Print

[fromthehip]

Waking up this morning to see Shane Watson has now been hit in head while netting
Reports are saying very shaken but thankful nothing like the other week

[JB]

Just saw that on Sky Sports news twitter!!

[Vic Nicholas]

In the big bash the other night (Sunday) a player (a left hander) got hit in the exact same spot as Phil Hughes in an almost identical swing and miss hook shot manner.

Two things saved him from meeting the same fate:

1/ It was a slower ball bouncer
2/ It deflected off his shoulder into the base of his skull behind the ear thus taking even more sting off the ball

The batsman was also wearing the new Masuri Vision series - it didn't help him one iota.

The player rubbed his head and smiled to indicate he was OK as players rushed in from all directions to check on his welfare.

[smilley792]

I saw that, the shoulder took a lot of sting out of the ball!

[Vic Nicholas]

http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/nathan-reardon-of-the-heat-reacts-after-being-struck-in-the-news-photo/460741786

[Vic Nicholas]

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/E7Xx3s-4k0t/Bash+League+Sydney+v+Brisbane/0_0Hb-Xw8yR/Nathan+Reardon

[Nmcgee]

Yes..the short ball to Nathan Reardon was really alarming. It looked to hit him in the same spot as Phil Hughes. The replay made me very uncomfortable.

As for Shane Watson, I'm not sure what to say. A bee sting and a weak cup of coffee and this guy would probably pull out of the third test.

[sarg]

As for Shane Watson, I'm not sure what to say. A bee sting and a weak cup of coffee and this guy would probably pull out of the third test.

Gold!

He certainly has a weak constitution. Sooner he is moved on. the better.

[lazza32]

Worst number 3 in any test side, should be at number 6 imo.

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[SOULMAN1012]

Always remember Watson being spooked by Gough during an Ashes in England because he was scared his room was haunted so he had to sleep on the floor of Bret Lee's room lol golden moment for me and agree Watson does come across pretty meak.

The other thing is why do more players seem to be getting hit since the tragic death of Hughes?? Is it just getting. Ore coverage or have batsmen been but off playing it or shaken and possibly reaction times are slightly hindered due to being now more concerned then they were a month or so back??

As for reardon he charged down the wicket to a quick and was through the shot and hence ended up turning his back on the ball.

[KarlPennington]

The other thing is why do more players seem to be getting hit since the tragic death of Hughes?? Is it just getting. Ore coverage or have batsmen been but off playing it or shaken and possibly reaction times are slightly hindered due to being now more concerned then they were a month or so back??

My argument is although Hughes was a 'freak accident' there were a million near misses before this million to one chance accident occurred. Now it is more in the public consciousness, since Hughes we are noticing every head blow. They where still happening before but they just weren't as newsworthy. I'm suprised to be honest that the game has just moved on so quickly. Surely a death should raise the question 'do aggressive fast balls aimed at the head' have any place in the game? Other sports do outlaw dangerous elements and do everything they can to minimise the risk of player injury. They don't seem to have suffered from it. I understand the argument that the bouncer is part of a bowlers arsenal and the game is already too batsman friendly but maybe if the bouncer was outlawed bowlers would have to improve their skills and their variations to get wickets.

It just feels a little at the minute that Phil Hughes death was in vein. I also think that aggressive (bodyline) bowling is the major factor in non-participation in cricket. My local team struggle to find players each week, our junior section is dwindling. I started midweek T20 team last year with the intention of getting some of my peers involved in the sport and in the end I had to rely on players already playing in my club team. It's ashame because there is no other sport that is as rewarding and as challenging as cricket. But if I invite a friend to nets, who has yet to learn any technique and who is timid of the ball and an experienced player full of bravado greets him by bowling short and fast, the chances are I'm not going to see him at nets again.

I think a game that is more reliant on skill and variety than aggression would be much more appealing to the next generation.

[WalkingWicket37]

Skill and variety, nonsense!
I have no skill and the variety comes from the fact I haven't got a clue what I'm doing, I still play twice a week through the summer and love every minute! 

[KarlPennington]

I'm relatively new to cricket so I'm still hypervigilant against the short ball. I take the duck, dip, dodge, dive, duck approach... But if I start getting a bit adventurous in nets one of the quicks will quickly bring me back down to earth with a head hunter. Next ball inevitably my stance will be about 2 sets of stumps wide of leg stump so anything full and straight and i'm a goner.

So naturally as somebody new and still a bit timid my knee jerk reaction is "Ban the bouncer" I feel as though I could really express myself more if the 'threat' element was taken away. My brother on the other hand who has played the game for a while and is much more confident destroys anything short.

I've always played football and learned my trade in the school of 'If they are fast and skillfull - Hack them'  and 'If you pull out of a tackle, you'll get hurt (and you are a pansy ) So I havent been a fan of all the rule changes they have brought into football, no two-footed tackles, no leaving the gound in a tackle, no tackling from behind/from the side etc... because I'm confident I can protect myself against those things on the pitch. But still in professional football those things have gone and the skill level has definitely improved.

I think what bothers me about the Phil Hughes incident is that he was a test level batsmen, if he is vulnerable to the short ball then so is every one of us - so for ever bouncer my brother crashes to the boundary it only takes one mis-judgement and we know what the consequences might be.

Accidents do and will happen but is a hard ball being aimed at somebody's head ever really an accident?

[TangoWhiskey]

Accidents do and will happen but is a hard ball being aimed at somebody's head ever really an accident?

The aim isn't to hit them, it's to make them think you might. Rare even before the Hughes tragedy you'd get a fast bowler deliberately looking to hit someone in the head, no one wants to see it.

[Vitas Cricket]

I'm relatively new to cricket so I'm still hypervigilant against the short ball. I take the duck, dip, dodge, dive, duck approach... But if I start getting a bit adventurous in nets one of the quicks will quickly bring me back down to earth with a head hunter. Next ball inevitably my stance will be about 2 sets of stumps wide of leg stump so anything full and straight and i'm a goner.

So naturally as somebody new and still a bit timid my knee jerk reaction is "Ban the bouncer" I feel as though I could really express myself more if the 'threat' element was taken away. My brother on the other hand who has played the game for a while and is much more confident destroys anything short.

I've always played football and learned my trade in the school of 'If they are fast and skillfull - Hack them'  and 'If you pull out of a tackle, you'll get hurt (and you are a pansy ) So I havent been a fan of all the rule changes they have brought into football, no two-footed tackles, no leaving the gound in a tackle, no tackling from behind/from the side etc... because I'm confident I can protect myself against those things on the pitch. But still in professional football those things have gone and the skill level has definitely improved.

I think what bothers me about the Phil Hughes incident is that he was a test level batsmen, if he is vulnerable to the short ball then so is every one of us - so for ever bouncer my brother crashes to the boundary it only takes one mis-judgement and we know what the consequences might be.

Accidents do and will happen but is a hard ball being aimed at somebody's head ever really an accident?

The key thing to remember is not every international player is comfortable playing every shot. Some are not great against short stuff so choose to take evasive action and concentrate on scoring runs from other deliveries. Historically Hughes was the sort of player who would avoid a short delivery rather than play at it. Vic Nicholas touched on this in a post somewhere on the forum, Hughes started playing at more short stuff over the past year or so and clearly looked uncomfortable. If you have a weakness, you should definitely try and improve it, but ultimately if a particular delivery or shot doesn't work for you, the best policy is not to play it. I think Vic suggested maybe Hughes had been asked by Cricket Aus/his coaches to try and score more off short balls, which surely must be a factor leading towards what happened.

Your bottom question can be translated to many sports. Should we be surprised that F1 drivers are hurt when their 200mph metal rain-jacket sends them into a barrier? Or when a boxer takes a sickening blow to the chops?
Taking part in many sports comes with risks, for many, those risks are the very essence of the enjoyment. Both when watching and playing, i love the fascinating battle between a good fast bowler and a skilled batsman. A hard cricket ball coming at you after being released by a quick bowler is of course going to cause some damage unless you do something about it, either hit it or get out the way. The to and fro between bowler and batsman as they clamour to dominate one another is something i always relish watching. Yes it is great when someone boshes yet another hundred on a lifeless Asian wicket against some medium pace and spin. I'm not saying it is 'worth' more to score a hundred on a quick bouncy pitch against Dale Steyn or Mitchell Johnson etc, as of course paying spin comes with its own set of challenges. But i find it more entertaining, and i feel overcoming a lethal quick bowler and getting that ton is certainly a braver thing to do.

Incessant bumping of tailenders is another subject, they do have a great deal of protection available though and provided they follow the basics of 'get out the way' and 'don't turn your head' - tail end batsman shouldn't suffer too badly. Most of the time they are out quickly of course. Occasionally they will provide brave and stubborn resistance and are always commended for it. Would the end of the test between sri lanka and england this year have been even half the spectacle it was if the sri lankans were sending down nice length balls for Jimmy? I would have switched off the tv for sure.