i find it very hard to understand how...

[Starfighter]

This is a list of head strike incidents I can think of off the top of my head (no pun intended) prior to the West Indies era (i.e. before 1976):

1870: George Summers is hit by a ball kicking from the notoriously rough Lord's pitch and dies four days later
1921: Ernest Tyldesley was bowled off his jaw by Ted McDonald
Early 30s - an Indian batsmen was hit Harold Larwood. I don't remember his name, I thought he played for Cambridge but maybe not looking at scorecards. Larwood and Voce apparently had a competition to see who could hit his turban first. Film here.
1933: Bert Oldfield receives a fractured skull misjudging his stroke and top edging a Larwood short ball.
1934: Wally Hammond is cut on the chin by Manny Martindale bowling fast leg theory on a very slow pitch at Old Trafford
1935: Bob Wyatt is knocked out and receives a multiple jaw fracture from Martindale at Kingston
1938: Bill Edrich, a well reputed and fearless player of fast bowling, is knocked out by Ken Farnes in the Lord's Gentlemen vs. Players match.
1948: Dennis Compton top edges a ball from Ray Lindwall, getting cut on the eyebrow. I don't really count this one as the ball was only waist high.
1953: Bert Sutcliffe is cut in the ear by Neil Adcock, retiring for treatment and batting with his head bandaged.
1954: Jim Laker is cut above the eye by Frank King, during a notably high scoring match on a jute matting pitch, with first innings of 8/681d and 537, with five centuries.
1954: Frank Tyson turns and ducks Ray Lindwall and is hit on the back of the head.
1958: Noel Harford is hit in the face by Fred Trueman at Edgbaston, retiring for a short time.
1958: Eric Petrie is hit in the top of the head by Trueman at Old Trafford, ending his test career.
1962: Nari Contractor ducks into a skidding delivery from Charlie Griffith in a tour match, he nearly dies and his test career ends.
1965: the match at Bridgetown was notable for three batsmen being hit and was an extremely high scoring match with first innings 6/650d and 573 and five centuries including three doubles.
- Bill Lawry was hit in the face by a Charlie Griffith bouncer during his world record partnership with Bob Simpson
- Conrad Hunte was hit in the face by Neil Hawke after hooking past a bouncer
- Jackie Hendricks was hit on the side of the head jumping at, then ducking a lifting delivery from Graham McKenzie, was knocked out and needed emergency surgery.
1970: Terry Jenner was hit in the head ducking into a short ball from John Snow.
1970: Graham McKenzie hit in the nose by a ball from John Snow that kicked off about, or maybe just short of, a good length.
1972: Graeme Watson was hit twice against the Rest of the World at Melbourne, in the first innings on top the head by a Peter Pollock bouncer and in the second in the face by a Tony Greig beamer.
1975: Greg Chappell hit in the jaw by a ball from Peter Lever lifting off a damp patch at Melbourne.
1975: The Ewan Chatfield incident, Lever again the bowler.

I'm sure there were plenty of others too, these are only the ones I know from memory. A couple (the Martindale ones) came to mind when looking up the minor details of other incidents to make the list.

The small amount of Simon Rae's It's Just Not Cricket that I can access on Google Books also tells me that Lancs' J.R. Barnes was hit by McDonald in 1921. WI's Frank Martin was hit by Larwood in 1928 and Bob Wyatt had two bouncers from Learie Constantine 'glance' off his head the same tour, aside from the strike on Headley mentioned by the big bambino.

 

[trundler]

How the **** did people raise babies? They're such fragile little shits that need constant care and attention. Doesn't take much to kill a baby. 100 years ago you didn't even had basic vaccines. Who was baby proofing the wild?

 

[Starfighter]

How the **** did people raise babies? They're such fragile little shits that need constant care and attention. Doesn't take much to kill a baby. 100 years ago you didn't even had basic vaccines. Who was baby proofing the wild?

You know the great part of life expectancy improvement since modern medicine was due to the reduction in the infant mortality rate.

 

[Daemon]

Impressive list starfighter. You sure it’s off the top of your head? I can barely even recall the incidents where I’ve been sconed.

 

[Midwinter]

Prior to Lillee and Thomson fast bowlers didnt bowl many short pitched balls because of the obvious danger.
That is why there was such an outcry about bodyline.
There were exceptions of course but it wasn't a general tactic.

World series cricket really played up this part of the game and the batsmans response to get more PPE.

The sensational nature of televising cricket since hasnt helped.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Impressive list starfighter. You sure it’s off the top of your head? I can barely even recall the incidents where I’ve been sconed.

could be a causal relationship there tbf

Regarding the list, if it was anyone else but starfighter I would be skeptical too

 

[Daemon]

Prior to Lillee and Thomson fast bowlers didnt bowl many short pitched balls.
There were exceptions of course but it wasn't a general tactic.

World series cricket really played up this part of the game and the batsmans response to get more PPE.

The sensational nature of televising cricket ince hasnt helped.

Yeah, this theory makes the most sense to me.

Better protection being a response to the increasing threat brought about by more short pitched bowling makes a lot of sense. It's not like the technology didn't exist to create helmets early on.

Even in recent times where arguably the threat of short pitched bowling has reduced, people perceived the threat to be much more real after the Hughes incident, which then brought about various new rules and equipment enhancements.

The other factors like evasive action being entrenched in batsmen from a young age, batsmen playing more on the backfoot etc are probably also factors, but less so imo.

 

[Line and Length]

There used to be the fast bowlers code of ethics - they didn't bowl bouncers at tail enders. When you see thatr batting figures of some of these 'bunnies' you can see there was no need to bounce them out. Nowadays the tail would offer much more resistance if they knew there was no 'chin music' coming their way.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That's the logic, but in the past few series here I've seen the Australian attack go all short against tail-enders who are certainly incapable of keeping out two yorkers even if they somehow block one. A lot of it to me comes across as a a way of asserting themselves against those inequipped for fighting back.

 

[Starfighter]

A few thoughts:

Reports of head and body strikes seem to be quite rare prior to WWI from what I've read. I once saw a list of batsmen who had been hit in Aus vs Eng matches and only post-Great War do strikes on the upper body and head seem to become common. The older ones often mentioned things such as being hit on the thigh, which are just considered part of the game normally. There were plenty of bowlers who were reputed to be very fast like Kortright, Richardson and Lockwood, Knox, Brearley, W.B. Burns and Jones in the period 1890-1914, so I'm surprised there weren't more notable incidents.

One interesting observation I saw made in a pre-1900 cricket book was that the 1860s had the fastest bowling with guys like John Jackson and George Tarrant, who were known to 'bound the ball over the batsmen's head'. Yet W.G. Grace pretty much killed genuine pace bowling until the 1890s, with around 1880 in particular being notorious for the lack of it. To me that indicates that bowlers, even given a generous allowance for the soft spongy pitches weren't bowling 'that' fast (the heavy roller and pitch treatments like lime became very common from the late 1880s. These pitches were considered so batting friendly that the whole fabric of the game was in danger). Keeping back rather than up also become much more common from the 1890s, but not universal to supposedly 'fast' bowlers until post WWI (though I suspect in many instances the keeper wasn't actually as close as reports wold have you believe). The modern pace definitions only really came about in the fifties.

Aside from isolated incidents it seems to me that the 1921 Ashes with Gregory and McDonald was the first time that bowling short and targeting the body was used as a sustained tactic. It's not surprising perhaps that incidents begin to become more common from hereon. It was still fairly rare compared to what came later though. 'Bodyline', Lindwall and Miller in the late 40s and Hall and Griffith in the early-sixties were pairs responsible for particular notable periods of bouncer attacks, but I don't think were as sustained as the 70s. The first cricket helmets with modern materials were actually made in 1965 due to worries the Australians had over Hall and Griffith (the latter in particular as he threw), they were sent to WI but were never actually delivered to the team. Intimidatory bowing as a generalised thing seems to really begin with Lillee and Thomson. Certainly all the cricket I've watched prior to then far fewer bouncers are bowled. Of course they were frowned upon at times too.

I do think there is something to more recent bowlers being faster, but only up to the 70s. The only reliable measurements from prior to the speed gun era are Lillee 148.45, Holding 150.67 - maybe? (the documentary where they actually involved the people who did the measuring back in the 70s said 148-something) Roberts 151.49 and Thomson 160.45. The was an ABC documentary a few years ago that analysed an old film to get 137-147 for Larwood. Most of the errors I can think of would put this as underestimating his pace, but considering he was considered clearly the fastest bowler then I think it's fair to say there were very few genuinely fast bowlers by modern standards. 'Fast-medium' also meant a slower speed, with Bedser being 'fast-medium' in the 40s but the very similar Cartwright being 'medium' in the sixties (Voce was considered fast medium too, though he bowled a lot of bouncers he doesn't look that quick. Of course Neil Wagner shows you don't need to be that quick to short).The modern meaning of fast-medium seems to begin, oddly, sometime in the fifties, though I suspect enough bowlers considered 'fast' unqualified (like Loader) would be FM by today's standards. Heck, I have a suspicion Trueman, Statham and Miller might have been FM by modern standards, at least a lot of the time. My pace estimations of older bowlers have gone down a bit recently.

Another thing is that fast bowlers are taller these days, often around 6'2" or more, whereas I reckon the average was more like 5'10". But I think this is a minor thing, and there's been enough quick and successful bowlers under 6'.

There were definitely more really quick bowlers later on. Prior to WWII domestic teams often only had at most one bowler who would, in my opinion, be a standard modern fast-medium or more (132-136 or faster), and almost never more than two. None was common - even Bangladesh can produce guys who can reach 130 these days. Very quick bowlers were very rare indeed. I think this is partly health/diet related, but also conditions related, with uncovered pitches more exploitable by spinners and mediums (mediums especially pre-1900). When pitches become flatter and harder and the idea of covering began to creep in (including the older era where just the creases and part of the bowler's run were covered) you see more of the modern styles emerging. Post WWII you see two fast-medium plus attacks very commonly, but the modern three pacer attack seems to be a 60-70s onwards thing. If you watch English domestic one day highlights there's still lots of trundlers in the late 70s.

It should be remembered that helmets were introduced due to increasing high-profile incidents and an unprecedented level of dangerous bowling. However I think there was a bit of a 'red-rag-to-a-bull effect' and bowlers took helmets as a carte-blanche to aim at batsmen's heads, whereas in the 60s and before they were looking more specifically at inducing the hook or some other tactical combination, and if the batmen wasn't looking like taking the bait they didn't continue.

I do think there is also a lot to the idea that techniques have changed with helmets, and that this is most of the explanation. Batsmen of course have less fear of being hit when wearing one. The general advice used to be to get right inside the line if hooking, and many batsmen didn't hook against really quick bowling. Now everyone hooks with their head right in line with the ball. However I think the biggest factor is that most batsmen instinctively press forward now and if they misjudge the length will duck blindly rather than sway out of the way. The standard way you see batsmen get hit is that they duck into a ball that is not as short or doesn't rise as high as they anticipated and they get hit on the side of the head, often after an initial forward press and then a blind duck. Prior to helmets most batmen moved back instinctively from what I've seen and the standard of back foot play was way higher. It's really like night and day (especially prior to the 1935-onwards lbw rule that meant batsmen couldn't stand back and cover their stumps anymore), batsmen really got right back and often stood up and swayed or jerked out of the way rather than ducking, which is perhaps why face strikes seem to be more common in comparison to strikes on the side or top of the head than is maybe the case these days.

I might also add. I once read an article which catalogued cricket related deaths. A lot of them were batsmen being hit in the head (followed by fielders the same, then chest impacts). There was actually a spike around the 'Bodyline' era, which may be partly due to more prominent recording but bowling lots of bouncers did apparently become quite popular in general around then. But there have ben very few records deaths in FC cricket regardless of era. It should be remembered that Hughes was struck in a place that had never really been protected (except for the guys who used motorcycle helmets). So deaths have been a thing, just not at very high levels.

 

[Starfighter]

Impressive list starfighter. You sure it’s off the top of your head? I can barely even recall the incidents where I’ve been sconed.

I did have to look up some of the details (like the year) to make the list, and one of the names (Harford, I know the video with Trueman bowling but had to look up the scorecard to remember find out who it was, as there was nothing saying so), and two came to mind while confirming the details of the others.

I actually thought of most of them while in a meeting at work.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Indeed impressive, but my first thought was actually of the esteemed veteran of three tests and former chairman of Cricket Australia Wally Edwards.

The thing about that blow is that—assuming it did actually get his head, it's difficult to tell—because he didn't retire hurt, people probably wouldn't remember it as being notable (he continued this standard of playing bouncers to the next ball shown and the next test as well)

Amarnath also got hit (at 1.10) in 1978 (by Sam Gannon of all people) and apparently did not retire, and Vengsarkar similarly (at 1.34) later that series. That said, those bowlers were only fast-medium. Got to love the bit of commentary in the second video, 'The Indians don't seem to be able to play hook shots.'

 

[Starfighter]

Derek Randall also got hit by Lillee in the centenary test, that was not long before the WSC Amiss incident that saw helmets adopted there while at the same time Yallop starting using one while in the W. Indies, when the danger was becoming increasingly clear. Rick McCosker was hit in the face in the same match. Iqbal Qasim was hit by Bob Willis in 1978. Sandeep Patil was hit by Len Pascoe in 1981 shortly after being hit in the throat by Rodney Hogg.

Although comfortably into the helmet era, when there were less compunctions about doing it because you 'were either being one or should have been' (also all batsmen who would have learned without one) Larry Gomes and Jeff Dujon were both hit by Terry Alderman at Perth in 1984 and Richie Richardson and Gomes by Ashantha de Mel and Rumesh Ratnayake respectively (a spiteful pitch but both proper bouncers) during the WSC, I think the same season. Lance Cairns was struck a very hefty blow by Wasim Akram in 1985, apparently it permanently affected him.

The idea of not bowling short at tail-enders was only carried as far as it needed to be, at least post WWII. Chatfield had stuck around for 94 minutes and 66 balls and Qasim was in as night watchmen (which already implies some level of competence) and had faced 31 balls in 48 minutes in the morning. I've seen Tony Lock, after sticking around a bit, twice receive vicious bouncers, once from Davisdson and an even more difficult one from Griffith. Of course John Snow bowled short at anyone he wanted to.

After helmets any pretence was thrown to the wind except through fear of retaliation. Lawson had no issue bouncing Marshall, and Richard Hadlee even went out of his way to go around the wicket and bowl bouncers at Bob Willis. He of the multiple centuries, batting average 29 apparently objected to receiving some when he was batting. Of course you do get some unedifying spectacles these days, Pat Cummins getting Jake Ball out by bowling four bouncers in a row at him was one of the more objectionable bits of play I've seen, especially as the umpire clearly failed to enforce two-bouncer rule, let alone the intimidatory bowling law.

 

[Line and Length]

I also recall reading how English opener, John Edrich, would take on short pitched deliveries. His theory when hooking was to get directly behind the flight of the ball. A broken nose, on several occasions, bore testimony to that tactic. In one game he was struck in the head by a Peter Pollock delivery and, late in his career he suffered a couple of fractures courtesy of Dennis Lillee.

A bit of a senior's moment there. I confused my Edriches. It was Bill who espoused hooking off his nose. It was John who was struck by Pollock and Lillee.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Read recently that Patrick Patterson got so upset after somebody bowled bouncers at him (I think it may have been Steve Waugh of all people) that he went into the Australian dressing room and threatened to kill everyone (presumably, not in the sense that he'd pick up a bat and beat them to death, but one never can tell). He then bowled us out very cheaply, but he comes across a real tosser in that story, particularly as the West Indians had little compunction about bowling short at anybody and everybody possible.


I think that speaking in general, fast bowlers since the seventies have often had a dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it mentality coinciding with the increased use of bouncers. Speaking frankly, they also come across as not very bright even if promoted as being a smart and thoughtful player (going on McGrath's and Fleming's commentary).

 

[SteveNZ]

eh it's probably true though

It’s 100% true.

How else would you explain it? Luck doesn’t happen over the sample size that he’s talking about. We didn’t have 50+ years of guys being lucky they weren’t killed.

The guys in that era didn’t hook off their noses like they might now. They got inside or outside the line. They probably ducked more. I would be absolutely certain guys get hit more now, because it’s not as life threatening if you are. And I don’t think for a second the speeds were false, plus obviously they were able/were willing to bowl more short stuff. But the fact they were bowling more short stuff meant the batsmen were much more likely to look for it in in the front half of the pitch.

Sorry Flem, unless you’ve got another theory I’m pretty sure that’s it

 

[Starfighter]

Sultan Zarawani is another example of a helmetless strike. He batted on, the idiot.

If you look at the older incidents you can see how ignorant of the risks of concussion and brain damage people were. Patil batted in the second innings at the insistence of Gavaskar, even though he wasn't well. Dujon retired after experiencing blurred vision, but came back and scored a century. Retiring hurt seems to have been rare except where blood was shed or the batsman was really out of sorts.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

On a dangerous wicket at Old Trafford in 1976 Brian Close took four or five bouncers an over from Michael Holding. He had a few bruises to show for it. But his 45 year old reflexes still got his head out of the way. Actually being killed is generally more freakish rather than some sort of implied inevitability.

 

[tony p]

I think helmets have made it more difficult for batsman, because they think they can actually do more when they are batting, and take their eye off the ball.

In the days of batting in caps and being bareheaded, you saw batsman very rarely get hit because they always followed the ball closely, and didn't have the distraction of a helmet or chin guard to interupt their concentration

One of the earliest forms of a helmet was Patsy Hendren of Middlesex, who in 1933 at the age of 44 had his wife make him a three peaked cap, the normal peak of his cap, with the other two peaks hung towards the sides of his head, with sponge rubber lining inside.

After the Bodyline series during the previous winter, he decided to try it out, when he played against The West Indies at Lords, mainly against Constantine & Martindale.
He didn't make many runs, and i don't think he used it again.

 

[the big bambino]

I wonder if helmets, while protecting players, also impedes the batsman's vision and making it a little more likely to be struck by a rising ball?