PHIL HUGHES, an Australian cricketer, is in a critical condition after being hit on the head by a short-pitched ball yesterday. Mr Hughes, who was playing for South Australia, was wearing a helmet, as nearly all professional players do nowadays. However, as he tried to play a bouncer sent down by Sean Abbott, a New South Wales bowler, he was seemingly hit toward the top of his neck, an area that is not protected. He collapsed on the field and was taken to hospital, where he was induced into a coma and underwent an operation to release pressure on his brain.
The incident has placed under scrutiny the protective equipment worn by batsmen, and particularly the helmet. Cricket is an inherently dangerous game. The ball is hard: it weighs 5¾ oz (163g) and is covered in rigid leather. Bowlers can hurl it down at over 90 miles (145 km) per hour, and intimidating a batsman by aiming it at his head and body is considered a perfectly legitimate tactic. Yet until the late 1970s helmets were unheard of; batsmen wore nothing to protect their noggins except a cloth cap. When they began to creep into the game—Dennis Amiss, an English batsman, is usually cited as the first to wear one regularly during the 1978 World Series Cricket tournament—they were essentially adapted motorcycle helmets. Batsmen who donned them were sometimes mocked as cowards.
Helmets have improved markedly since then. At first they offered no facial protection; later the nose and jaw were covered only by a flimsy piece of perspex. Today, they feature a strong metal grill. They are also now lighter and use better energy-absorbing foams. Yet, because of a batsman’s need for flexibility at the crease, it is not practical that they cover every inch of the head and neck. What is more, given the forces involved, even advances in technology are not always sufficient. Earlier this year Stuart Broad of England broke his nose after a ball forced its way between the grill and the peak of his helmet. Just two weeks ago Ahmed Shehzad, a batsman for Pakistan, fractured his skull when the ball hit him straight on the helmet. Indeed, ever since protective head gear was adopted there have been fairly regular and disturbing examples of players receiving sickening blows (for the strong of stomach, see here, here and here).
Despite these shortfalls, few want to return to a time before head protection. In under-19s cricket it is now compulsory for all batsmen and fielders close to the wicket to wear a helmet. After all, surely some padding is better than none. But the issue is nuanced. Mike Selvey, a former England player turned pundit, argues that, counterintuitively, helmets may actually be making batsmen less safe. The reason, familiar to every economist, is moral hazard: the tendency for people to take more risks when they have some protection from the consequences if things do not go as planned. Just as homeowners with generous theft insurance might be less likely to remember to lock their doors, helmet-donning batsmen may be less likely to prioritise their safety over gaining a competitive edge.
Facing express bowlers of the past, whether Harold Larwood, Andy Roberts or Malcolm Marshall, helmet-less batsmen were less inclined to play the hook—a shot that involves swatting a short-pitched ball from in front of your nose—because of the danger of getting it wrong. They were also more likely to keep their eye on a threatening ball and sway out of the way at the last moment, as the coaching manual demands. Today, with greater protection, there seems to be more of a propensity for batsmen to flinch and turn their backs on anything nasty. Lastly, says Mr Selvey, those with exposed heads were more likely to play back-foot shots, which give batsmen extra time to follow the flight of the ball. (It is worth noting that while all this may be true, it did not stop all of the bowlers mentioned above breaking bones in various batsmen’s heads.)
There is also a deeper paradox here. Everyone who follows cricket naturally wishes Mr Hughes a swift and full recovery. He is clearly a popular, competitive and skilfull batsman. It is shocking to see him in serious trouble. Yet part of the visceral attraction of the game comes from the knowledge that a batsman is facing down real danger. Watching a battle between a snarling fast-bowler and a fearless batsmen at close quarters is one of the finest spectacles in sport precisely because of this tension. It is what makes them heroes to many. Cricket needs to be dangerous; it just should never be deadly. That is a fine line to walk.
UPDATE: Phil Hughes died on 27th November as a result of the injury he sustained. He never regained consciousness. He was 25.
