The Cricket Thread

The return of Australia’s ex-captain and champion batsman Steve Smith to the Ashes arena is imminent.

Levelled by a Jofra Archer bouncer in the second Ashes Test at Lord’s, Smith will face him again at Old Trafford — one of the fastest pitches in England — from tomorrow.

When Smith was struck, the issue of traumatic brain injury and sport collided once more.

It also raised the enduring question of why sports culture at its most masculine celebrates bravery at the expense of good health and even life itself.

It was initially feared that, like his close friend Phillip Hughes, Smith might have suffered a catastrophic injury.

Hughes died after being hit on the neck in a domestic match at the Sydney Cricket Ground in November 2014.

Unfortunately, cricket helmets do not always offer the most effective protection from such injury.

After being medically assessed for concussion, Smith controversially batted later in the first innings, but a delayed onset of symptoms prevented him from playing on the final day.

Under the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) new concussion rule, “like for like” replacement Marnus Labuschagne took Smith’s place in the match.

Labuschagne was also struck in the head by an Archer bouncer but was fortunately not injured.

Smith, though, had to miss the next Test at Headingley five days later under concussion protocols.

The decision to rule him out of this game was, with no hint of irony, described as a “no-brainer” by Australia coach Justin Langer.

Langer himself was in a comparable situation 13 years before when playing for his country.

He insisted on taking to the field after being hit in the head by South Africa’s Makhaya Ntini. Australia captain Ricky Ponting recalled in his autobiography medical advice indicated another blow to Langer’s head at that time might well have been fatal.

Langer, however, felt that to withdraw in such a close game would have let the team down and “had decided that batting was worth the risk”.

Had Langer refused his instruction not to bat again, Ponting would have been prepared to declare the innings, prompting Langer to exclaim, “If you had declared on me, our friendship would have been OVER!”

This reaction reveals the heavy emotional pressure on sportspeople to “take one for the team”.

At first, Smith was widely praised for his bravery in going out to bat again at Lord’s, but brain injury charity Headway called it “incredibly dangerous”.

Its deputy chief executive Luke Griggs was critical of the blasé approach to head injury often adopted in sport, arguing “you have to be overcautious when it comes to any type of concussion”.

Caution in the face of physical harm, though, is not a quality often associated with successful athletes and teams.

Masculinist sport mythology is full of tales of sportsmen who have been celebrated for putting their lives “on the line” for club and country. Australian sport, in particular, has been criticised for heroising athletes who play through injury.

‘TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM’

The close symbolic connection of sport, war and masculinity is frequently evoked, where failure to engage in battle is tantamount to cowardice, irrespective of the potentially dire consequences.

This cultural expectation of athletes, especially in contact sports, to sacrifice their bodies in the pursuit of success involves being taught to disregard physical wellbeing and to normalise pain and injury as part of their sporting experience.

Many athletes even underplay or ignore the seriousness of injuries such as concussion in an effort to honour this heroic sporting narrative.

Where symptoms are vague, making diagnosis difficult, even for medical professionals, sportspeople may be unlikely to report a concussion.

Those who do not play through injury are often stigmatised and vilified for lacking “the right stuff” too.

Medical practitioners in sport may also be complicit in not properly managing injuries, fearing dismissal if they intervene and remove players from the field.

Others have even been abused by coaching staff for prioritising the welfare of injured players.

One positive aspect arising from Smith’s injury is that player welfare was in this case put before success on the pitch.

Without their talisman, and with Ben Stokes’ superhuman efforts, Australia were narrowly beaten in the third Ashes Test.

Yet the decision to prioritise Smith’s health has not been questioned.

Without the concussion rule, though, and with Australia losing wickets on the final day of the second Test, might Smith have gone out to bat to save the test for Australia?

Thankfully, this decision was taken out of the hands of the player and the team immediately surrounding him.

Perhaps there is now greater recognition that sporting success is not more important than the health and welfare of participants and of the wider community.

These are not only questions for elite sport, however.

A few days before Smith’s misfortune, John Williams, an 80-year-old cricket umpire, died “one month after being hit on the head by a ball during an amateur match”.

The concussion substitute rule change is a step in the right direction, but there remains a need to challenge the culture of what is considered “brave” on the sports field.

Continued education on concussion symptom recognition, the (short and long-term) consequences of concussion, as well as concussion management is also needed.

This approach can and perhaps should be extended to other sport-related injuries too.

As a popular form of physical culture claiming to be healthy, sport must systematically manage risk to the body while challenging the heroic myth that turns sportspeople like Steve Smith into crash-test dummies for the pleasure of the viewing public.

twitter.com/tickerscricket/status/1169598064883064834