May you Rest in Peace.
My best wishes go out to his family at this time, protection and guidance.
**** Phil Hughes Dies ****
-
mikesiva
- Posts: 19320
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: Watford, Hertfordshire
- Contact:
Really sad about Phil Hughes....
But it does make you wonder about the helmet, Maps. Does it give batsmen a false sense of security? Is proper technique against the bouncer worse now that helmets are around?
Yes, Phil Simmons was felled in 1988 by David Lawrence in similar circumstances, and he wasn't wearing a helmet. But this does raise difficult questions....
But it does make you wonder about the helmet, Maps. Does it give batsmen a false sense of security? Is proper technique against the bouncer worse now that helmets are around?
Yes, Phil Simmons was felled in 1988 by David Lawrence in similar circumstances, and he wasn't wearing a helmet. But this does raise difficult questions....
-
mapoui2
- Posts: 2106
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:19 pm
yes it does raise serious questions mike.
as far as I see batsman at the crease might as well wear a skull cap as if he is in church.. than a cricket helmet for protection. the part of his head that is covered will never get hit..or hit there, only if he sits on the dam wicket and middles the ball with the middle of the top of his head instead of the bat.
so if the batsman is not going to get hit on the top of his head, why is that the only area of the head fully protected.. and not side-on and towards the back of the head, as they try to do in baseball
there are stats apparently that reflect what the cricket helmet is really capable of...not much. the ball smashes through the visor and hurts the face. the visor is no protection at all. and the materials used for the helmets appear to leave a lot to be desired. when the ball hits the helmet it dents it and hurts the batsman inside.
from the stats I have seen the helmet is all but useless. batsmen might as well discard it and go back to batting without helmets.
for the moment I would eliminate the bouncer. that is an issue I have long considered. no game should pose a direct threat to the lives of its participants. people can die at anything, doing and playing anything. such is life. yet the direct threat is the question. we know it we should remove it..or protect against it.
and if the protection does not work....then remove the threat
as far as I see batsman at the crease might as well wear a skull cap as if he is in church.. than a cricket helmet for protection. the part of his head that is covered will never get hit..or hit there, only if he sits on the dam wicket and middles the ball with the middle of the top of his head instead of the bat.
so if the batsman is not going to get hit on the top of his head, why is that the only area of the head fully protected.. and not side-on and towards the back of the head, as they try to do in baseball
there are stats apparently that reflect what the cricket helmet is really capable of...not much. the ball smashes through the visor and hurts the face. the visor is no protection at all. and the materials used for the helmets appear to leave a lot to be desired. when the ball hits the helmet it dents it and hurts the batsman inside.
from the stats I have seen the helmet is all but useless. batsmen might as well discard it and go back to batting without helmets.
for the moment I would eliminate the bouncer. that is an issue I have long considered. no game should pose a direct threat to the lives of its participants. people can die at anything, doing and playing anything. such is life. yet the direct threat is the question. we know it we should remove it..or protect against it.
and if the protection does not work....then remove the threat
-
mapoui2
- Posts: 2106
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:19 pm
I have come to appreciate fast bowling concentrated around the wicket, full length bowling calculated to defeat batsmen by skill and brains... not intimidation
the greatest feats of fast bowling I have seen never contained bouncers. the top feats... Micheal Holding twice..at the Oval in england in 1976..and at Kensington against Boycott in 1980-81.
they were both full pitched bowling, very, very fast but so skillful that the great Boycott at Kensington was utterly defeated and bowled.
the great west indian pacemen were judicious in their use of short-pitched bowling. they never used it much.
they were so good, so consistent, that every innings against them was a comprehensive test of skill, concentration and energy/endurance. they wore out the emotional capabilities of batsmen. those who made fifty slept well the night... from physical/emotional exhaustion
those west indian pacemen cold hit any batsman at will. I saw Malcolm Marshall hit the Oz Lawson. I thought Marshall did it deliberately, in retaliation for Lawson's own aggression against west indian batsmen. but that was not par for the west indian course.
many commentators have noted this lack of intimidation by west indian pace greats. their mode of attack was organized around the wicket, based on skill and smarts, great fitness, which ensured all they threw at batsmen was at great pace, making their attack consistent and comprehensively challenging
so if the bouncer is discarded I would not mind at all, in light of the west indian tradition of great fast bowling.
imagine if at the Oval in 1976 Holding was intimidatory. there would have been a few dead bodies on that field we can be sure of. Holding achieved great, great pace, fast like lightening, defeating english batsmen with straight balls they had no time to get their bats on
who were not clean bowled were LBW. just imagine what it would have been like had Holding bowled bouncers. the english batsmen would not have been able to cope
the greatest feats of fast bowling I have seen never contained bouncers. the top feats... Micheal Holding twice..at the Oval in england in 1976..and at Kensington against Boycott in 1980-81.
they were both full pitched bowling, very, very fast but so skillful that the great Boycott at Kensington was utterly defeated and bowled.
the great west indian pacemen were judicious in their use of short-pitched bowling. they never used it much.
they were so good, so consistent, that every innings against them was a comprehensive test of skill, concentration and energy/endurance. they wore out the emotional capabilities of batsmen. those who made fifty slept well the night... from physical/emotional exhaustion
those west indian pacemen cold hit any batsman at will. I saw Malcolm Marshall hit the Oz Lawson. I thought Marshall did it deliberately, in retaliation for Lawson's own aggression against west indian batsmen. but that was not par for the west indian course.
many commentators have noted this lack of intimidation by west indian pace greats. their mode of attack was organized around the wicket, based on skill and smarts, great fitness, which ensured all they threw at batsmen was at great pace, making their attack consistent and comprehensively challenging
so if the bouncer is discarded I would not mind at all, in light of the west indian tradition of great fast bowling.
imagine if at the Oval in 1976 Holding was intimidatory. there would have been a few dead bodies on that field we can be sure of. Holding achieved great, great pace, fast like lightening, defeating english batsmen with straight balls they had no time to get their bats on
who were not clean bowled were LBW. just imagine what it would have been like had Holding bowled bouncers. the english batsmen would not have been able to cope
-
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:35 am
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He was wearing a Masuri helmet, in fact the old edition of it, and teh new one extends a further inch or so.
Helmets are for protection and we have seen players being hit on the head and walk off so it serves it purpose. It would be difficult for teh helmet to protect the complete back of the head as they will not be able to move.
Above you will see Shiv did teh same sort of thing by taking his eyes off the ball.
PH was playing a shot and it got onto him quicker and he turned his head.
Very sad indeed!
He was wearing a Masuri helmet, in fact the old edition of it, and teh new one extends a further inch or so.
Helmets are for protection and we have seen players being hit on the head and walk off so it serves it purpose. It would be difficult for teh helmet to protect the complete back of the head as they will not be able to move.
Above you will see Shiv did teh same sort of thing by taking his eyes off the ball.
PH was playing a shot and it got onto him quicker and he turned his head.
Very sad indeed!
-
mapoui2
- Posts: 2106
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:19 pm
Mail..the helmet could extend at least 2 inches below where it is now and go around to protect the area where Hughes was hit and not restrict movement
just one side man..the side-on to the bowler..like the baseball helmet towards the pitcher is right now..for both right and left handers
a helmet like that would have save Hughes life..even it was just long enough and wide enough to deflect or mitigate the force of the blow
I maintain..the helmets for batsmen are inadequate
just one side man..the side-on to the bowler..like the baseball helmet towards the pitcher is right now..for both right and left handers
a helmet like that would have save Hughes life..even it was just long enough and wide enough to deflect or mitigate the force of the blow
I maintain..the helmets for batsmen are inadequate