Mark Richardson: The bouncer must be left alone

Fast bowlers, like Mitchell Johnson, love a bouncer. Photo / Getty Images

The day I accepted the bouncer was the day I went from being a flaky tail-ender to beginning my journey to becoming a test batsman.

Accepted is not quite the right term, because I always accepted it was omnipresent in the game. But at the risk of sounding inappropriate in the current emotional environment, the day I headed towards batting success was the day I hardened up.

The confrontation between a batsman and bowlers is as much physical as skill-based. The bowler is looking to confront the batsman physically and, in doing so, mentally intimidate. As a batsman, you are trying to resist and, if good enough, intimidate the bowler into self-doubt.

If you can't suppress the ever-present threat of physical harm, then the bowler will most likely force you into a submissive position at the crease.

At this point, it's not the bouncer that's your issue, it's any ball. That was me during the tail-ender years. I was the scaredy cat. I was the possum trapped in the headlights and I was an easy wicket.

The problem was, everyone knew it, too, and so I got plenty more of the rough stuff as a result. All that changed when I said to myself, "harden up".

From that point, I not only accepted the challenge of fronting up to the bouncer but I also incorporated bouncer avoidance into my training routines.

I never liked being bounced, and I never liked being hurt. And believe me, quicks wanted to hurt you - not seriously hurt you.

A good bouncer that bruises is way more effective in bashing you into submission than wasted effort.

To take this strategic weapon away from the bowlers by banning the bouncer would tip the favour far too far towards the batsman. With the unresponsive nature of cricket wickets nowadays, it's already too far in their favour.

The more docile the surface, the more important the bouncer becomes as a means of forcing batting mistakes and taking wickets. A good bouncer can also make a less-than-express bowler a much more formidable prospect.

Shaun Pollock is one who comes to mind. He was not quick but he was always at you.

From a purely batting perspective, it's not actually the bouncer that is the problem, it's the thought of the bouncer that does the damage.

For spectators, the sight of flying leather and hopping batsmen is exhilarating viewing.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see people getting seriously hurt and what happened to Phillip Hughes is just awful but what people have to accept is that this was such a freak occurrence and serious injury is still so rare that it does not in any way suggest cricket has a problem with the short ball at all.

In fact, if cricket took away the bouncer, then we would have a problem.

It would reduce the spectacle, especially in test cricket which needs to do all it can to re-excite the viewer.

Last year, the sight of Mitchell Johnson charging in, breathing fire and getting right up the Poms was exhilarating and very good for cricket.

So let's mourn the loss of Phillip Hughes but not use it to grandstand unnecessarily.