is notorious in this regard. My solution ( if the powers that be are listening ) would be... 1. Grounds should be of a minimum size... the boundary should be not less than 90 meters from the batting crease. That will instantly eliminate 95% of mishit sixes. Also a six will be a genuine six. Please end the ridiculous 54 meter sixes as witnessed in the recently concluded India vs England ODI series. 2. While bowlers are at risk, the umpire at the non striker's end is the most at risk. In fact we have been lucky not to have had an umpire seriously, even fatally injured in any of the IPL or BBL seasons thus far. This can be somewhat addressed by making the umpires wear helmets.
qwetzen
Guest
" anecdotal evidence suggests that the ball isn’t getting hit substantially harder when “middled” than it has in the past, just that the middle of the bat is now much, much bigger – meaning that a higher percentage of shots are being hit hard." Agreed. Also, I'd opine that we get a false impression of power hitting from the saturation coverage of T20. These games are rarely played on a centre pitch so there's a short square boundary on one side that will get targeted.
Rob
Guest
I recently played in a lower level fixture where the umpire and fielding captain refused to start play due to a damp run up and small part of the out field being soft under foot. Fortunately after much debate the game went ahead but it was in the umpires opinion breaching cricket's safe rules of play? The real scary part is later during the same game the fielding captain placed a young 17yld no less than 2m from the bat at silly mid on. The batsman then requested to the opposition captain and umpire that the close in fieldsman don a helmet. The response was "there's no rule saying he has to". It's a serious problem that Australian Cricket associations are failing to address and the ACB is ignoring. More serious than the proposed red card for descent or sledging behaviour IMO. The ECB in 2015 made recommendation that a helmet be worn by " batsmen facing all types of bowling, wicketkeepers standing up to the wicket and fielders standing closer than eight yards from the batsman's middle stump - except behind the wicket on the off side." Not sure you should enforce batsmen wearing a helmet against slow bowling, because it comes down to a personal choice. But it is lunacy that the ECB's recommendations have not come into force regarding close in fielders.
Paul D
Roar Guru
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/12/30/bowlers-face-growing-risk-in-modern-cricket/ This seems oddly familiar... I'll just reiterate though that while what you've outlined is a concern it's very difficult to do anything about it. I suggested the following in a comment on that article and I've no reason to change my view. "I thought maybe some sort of penalty regime, ie. fines or similar for any batsman who strikes a ball in the air within x distance of the bowler’s head – there are fines and similar for ‘reckless’ play in most contact sports, maybe you could have reckless batting." "Match referee could review footage of any incident where they felt the bowler was at risk of receiving a serious injury – ball above waist height, within two meters of his head, for example. Once batters start copping a 25% match payment fine for each incident they’d probably look to hit elsewhere, or ensure that they actually control the shot, either along the ground or well in the air." "It’s difficult to police, and would only apply to top flight cricket, but it would at least indicate that the powers-that-be were aware of the potential for harm and were taking steps to indicate that they don’t want batters hitting in that particular area."
Chui
Guest
So what are you suggesting?
Al
Guest
"who would want to be a [pace] bowler?" FTFY. I always enjoyed the close-fielding aspect of being a slow bowler. But, to the content of the article - anecdotal evidence suggests that the ball isn't getting hit substantially harder when "middled" than it has in the past, just that the middle of the bat is now much, much bigger - meaning that a higher percentage of shots are being hit hard. Perhaps this has opened up new areas for the ball to travel at speed? Maybe there used to be far fewer balls being hit back hard at the bowler simply because it's harder to middle a shot straight, at that height?