Paul Lewis: Demand for runs leaves batsmen exposed to increased dangers

Rohit Sharma's record 264 shows how far ODI scoring has come. Photo / AP

The tragedy of Australian batsman Phil Hughes has prompted cries to make cricket safer - some have called for the banning of the bouncer - but generally not from anyone who really understands the game.

Hughes was trying to pull a short ball, a typical attacking shot in these run-hungry days. That's the terrible irony. He was hurt at least partly because one-day cricket (not to mention Twenty/20) has morphed into a game where batsmen have to score quickly just to compete.

In times past, many batsmen would duck the bouncer and wait for a hittable delivery. Now everything has to be attacked. Batsmen are pressured for run rates. They are trained to see the bouncer as a scoring chance. Hughes swung around as he tried to pull the ball on to the legside, exposing the back of his head.

Statistics, anecdotal evidence and players - well, the bowlers anyway - agree; short-form cricket is already geared way too much towards batsmen. The iniquitous influence of T20 cricket, bat technology, batsmen-friendly pitches, the desire of cricket authorities to keep the cash cow of TV ratings high with plenty of boundary action, pressure on batsmen to score quickly, shorter boundaries and, yes, protective helmets like the one Hughes was wearing have all combined to create greater run-scoring with bowlers often little more than glorified bowling machines. The battle between bat and ball has become less a battle and more a battering.

A trawl through Wisden reveals that in the almost-3500 ODIs played among the 10 major test-playing nations since 1971, 55 have innings of 350 or more. Of those, 45 were scored in the last decade and 28 since the brash vulgarism of the Indian Premier League began in 2008. When ODIs began, 250 was considered good, then 300 and now scores of 400 are, if not common, then not unknown.

The latest landmark was Rohit Sharma's scarcely-believable 264 against Sri Lanka this month - he is the first man to score 250 in an ODI. He did it off only 173 balls, with 32 fours and 9 sixes. The pitch held no terrors for the batsmen.

The answer is bringing the bowlers more into the game, although no such thing will likely happen. Cricket authorities prefer the bat-oriented nature of the short forms. It makes a close finish and dramatic TV more likely. Bowlers rattling through a team can seem a bit of a letdown, a procession of inevitability.

Yet not all lower-scoring ODI matches are limp spectacles. Remember Australia's Michael Bevan winning against the West Indies in 1996 after the Aussies were six down for a measly 38? They were chasing only 172 but struck a fierce West Indian attack. Drama aplenty.

There was also the tied World Cup semifinal in 1999. Both South Africa and Australia scored 213 with Shane Warne and Allan Donald, two of the best ever, taking eight wickets between them for a total of 61 runs.

It's hard to criticise the ICC too much for wanting to make their game as attractive as possible to audiences. But what's wrong with allowing fielding sides to set more protective fields for longer periods to increase the risk factor for batsmen? That would lead to smaller totals and less pressure on batsmen to attack bouncers.

Last year, the ICC came up with changes to tip proceedings more towards bowlers. It didn't work. One cut outfielders to four, leaving more gaps for batsmen and making life even tougher for bowlers.

There are recurring murmurs ODIs might be shelved to make way for the form of the game the players rate highest (tests) and the one that earns everyone truckloads of money (T20). Cricket Australia are investigating why only 14,000 people turned up this month to watch Australia beat South Africa in an ODI series - two of the best sides in the world playing to a cavernously barren MCG.

CA argue TV audiences are still high - averaging 1.3 million - and over 500,000 tickets have already been bought for next year's World Cup.

Whatever the reason, the Cricket World Cup to be played here will have a huge effect on the future of ODIs. It would be a shame if the bouncer was further restricted and another bowling weapon blunted, not to mention audience appreciation.

This issue has been around since cricket was invented and certainly since the infamous Bodyline series of the 1930s.

Helmets came into being after explosive Australian batsman David Hookes copped a broken jaw when hit by an Andy Roberts bouncer in 1979. But life contains more dangers than short-pitched bowling. Hookes died in 2004 after being punched in a pub incident. There is no legislating to prevent such things.

But relaxing field restrictions could further reduce the possibility of a freak accident like Hughes' - and maybe help save ODIs.