)
Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?
When Graham Yallop became the first man to wear a helmet while batting for Australia against the West Indies in Bridgetown in 1978, he was predictably booed. The late 1970s saw the emergence of fearless, young men like Vivian Richards, Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes, batsmen who were unafraid of the red cherry hurled at them at blistering speed. Richards, in particular, would dance down the track to a fast bowler and send the ball packing over mid-wicket with disdain. But Yallop was staring at the terrifying prospect of facing the most lethal pace attack in the world — one that comprised Andy Roberts, Joel Garner and Colin Croft. Although the Barbados crowd disagreed with Yallop, the helmet seemed a wise choice.
Thirty-six years on, the helmet has become the most important piece of protective equipment in the modern game. That is why, when Phillip Hughes got hit by a Sean Abbott bouncer while batting in a domestic match in Australia on Tuesday and died two days later, the debate over the protection afforded by a helmet sparked back to life. Hughes was hit on the left side of his head as he committed early to a hook shot against a ball that was bowled at 140 kmph. Experts say the force generated by the approximately 160-gm cricket ball at that speed is 8,800 Newtons, enough to lift a mass of 880 kg off the ground.
While a talented left-handed opening batsman, Hughes, who was 25 at the time of his death, was surprisingly susceptible to the short ball, and, therefore, was the right candidate for a good helmet. A helmet is supposed to provide protection to a batsman against injury or concussion. A regular cricket helmet has a tough exterior that dissipates the force of the ball, while the skull is protected by a foam layer that cushions the blow. Masuri, the manufacturer of the helmet Hughes was wearing, claims the batsman was using an older model that did not offer as much protection to the back of the head and neck as the newer models issued by the company. Some years ago, British manufacturer Arytek came out with a helmet that it claimed was the safest till date. Its latest, the AdiPower range, in collaboration with Adidas, claims to provide thrice the protection afforded by other helmets. Incidentally, Stuart Broad was wearing Arytek’s helmet when he was hit on his face by Indian pacer Varun Aaron in a Test earlier this year, which resulted in the Englishman playing no further part in the game.
Was the helmet at fault in Hughes’ case? Former India coach Anshuman Gaekwad — who was hit on the ear by Michael Holding in 1978 — feels it was Hughes’ technique that let him down. “He was way too early into the shot. By the time he got hit, he had almost fallen over,” he says. “Moreover, there is always a small percentage of danger in every sport.”
Sunil Gavaskar played without a helmet, and, in his prime, faced the West Indies — the mightiest fast bowling attack ever assembled in the sport. He managed to score 13 Test centuries against them. “When Sunil started off, there were no helmets. His technique and judgement were so good that he never felt the need to wear a helmet,” says Gaekwad.
So can good batsmen then do without the helmet? Helmets may never be able to provide 100 per cent protection. In fact, they could lull batsmen into taking unnecessary risks while attempting wildly unorthodox strokes. But what they do is minimise the risk of a serious head injury against bouncers and beamers. Protection to the batsman is available in the curb on bowling more than one bouncer per over.
But banning bouncers altogether in the wake of Hughes’ death would rob the game of its competitive edge. The Australian’s death may be tragic, but as Peter Bruckner, the Cricket Australia doctor put it, while it was worthwhile reviewing safety equipment and procedures, including helmet design, it was important to understand how extraordinarily rare this injury was.
