Those who have seen batsmen felled or a silly mid-on fielder like one of the Hampton brothers as I recall, suffering serious facial injuries when he was hit, will argue for less protection for cricketers. Definitely not after Phillip Hughes' death a year ago.
A few of the famous West Indies batsmen like Viv Richards and Richie Richardson shunned helmets but they were exceptions. Javed Miandad batted without one for some time until he was sconned.
Think of it as wearing a seatbelt. They became mandatory in New Zealand for drivers in 1972, front-seat passengers in 1979 and everyone in the car from 1989. It's automatic now for those with any intelligence isn't it?
Technology has improved too with retractable belts and better material and that is happening with cricket helmets and other safety equipment in the sport. Craniums and many other parts of the body are not designed to bounce back against a 163gm missile which can be delivered at 160kph.
Any batsman who does not wear a box has Alzheimers or a death wish.
It's great batsmen are suiting up with chest protectors, arm guards and double thigh pads which were unheard of 40 years ago. Many elderly cricketers might wish they were around then especially on the dodgy pitches they played on.
Ideas being bandied around at cricket conferences in Adelaide this week about mandatory protection for close-in fielders might be a harder sell. More protection will make some fielders just that little bit more reckless under the lid or close in at silly point.
The ICC is thinking about mandatory helmets for any fielder eight yards from a batsman and perhaps they should also think about a fielder-free zone within two metres of a batsman. Any closer and the conversation or distraction levels will rise while a batsman needs freedom to ply his trade too.
