The Relevance of Helmets in Inter-Generational Comparisons

I thought this was worth its own thread, following from discussion buried in the Lara/Atherton one.

It seems to me that helmets, by and large, have advantaged modern batsmen.

I say "by and large" because there was probably always a small minority of batsmen, even great batsmen, who displayed zero to minimal inconvenience or physical discomposure when confronted by extreme pace, especially of high quality or in favourable conditions.

Helmets, along with the other bodily armor now worn, have essentially removed the former extreme physical vulnerability of batsmen. Of course it must still take a fair bit of nerve to face a fast bowler in favourable conditions, but it seems clear that the physical danger, as opposed to the danger to one's wicket, is now greatly lessened.

In earlier decades one of the acid tests of a batsmen was, indeed, how he faced extreme pace. That test is now considerably muted.

Accordingly I think the point raised by Atherton about Lara is an important one. Atherton wondered how Lara might have fared without a helmet, given that he was hit relatively often.
Before going on, I think Atherton should have made a qualification - all batsmen are now hit far more often than in the past. The protective equipment dulls visceral survival instincts. It no longer matters as much if you're hit, therefore you will be.

Beyond that, however, the question is valid.
How well would Lara, Ponting, Hayden et al have coped in the earlier conditions? And vice versa. Imagine Bradman with decent protective gear. Or Ponsford? The debate could go on...

Some of the very great batsmen had questionable records against extreme pace.
Bradman is the best known. Bodyline supposedly had its origin in Bradman's allegedly fearful performance on a briefly bumping pitch at the Oval in 1930 ["I've got it!", Jardine is supposed to have exclaimed. "He's yellow!"]
Not long after was the match when Eddie Gilbert got him for a duck but supposedly turned Bradman ashen faced in the process.

On each of these occasions a batsman at the other end stayed in line and won great praise. At the Oval, the tragic Archie Jackson, already ailing, made a very stout 70. Against the rampant Gilbert, Stan McCabe made a double hundred which he described as the best innings of his career.

Bradman's great contemporary, Hammond, is another who could falter against pace. More recently Greg Chappell became fallible late in his career. Walters was often a sitting duck. Bevan and Hick also come to mind. Steve Waugh, even with a helmet, had to learn - probably from Bob Simpson - an efficient and consistent method of evasion. Batsmen had to decide whether to hook the short ball, duck, or sway or step out of line. Some were drawn into terrible mid air fends at the ball, both feet off the ground, head turned.

Obviously, comparisons across periods have many perils. This is a significant one which works greatly in favour of modern batsmen. The corollary, of course, is that modern fast bowlers have had an earlier advantage denied to them.

Walters, a sitting duck? The man the Windies feared more than anyone?

tac wrote:Walters, a sitting duck? The man the Windies feared more than anyone?

The same player who would leave his bat periscope-like when ducking bouncers from Snow and Pollock?

Langer would probably be dead without his helmet.

no biggy

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Langer would probably be dead without his helmet.

Without his helmet, he would probably have got out of the way!

We recently spoke of the great innings played by Roy Fredericks against Lillian Thompson in 1975 at the WACA. Usually the first thought I have about that innings these days is the fact that it was played without a helmet on perhaps the fastest deck of all time.

Walters played only nine Tests against the West Indies. In none of them did he face a great West Indian quick at his peak. He fell between the generations.

However Snow often made him look terrible, and he struggled also against Pollock and Procter.

The standard field to Walters in this country seemed to be two slips and two gullies: pitch it up and wait for him to do something silly.

Brilliant everywhere but England.

Whilst I have no doubt that Richards had great co-ordination and skills and relfexes. This allowed him to play without a helmet.

But at the same time, and probably a greater factor in him playing without a protective helmet is his stubborn nature, recklessness, bravado and macho attitude. This doesn not make him a better player.

Basil wrote:The standard field to Walters in this country seemed to be two slips and two gullies: pitch it up and wait for him to do something silly.

Brilliant everywhere but England.

And the wait wasn't too long. Think I remember him averaging something like 7.0 on the 72 tour - the tour where he should have been at his best, added the X factor & delivered the Ashes.

Basil wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Langer would probably be dead without his helmet.

Without his helmet, he would probably have got out of the way!

not bright enough...langer that is...not bas who is, as we all know, on a busted 20 watt bulb

But at the same time, and probably a greater factor in him playing without a protective helmet is his stubborn nature, recklessness, bravado and macho attitude. This doesn not make him a better player.

Wouldn't have hurt with the furry little attractions though!

douggie's perennial failures in england showed that he was not a champ cricketer..champ bloke tho is beyond question.

horace wrote:douggie's perennial failures in england showed that he was not a champ cricketer..champ bloke tho is beyond question.

He's moved beyond that "champion" thing horrie. He's your genuine "legend" & would be top 5 on most 40+ blokes list of "I'd love to get on the piss with .....".

It wasn't Madison county's dreaded 'pace like fiyah' that worried Walters - it was the swinging ball that was standard fare in England. Doubtless he was retained in England in 72 for at least one Test too many but that game was the Headingley debacle - who of those in the touring party who sat that game out would have done better? Watson? Francis (out injured from the last Test but surely ripe for the chop anyway)? Maybe Redpath or Lawry, but of course they were back home in Melbourne. Nice work, selectors - but it was obvious that squad really needed its third keeper and fifth paceman.

He was OK in South Africa in 1970 v Pillock and Prictor where most of his team-mates were bloody awful. In NZ in 1974 he made a ton out of a team total of 220 in two sessions and then NZ batted and lost 8-80 before stumps. That's 18 wickets for 200 runs alongside his century. His technique looked ugly but I suspect a lot of Walters' England problems were mental. Maybe he just didn't like their beer and fags.

Fred Nerk wrote: Maybe he just didn't like their beer and fags.

If Trev is representative, you can hardly blame him.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

horace wrote:douggie's perennial failures in england showed that he was not a champ cricketer..champ bloke tho is beyond question.

He's moved beyond that "champion" thing horrie. He's your genuine "legend" & would be top 5 on most 40+ blokes list of "I'd love to get on the piss with .....".

entirely true...would need more than the 5 L kegette zimmy and zat are fighting over....

btw. wonder if the one has realised that the other has cheated

Back to the topic, sort of.

I played in the late 70's through to the early 90's. My favourites were the hook & pull shots. I trialled all the helmets that were commonly available, but never used one in a match. Why not? I never found one that was "comfortable". I felt I sacrificed too much to warrant protection that I never previously felt I needed. Compromised vision, general equilibrium at the crease and ego.

Trying to steer this back to peter's post. Would I have felt differently and been more "comfortable" if I'd been born 15 years later and grown up wearing one? No doubt. Would it have made a difference to my love of the short ball? No way. Conversely, would a helmet or other gear turn a mouse into a lion? I don't think so. I think that if intrinsically you're scared of being hit you will remain so.

entirely true...would need more than the 5 L kegette zimmy and zat are fighting over....

btw. wonder if the one has realised that the other has cheated

Not sure of the issues here horrie.

Basil wrote:

tac wrote:Walters, a sitting duck? The man the Windies feared more than anyone?

The same player who would leave his bat periscope-like when ducking bouncers from Snow and Pollock?

Does that make him a sitting duck? You're not making sense either, Bas . . .

Mick Sawyer wrote:Back to the topic, sort of.

I played in the late 70's through to the early 90's. My favourites were the hook & pull shots. I trialled all the helmets that were commonly available, but never used one in a match. Why not? I never found one that was "comfortable". I felt I sacrificed too much to warrant protection that I never previously felt I needed. Compromised vision, general equilibrium at the crease and ego.

Trying to steer this back to peter's post. Would I have felt differently and been more "comfortable" if I'd been born 15 years later and grown up wearing one? No doubt. Would it have made a difference to my love of the short ball? No way. Conversely, would a helmet or other gear turn a mouse into a lion? I don't think so. I think that if intrinsically you're scared of being hit you will remain so.

I was not the best player of the hook going, but I could get out of the way of the short ball well enough. Getting hit did not occur to me. If I were to start playing now, then I would probably reach for a helmet - it's probably what you get used to.

Mick Sawyer wrote: I think that if intrinsically you're scared of being hit you will remain so.

Indeed (and I wouldn't imagine copping a Don Nash thunderbolt on the badge would be all the pleasant anyway).

If anything, wearing a helmet just makes the batsman a little more careless. ie if you are hooking without one you get your head inside the line or else make blooody sure you hit the thing

Basil wrote:The standard field to Walters in this country seemed to be two slips and two gullies: pitch it up and wait for him to do something silly.

Brilliant everywhere but England.

Yep, his big back-lift made him susceptible to swing . . . he didn't struggle (more than anyone) against short-pitched bowling . . .

a drink with dougie would need more than the bet zimmi and zat have for a 5 L keg of heineken..

but back on topic...I never used a helmet when batting for simial reasons as you MS..i tried one in the nest a couple of times and felt uncomfortable...around that time a friend was killed batting in a country comp...and he was apparently wearing one...freak accident where a top edged attempted pull hit him on the jugular stopping blood flow