Mitchell Johnson had just dismissed India's well set opener Murali Vijay and was in the middle of a brilliant spell. Virat Kohli walked in at number 4 and Johnson's first ball to India's captain was a pitch perfect snorter. It reared up at Kohli from well short of a good length and was head for his throat. A brilliant delivery first up. Had Phil Hughes not died, Johnson would probably still have checked on Kohli but the fielders might not have produced the same emphatic display they did here. When was the last time mid-off came to check on a batsman who got hit?
Contrary to what one might imagine, players have never been indifferent to batsmen being hit on the head. I've never seen a batsman get hit on the head (or anywhere higher than the shoulder for that matter) and be met with total indifference from the fielding side. Even in the most cavalier circumstances there's always a bit of eye contact between bowler and batsman.
I don't think Mitchell Johnson's form changed because of the bouncer to Kohli. I think a simpler, more conventional explanation about batting conditions being superb, the wicket easy paced and the ball old, is sufficient. During his recent run of brilliant form, Mitchell Johnson has often bowled indifferent spells. He has also often bowled lethal spells. With his pace, he attacks a lot more than say Ryan Harris or Peter Siddle. As he did against Murali Vijay his short ball - full ball two card trick is superbly executed. It is particularly effective against right handers because his short ball is difficult to evade because of the angle, and his full ball is more effective due to the natural left hander's angle. Australia's struggles came because Peter Siddle, their most important operator, especially on flat wickets, was unwell and far from his metronomic best.
We will soon find out if Hughes has substantially changed the mindset of players about the short ball. If India are fighting to save the Test on the 5th evening, and their tailenders are in, will Mitchell Johnson try to bounce them in a sustained fashion? If the boot is on the other foot, will Varun Aaron try to bounce Ryan Harris or Nathan Lyon? If they do, we can conclude that there is no substantial change in the approach to the bouncer in the game. That this concern is simply a function of how recent the terrible accident involving Hughes has been. It will recede with time.
Should there be a substantial change? I think the bouncer is a legitimate weapon in the game. Against tailenders who are not trying to score, but are simply trying to hold their end up, and are doing so successfully, it is appropriate to use the bouncer as a means of disturbing their equanimity. The bouncer becomes a problem when it becomes part of a tit-for-tat. "I'm going to bounce you simply because you bounced me". That's when it becomes a problem. That's when it becomes a device for intimidation rather than dismissal.
Its understandable that Umpires are that much more vigilant than they might have been earlier. But I wonder if they'll be less patient against intimidatory bowling. That would be welcome real change.
I suspect we won't have to wait long to find out if the game has truly changed.