Seldom has there been such unanimity in the cricket world, albeit in the aftermath of the game’s most tragic week. The sport is united in sorrow and the outpouring of grief and sympathy around the globe has been conspicuously genuine. No doubt that would have applied whoever was the victim of such a terrible accident but somehow it was especially the case for Phillip Hughes. Here was the archetypal, country boy Aussie, who evoked shades of that old New South Wales favourite Doug Walters (minus much of the booze and the fags).
Like Walters, Hughes batted in a homespun way, which did not pay much attention to the MCC coaching manual. He suggested innocence and humility, which was peculiarly endearing to onlookers from near and far. He gave the impression he was never happier than with a bat in his hand. His unorthodox style brought him to the forefront of a cricket-loving public in Australia but all the peripheral, so-called benefits of success in sport, the thrill of instant recognition, the celebrity and all those glitzy sponsorship deals, were for shallower types. He just loved the cricket.
This unanimity has stretched to cricketers’ reactions of what the implications might be of Hughes’s death. Everyone agrees the unrelenting pursuit of a safer game should continue in earnest. Alastair Cook expressed that view in Colombo; James Sutherland, the chief executive of Cricket Australia, said: “One freak incident is one freak incident too many.” However, most also acknowledge that in theory it has never been safer to play the game. Batsmen and close fielders have never been so well-protected. Even so, there will now be feverish activity to ensure the back of the head is better guarded by the helmet without restricting the ability of the batsman to move quickly.
There is, however, one disturbing consequence of the improvement in protection in this era. Over the past three decades batsmen may have gradually acquired a false sense of security from the belief their helmet offers absolute protection. In turn, this has led to a change in the approach and technique of batsmen. Until the late 70s the top priority for just about every batsman was to ensure he was not going to be hit on the head when facing fast bowlers. The evolution of the helmet has gradually changed batting techniques. The ball striking the batsman on the head, protected by a helmet, has become far more commonplace. The frequent reaction from those involved has been a shrug of the shoulders, quite possibly a leg bye, with the game resuming after a brief check that there are no ill effects.
Batsmen gradually became more fearless; the hook or pull off the front foot was now a business shot for most first-class batsmen, not just for the minor geniuses upwards. Now it is conceivable that players and coaches might rethink the best way to bat with greater emphasis on avoiding being hit on the head. Should captains, pacemen and administrators rethink how bowlers operate? The idea of banning the bouncer has been tossed around.
