BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries

Subject: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:45 AM

As a lover of the world's greatest game, I'm very saddened by the death of Phil Hughes, the talented Australian Test Cricketer, following a head/neck-strike from a cricket ball. I'm sure that sport-lovers everywhere would wish to send their heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of this fine young sportsman.

Injuries suffered by sportsmen at any level in pursuance of the game they love and excel at are always sad, but this incident is especially poignant as the equipment designed to protect the batsman seems to have failed to do so effectively on this occasion.

Geoffrey Boycott, the ex-England and Yorkshire batsman has, in the past, expressed a belief that the modern-day use of helmets by batsmen has made the game more dangerous. His argument is that whereas, in the past when batsmen played without head-protection, they watched the ball carefully all the way in order to ensure their head was out of the track of the ball, nowadays when they wear helmets, they turn away from the ball and/or duck - thus they have no idea where the ball is going, and the chance of being struck is that much greater.

There are bound to be calls for improvements to head/neck protection for batsmen following Phil Hughes' tragic death, and that may well be something that's needed, but I'm inclined to believe that Geoffrey Boycott has a very good point and that better training of young batsmen is needed - to face the high ball, watch it closely, and not to turn away or duck.

I havent prefixed this thread as an obituary, as well as expressions of sympathy I'm hoping for a civil discussion of the issues this tragedy raises for the game. Please, guys, be respectful, no flaming, no trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 03:23 AM

Awful and tragic. The argument for and against helmets has been raging for a long time. On balance, they must have resulted in less injuries. It just doesn't seem logical otherwise.

Boycott may have a point, but whether that point is an argument for turning a freak accident to a systemic concern is another matter. When he played, nobody aimed a ball at silly mid on (for example) to intimidate them, largely because of possible injury. The game has become more competitive since then. Balls are faster as fitness and technique has improved. I used to be a regular at Worksop's annual Notts V Yorkshire as a lad and seeing players smoking and drinking pints waiting to bat?

We didn't need a third umpire when a batsman walked. The batsman knew better than anyone whether ball or pad had a nick, and we relied on sportsmanship. Now, they stand there till ordered out. Yeah, some didn't play fair but they were rare. It is visibly more competitive now. Go back before our time and when Larwood & co used the body line, there was a diplomatic breakdown with questions in both parliaments!

Helmets are here to stay, regardless. Boycott may be making a valid point but the odds of this being a problem for the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 03:32 AM

I concur re: helmets are here to stay, and I should have made it clear in the OP. But I have to agree with Boyks, that the best way to avoid being hit is to know where the ball is. I guess I'm saying that improved headgear plus training to face the ball might be the way to go.

You're right about the modern game v. The 'old days', but that's pretty much the same throughout sport - the unfortunate effect of money, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

The injury he suffered is exceptionally rare. I feel terribly sorry for the guy who bowled the ball as well as for the family of the dead man. Not a great time to be fretting about helmet design or batting technique, I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:03 AM

I dunno. the 22 yards was decided on in the 18th century when people were about 5 foot 2 inches. nowadays people are about a foot taller, and they get classes on how to to chuck the ball as hard as possible.

I remember Frances Edmunds describing Jeff Thompson's delivery as homicidal.

an accident that was bound to happen. strange it doesn't happen quite regularly.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:06 AM

If anyone wishes to open an obituary thread, they're welcome to do so, and with my blessing Steve. But that's not the purpose for which I started this one - quite clearly stated in my OP.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

How does a ball aimed at wickets 28 inches high hit a batsman getting on for six feet high? Assuming the ball is aimed at the wickets.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:34 AM

What has your question to do with cricket? Do you think every ball is aimed at the wicket?

Honestly, people will be calling 20/20 a game of cricket next..

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 08:14 AM

In fact, McG, probably the majority of balls aren't aimed at the stumps. There are more ways to get a batsman out than by hitting the stumps!

Some bouncers are unfortunate accidents due to pitch conditions, ball out of shape, etc., but most are deliberately bowled, either as a temptation to the batsman to make a bad shot, or in an effort to intimidate him.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 08:52 AM

""In an attempt to intimidate him"

Going for the man not the ball, as they say in regard to football. A clear foul.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 09:13 AM

I'm not clear as to what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I made the point that this kind of injury is exceptionally rare. As I understand it, it's happened just once before in the history of cricket and is very rare outside cricket. I don't mind discussing the whys and wherefores of helmets and technique, etc., and I'm sure helmets have prevented many other kinds of injuries, but that topic seems almost irrelevant here. Incidentally, expressing sorrow at his death and wishing commiserations for his family and the bowler in no way add up to an obituary. I'm expressing my opinion, just the same as other people. Incidentally, there are strict rules about bouncers. In most forms of cricket, one per over is the limit. Fast bowlers are generally supposed to refrain from using bouncers against lower-order batsmen, but this is a gentlemen's agreement that is frequently breached.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 09:46 AM

Well, I guess the topic of helmets is only irrelevant if you don't believe that their use has changed batsmen's tactics in the face of hostile, head-high bowling. Geoffrey Boycott does, and I agree with him.

In this tragic case,the helmet worn by Phil Hughes didn't protect him because he was struck below it, on the neck. However, he does appear to have turned away and taken his eye off the approaching ball - the very practice by batsmen that Boycott has expressed concern over.

The 'old-timers' would always watch the ball all the way through because they couldn't risk a strike to the (unprotected) head, but modern players seem prepared to take their eyes off the ball because being hit on the helmet, whilst unpleasant, is considerably less likely to cause serious injury than a strike on an unprotected head, and is somehow "acceptable".

This is in no way a criticism of Phil Hughes, and absolutely not intended to suggest that what he did makes him in any way to blame for the injury that subsequently took his life, but it does seem to me that coaching staff possibly need to reinforce the need for batsmen to watch the ball no matter what its flight, and to stress that a helmet, whilst an important part of a batsman's equipment, doesn't make them invincible.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 11:15 AM

Mr McGrath has a point, if the blow was deliberate, or meant to intimidate, are the consequences criminal?

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 11:36 AM

The ball is aimed down the crease towards the wicket. Hitting the wicket is one way of getting someone out, (as is the related LBW.) Another legitimate way is being caught out. Aiming the ball wide to tease them into slogging it or bowling a bouncer to get them to hook it are all legitimate tactics. The rules refer. (Including the number of bouncers allowed per over.)

This was a rare one off. Death from a blow to the head would have been a rare one off before helmets too. Boycott is right in one sense though, as in most sports, protection can lead to complacency. Ask any racing driver. The only sport where helmets are consistently seen to be a problem rather than a protection is boxing. Amateurs have to wear helmets and professionals do in training. Medical research over the years has been consistent in saying helmets spread the blow, making the brain move around the skull. In fact, from a brain injury perspective, bare knuckle boxing would be the safest form of the sport..

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 11:38 AM

Hi

Devastated to hear of the fatal injury to Phil Hughes.

Obviously I feel for his relatives and friends.

Steve has a point that we should feel sorrow for the bowler. He must be devastated too.

There will be an inquiry and the helmets/protection will be investigated.

The references to cricket in the old days brings this memory to me.

When we played we had no protection other than leg pads. For the less well off of us, that meant wearing pads supplied by club/school. Some of which were so well worn that they offered no protection at all.

Most players then didn't even wear a box. I remember when I bought my first box - Litesome Support. I was an opening bat and mainly faced fast bowling so I deemed it necessary. One day I was inserting the plastic cup into the "jock-strap" when a young teammate saw me and said "do you always wear that when you bat?"

I answered "of course ". And I added " and I wear it when I field ( I used to field close to the bat) and what's more I wear when I'm having my tea". !!!!!!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 12:41 PM

Ah yes, Mike, 'Box' stories are legion!

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 12:49 PM

Should the deliberate bowling of "bouncers" be banned?

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 01:04 PM

That's a bit like saying, "Should boxers be banned from punching one another?", Ake.
To remove bouncers from Cricket would seriously hamper a fast bowler, and emasculate the game, IMHO. They sare already subject to umpire-control, and I feel that's about right. However, I believe there needs to be a change of emphasis in the coaching of players in avoidance techniques.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 01:19 PM

As an addendum, I'd say that all sports are inherently risky, to a greater or lesser extent, and no amount of rule-changing, equipment re-designing or training/coaching will ever completely remove the risk of serious, even fatal, injury. But a combination of those things might possibly reduce the risk to an absolute minimum, and prevent this kind of 'freak' incident from happening.

Players know and accept the risks, but that's no reason not to analyse the circumstances of each and every incident which leads to serious injury or death, and devise appropriate methods to, hopefully, prevent them from happening again.

I'm very pleased indeed to see that the Cricket world is rallying around both the family of Phil Hughes, and also Sean Abbot, the bowler involved. His must be a dreadful burden.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 01:50 PM

LARWOOD did not use body line, larwood used leg theory, he bowled very fast at the stumps.
injuries are rare, i can think of one instance in the sixties CTM PUGH gloucstershire captain was hit by a beamer not a bouncer, in the days before helm ets.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:03 PM

it is worth reading Larwoods biography, to undertstand what leg theory was about. condolences to phil hughes family.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:03 PM

Leg theory was a form of body line and the whole England bowling section of that squad was named by the press as "body line boys." All sanitised ways of saying "intimidate the batsman." In all, sport but sporting?   

Yes, we can all speak of times past. I recall Mike Gatting doing an impression of a panda for a couple of months after getting one in the face. I bet most of us, me included has had decent bruises. Sport in itself can be dangerous for those involved. At least we choose. Horses being put down after trying Beeches Brook or greyhounds being treated as per the disturbing documentary on the BBC recently.. We at least choose to participate in sport.

This is an unfortunate one off, devastating for those involved and sobering for we cricket fans.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:09 PM

i think from the contributions here - you can see that outsiders don;t understand cricket. i think at very least, this incident should be examined in detail. if there is any change to the rules that could have avoided this happening, they should surely make those changes.

i remember when Mike Gatting got his face knocked around by the relentless pace attack that seemed to give West Indian teams of that era so many victories.

the cricket matches of that era were ugly affairs, with the bowlers taking long run ups. the slowest over rate on record.the crowds yelling wind up chants as the bowler raced in, the air of fear - the air of hopeless defeat that the other team had.

its so easy for the fast bowler driven game to be orgies of intimidation. Compare and contrast with the the silence and respect that Shane Warne's bowling commanded.

for my own part , i think theres something about the fast bowler game that stinks. it needs looking at.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:39 PM

Hi

Musket, <" I bet most of us, me included has had decent bruises. ">

Not half...I got one when batting against a particularly quick bowler.

It was in an evening game and the club we were playing ( in a Yorkshire League) had only one sight-screen. This was at the end with no screen and the guy bowled me a beamer that came right out of the sun and hit me without bouncing in the solar plexus. Ouch !!!!

The next few days I had a perfectly circular colourful bruise on which you could clearly see every stitch from the seam of the ball.

Got plenty a rugby too but that's another story.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:44 PM

It isn't only bowler to batsman that can cause injuries. I still remember, at the age of 9 in 1941, getting hit on the head by a pull from a batsman as I fielded at square leg. It knocked me over, and I think I was 'out' for a few seconds. Obviously I wasn't killed; but an inch or two to one side, if it had caught me on temple and not just on forehead, & I might well have been.

Not all accidents can be obviated entirely. Foul luck can strike at any time. A friend of mine once tripped over a footstool and caught his head on the corner of a low table; and was in hospital for days.

I am as distressed by this horrifying incident as anyone can be. But it was surely a most unfortunate one-off accident, for which nobody and nothing was really to blame.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:59 PM

Hi Al

I agree with some of what you say about the dangerous nature of fast bowling. However I watched many of the tests and County games of the West Indies in the seventies & eighties and wondered at the sight of the likes of Joel Garner, Michael Holding and Andy Roberts.

Garner's height of 6ft 8ins made him a deadly bowler at times. But I never felt that he bowled deliberately at the batsmen.

We had Colin Croft ,another tall West India, at Lancashire and Crofty did bowl frighten the batsmen out.

I was down in Paignton in Devon in July and I met Glen Mcgrath's father-in-law and we had many discussions on fast bowling. McGrath was a very successful World Class bowler. He bowled less fast that the West Indians but much more accurately and whilst intimidating was not dangerous.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 03:29 PM

There might be a case if the Ozzies were using parabellum balls...

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:11 PM

to know more about larwood who was an excellent and very fast bowler read his biography, he did not need to bowl leg theory to take wickets, but was told to bowl leg theory so did what he was toldleg theory was not about injuring batsmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:29 PM

I find it very difficult to believe that any bowler sets out to bowl with the express intention of hitting and injuring a batsman, even in today's highly (some might say excessively) competitive game. But they do, without doubt, bowl to intimidate and unsettle batsmen with the aim of making them make mistakes, and give away their wickets.

Batsmen know this and, if they wish to make anything of a career in the game, accept the occasional knocks as 'going with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:04 PM

Joel Garner was probably one of the nicest cricketers you could meet. OK, the ball was possibly 10' in the air as it left his hand, causing Clive Lloyd to note that he could bowl a Yorker and bouncer at the same time almost. But his delivery was never cynical.

When Somerset came and played Notts at Worksop, we joked that he would have to begin his run in the bus station.

Intimidating bowling is not harmful intent any more than crowding the goalkeeper from a corner.

Sean Abbott doesn't deserve such speculation for that matter.

What makes this debatable for distant onlookers is the rarity and bad luck, not any " it's a wonder it never happens all the time,"

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:13 PM

Quite so.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:51 PM

Its a pussies game really.....you Sassenachs should come to Scotland and try a real game....of shinty.
The caman is used for defence as well as striking the ball, as a young man I played for my village without helmets or padding of any kind.....we all soon learned how to keep our bones intact/

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 09:18 PM

think about that - 6 foot eight guy bowling 22 yards.

if you look at pictures of the time when 22 yards was decided - the pitch looks massive.

the truth is that this has evolved into a very dangerous game, the way it is practised at professional level.
for me, i admit, its part of the attraction of the game. but the least we can do - now that someone has got killed. is examine our motives and consciences, and above all make sure the game is safe as possible.

Boycott is wrong. the helmets are necessary. in a long innings - the sort of prolonged feat of concentration is unfeasible when one side plays four fast bowlers, as has happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 01:41 AM

Al, Boycott isn't suggesting taking helmets away - he's absolutely in favour of them. He's suggesting that batsmen need to be coached to face and watch the ball through its whole flight, even when wearing a helmet, rather than turn their back on the ball, which is the practice that's grown up since the introduction of helmets.

The value of helmets is in no doubt by anyone, only an idiot would demand they be abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:32 AM

well, its the same point really when you think.....there seems to be a casual acceptance of glancing blows on the helmet. glancing blows that would be unthinkable without the helmet. if Boycott were correct that the batsman could avoid the ball if he concentrated enough....well honestly, do you buy it? isn't it just old big head doing what he does best - talk bollocks.....(length and line etc!)

sports injuries are inevitable. i was once sitting next in a hospital waiting room with this bloke with a sort of cage on his head....from playing squash.

i like cricket. but sometimes its a guilty pleasure. theres a young man lying dead. shouldn't we accept we've been enjoying young men flirting with danger. the white flannels and the tags of gentlemanly behaviour dress it up, but perhaps time for a rethink.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:58 AM

Hi Al

It was a freak accident just like the recent F1 accident crash that severely injured Jules Bianci.

Like F1 cricket is extremely safety concious but as sportsmen and athletes continually push the barriers in the quest for excellency there is always a risk.

Michael is right, fielders are also liable to be hit and injured.
My son who played until recently, was a great close fielder and always stood close to the bat. He used a helmet and shin pads of course but he suffered many bruises & received far more injuries ( thankfully non serious) than he ever did as an opening batsmen.But that dowsn't mean I am not disturbed and saddened by the terrible accident to Phil Hughes.

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 07:49 AM

{{sigh}}

No Al, he's not suggesting that watching the ball would always prevent a batsman being hit, he's saying that watching the ball would make a head-strike less likely than it would be if the batsman turned away and took his eye off the ball.

We're discussing small measures here that, taken together, might possibly make a potentially dangerous situation less so. AFAIC, any measure that has that effect is worth taking.

FWIW, I'm not a Boycott-lover either, I always thought him a selfish batsman and I was one of the crowd at Trent Bridge baying for his blood when he got Derek Randall run out against the Aussies (I knew Derek and worked with his dad, Fred when they were at Jenkins in Retford). But he knows about the technicalities and best practices of good batsmanship and, in this instance, I think he's talking sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:03 AM

Mr Randall, probably England's only ever specialist out fielder... He did a number of appearances, interviews etc for our hospital radio. Good man.

I was there too. Missed the run out though. The queue for beer in Trent Bridge Inn was rather long. Still, got back to my seat in time to jeer the sod. (Vague memories to be fair, I think it was the run out. He used to do it a lot with most night watchmen too, to get a decent batting partner in. See a certain Mr Underwood for details.)

Oy Al. It's line and length, not length and line. Not so much bollocks as job description for a seam bowler.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 01:17 PM

all the really good hookers of bouncers never took their eye off the ball, David Steele the bespectacled northants batsmen was a superb hooker of bouncers

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:10 PM

What happened here, though, has very little to do with a helmet: it is impossible to design one which both protects the head completely and does not limit the batsman's mobility. This ball went behind the helmet, finding a gap in the armour offered by the body and the helmet.
The result was something those of us who played before all this armour became commonplace were quite familiar with: you never turned your back on the ball, because it could still hit you and you needed to be able to watch it to see what it was doing. And since you were watching it, you might as well do so positively, by punishing that kind of gift, which wasn't threatening your wicket in any way, by using its speed to help it on its way handsomely. That seems to have been forgotten, and if you forget a lesson learned the hard way, you're condemning yourself to relearn it just as hard. Which I think is what just happened.

I said at the start of this posting it has very little to do with a helmet. That means to say it does not have nothing at all to do with it, there is a slight question in my mind whether batsmen have started turning their backs to aggressive bowling. It's of a piece with Boycott's frustratingly cautious batting, which has disappeared with the shorter forms of game. Has the helmet gone too far? Should they be limited, and bouncers correspondingly? It would encourage facing the ball. Why? Because as of a day ago, one bowler is bitterly regretting the bouncer he bowled, and that's one bowler too many. However much he is backed with the reassurances of his colleagues, every evening he faces himself in the mirror knowing that without intending to, he killed. It is a reality which can never go away, and that must colour the use of the tactic for the foreseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:14 PM

As I understand it, Phil was going for a shot when he was struck.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

Hi

I go along with BWM - Boycott played for Boycott first and foremost. He was a very good opener with very sound technique and immense patience and concentration. He may have a point about batsmen taking more time to practice watching the ball on to the bat though.
Not one of the world's nice guys though.

I loved watching Derek Randall (Arkle as he was called). He was a great fielder and was probably the first player to play to the crowd with his enjoyable comic antics. No mean batsman either.

I met him and most of the England test team when we were playing at the Ashley Hotel in Hale. I didn't know that the England team were staying there whilst playing in the Old Trafford Test.

IMHO one of the best fielders in the World along with Colin Bland and Jonty Rhodes.

Derek came down to watch us and invited us up to the lounge where the rest of the team were. They asked for a sing song so we obliged.

They kept us well oiled with ale and we had a great time.


Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:39 PM

David Steele.. That takes me back. A Derbyshire lad brought up over the border in Notts, I had split loyalties. His spirit was as steel as his hair!

You recall Northants, I have fond memories of his short but sweet time in Derbyshire.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:28 PM

He was a great fielder and was probably the first player to play to the crowd with his enjoyable comic antics"
come come, have you not heard of the antics of the great bomber wells, gloucstershire and nottingham, an entertainer of the finest calibre.If someone asks you what would you do if you are drinking tea leisurely on the boundary whilst fielding (absurd?), you'd probably say that you wouldn't be drinking some at all; even if you are, you'd leave everything and go for the catch. Not if you are Bryan Douglas Wells, though. He donned the hat of the Great Circus juggler and took the catch one handed, perfectly balancing his tea cup with the other. One doesn't know if he took a sip of tea when the ball was mid-air, but what's the harm in thinking he did?

This hardly seemed an oddity for man who would bowl without a run-up, never take a run if the ball hit the edge of the bat and for whom bowling from a longer run-up meant bowling from 27 or 28 yards instead of 22.
Wells and running between the wickets

"Bomber" Wells (as he was popularly known), a spin bowler and a great character, played for Gloucestershire and Nottinghamshire. He used to bat at No. 11 since one couldn't bat any lower. Of him, they used to paraphrase Denis Compton's famous words describing an equally inept runner: "When he shouts 'yes' for a run, it is merely the basis for further negotiations!"

Incidentally, Compton was no better. John Warr said, of Compton, "He was the only person who would call you for a run and wish you luck at the same time!"
Anyway, when Wells played for Gloucs, he had an equally horrendous runner as a No. 10. During a county match, horror of horrors…….both got injured. Both had opted for runners when it was their turn to bat. Bomber played a ball on the off and called for a run; forgetting that he had a runner, he started running himself. Ditto at the other end. In the melee, someone decided that a second run was on. Now we had all four running.

Due to the confusion and constant shouts of "yes" and "no", eventually, all of them ran to the same end. At this point in time, the entire ground was rolling on the floor in laughter. One of the fielders stopped laughing for a minute, picked the ball and threw down the wicket at the other end. Umpire Alec Skelding, looking very seriously at the four, calmly informed them: "One of you buggers is out. I don't know which. You decide yourself and inform the bloody scorers!"

This is how an incident involving Wells is described in "From the Pavilion End" by Harold "Dickie" Bird. Not surprising for those who know him, for he felt that running in cricket should be dispensed with, be it batting, bowling or fielding.

Perhaps, the two most famous incidents that took place whilst he was batting (read running) were with Sam Cook. In one case, Wells' partner was left stranded mid-pitch. "Can't you say anything?" Cook cried. Pat came the reply, "Goodbye". In another, similar, exchange, Cook cried out, "For God's sake, call!", to which Bomber exclaimed "Heads!"

Another anecdote regarding his running is recalled by Stephen Bates:

"On one occasion, I had scored about 40 when he strolled to the wicket as last man in. If not winning the match, we were certainly saving it. I immediately hit a ball to midwicket for an easy single, called for the run and found myself at the bowler's end, with Bomber waiting for me. "Oi'm not runnin' for that," he said. "'He's done you in the flight." I nearly got back to the other end before being run out." (Wells doesn't run when he thinks that the opposition bowler has got the better of the batsman: edged, deceived and beaten types.)
Run-up isn't Wells way

Overweight and under-trained, Bomber Wells hardly looked like a professional sportsman. This unathletic impression was confirmed by his bowling run-up, or rather his lack of run-up. As he himself explained, he took two steps when he was cold and one when he was hot; sometimes, he simply delivered the ball from a stationary position.

Once, in an arrangement with batsman Roly Jenkins, he managed to bowl an over while the cathedral clock struck twelve, in approximately 34 seconds, which still remains the fastest over bowled in first-class cricket. His captain Sir Derrick Bailey was certainly not pleased. Legend has it the following conversation ensued:

Sir Derrick: "What do you reckon you're doing?"

Bomber: "Not a lot, I'd say."

"You're making the game look silly."

"I'm not. That's what I normally do."

"I want you to go back ten yards. Come in from further back."

You simply do not provoke guys like Bomber. He went back ten paces and, instead of running to the crease, quietly took a step and bowled a ball from 30 yards away. Those who watched it swore that it landed on the perfect length, and apparently forward short-leg rolled on the floor laughing.

"Sir Derrick went berserk," Bomber recalled with satisfaction. "He dropped me for two matches, but it was worth it."

This obviously meant that very often the batsmen were not ready when he came in to bowl. The most famous of these instances was before Bomber made his debut for Gloucestershire. Playing for the Nondescripts, against Witney, he bowled out a batsman named Len Hemming, who was then called back for not being ready. Wells promptly bowled him again next ball, and Hemming was heard as saying, "If you think I'm staying here for him to get his bloody hat-trick, you've got another think coming."

Years later, Hemming was asked about this story. "I've no recollection of it at all," he said, "but I'm all in favour of it."

Another incident was when he was playing against Essex in the county championship, Wells encountered a young amateur who stepped away from the crease whenever he began to bowl. So, in Bomber's own words, "I ran all the way round the square, past mid-on, square leg, behind the 'keeper, back to mid-off, and I shouted, 'Are you ready now?' And I bowled him first ball."
Landmarks? What landmarks?

Being the man he was, it was no surprise when he rejected an offer to play against Gloucestershire to complete 1000 international first class wickets, finishing with what he then thought were 999 first-class wickets, that being his final action in cricket. Plenty of people have got a thousand wickets," he reflected, "I bet no one's got 999." Later, however, it was unfortunately discovered that his tally ended at 998 at 24.26 apiece.

His attitude to batting never changed. He had one shot: the slog. "If I hit the ball," Bomber explained, "it went a long way and the crowd and I were happy. If I missed it, well, I was that much nearer bowling." His career batting average was 7.47; he did, however, once hit a hundred in 35 minutes when playing for Stinchcombe.

All these stories, based in the 1950s and 60s, may have tonnes of variations, some may be exaggerated, some untrue, but you undoubtedly get the sense of an eccentric cricketer who played the game for the sheer enjoyment of it. He met his demise on June 19, 2008, and is survived by his second wife. He was on a wheelchair after an attack in 1998, but he did not let that dampen his spirits. Michael Parkinson once said of him that there was 'a summer's day in his face and laughter in his soul', which aptly sums up one of the most entertaining first-class career

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 06:22 PM

perhaps he had got a free biro from sun life....

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 04:32 PM

Poor bowler too

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 04:49 PM

who was a poor bowler? do you mean Wells was a poor bowler?how come he got 998 wickets?

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:04 PM

Inappropriate silliness, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: bubblyrat
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 12:22 PM

And yesterday a Jewish umpire in Israel died after a ball rebounded off a stump and struck his head.

Subject: RE: BS: Australian Cricketer Dies From Injuries
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 01:32 PM

All of GSS's posting was copied from this - http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/bomber-wells-bryan-douglas-wells-england-eccentric-cricketer - without accreditation.

Why is this buffoon allowed to sully every thread to which he 'contributes'?