Fitness for cricket and bowlers breaking down

[golions]

All these young bowlers breaking down has got me thinking.

Is there too much focus on "general fitness" (gym/bodybuilding type) in cricket these days? should the focus be more on "cricket fitness"? and could it be contributing to bowlers breaking down?

By "general fitness" I mean lots of time in the gym, trying to build up overall strength, keep a low bodyfat, etc. This has become a bit of fad in today's society, with sportsmen wanting to look good on TV etc as well. Whereas in the days of Boonie, Tubby, etc and before, they wouldn't have cared what they look like as long as they could see out 5 days of a test match.

Maybe the muscular, aesthetic, AFL player look isn't suited to cricket?

Let me illustrate with an example:

Shane Watson is pretty ripped and he looks like a fitness machine (used to train with Rugby teams in the offseason IIRC). But yet he keeps breaking down.

Compare him to Jacques Kallis. Kallis has always been looked like he was carrying a bit of extraweight and sometimes you wonder if he has enough energy to get 6 deliveries in an over in. He's never been at the pinnacle of athleticism, but he has lasted a ridiculously long time for an allrounder. Sure he has broken down a couple of times, but probably less than Watson over a longer career.

Thoughts? Should cricketers be getting more of their conditioning through match fitness rather than spending time in the gym? Obviously a degree of gym fitness and strengthening is required (especially bowlers) to build up strength to support their actions, but is it being overdone?

 

[The Passenger]

Fast bowling is hard work. It's one of the more high impact sporting activities going around.
- Unnatural position to put your body in.
- A huge force coming down on your front leg
- A sport often played in searing heat so fatigue is high and a bowlers form (action) can fall away
- T20 cricket has led to a lot of one over spells where bowlers are on then off in very quick fashion getting no rythym

Combine all that together and it's not surprising quick bowlers spend a lot of time in rehab.

But it does seem they aren't spending enough time actually bowling, even in the nets you need to gradually get your work load up. The science that were currently peddling is that we need to limit the amount of bowling they do.

I can understand that, but where it falls down is that in the heat of a first class game or a test match, you can't limit the amount of bowling a guy does. If you can't get the opposition out, you have to keep bowling. And if you've been limiting the amount of bowling a guy has done in the nets, then he's going to get taken to breaking point out in the middle. And this is even worse, cause unlike a net session where you can gradually build up the overs, or give the guy a rest, some water, or whatever when they start to fatigue. This is not always possible in a game. not too mention if they are desperate to get wickets they might change their action slightly to try and get some variation which is about the worst thing you'd want a fatigued young quick bowler to do.

The other thing is hurting them is because they are playing all year round they don't really get a proper pre-season. somewhere along the line they might get two months off (and that sort of length break is getting rarer and rarer), so they'll spend the first ~3 weeks resting, then get in a ~5 week pre-season which just isn't enough in my books. Amateur footballers the country over will get a longer pre-season. After a tough summer season, I would think ideally you'd get a 4-6 week rest, with an 8-10 week pre-season leading either into an Ashes tour (post summer tour finishing late February as is happening this year), or into a pre-summer tour (post summer tour finishing late april). This is where the IPL is causing some headaches because that's probably right in the gap where players could take a rest.

one thing i'd introduce into player contracts, and it would be a tough sell to the cricketer's association (and possibly even illegal, i have no idea) but worth investigating, is playing in the IPL is fine. BUT if you get injured during the tournament, you'll have half the value of your IPL contract deducted from you state/australian contract for the following season. If you get injured in the tournament and aren't back playing by December 31, you'll have the full value deducted from your state/australian contract. if the amount deducted is greater than your contract, then the contract is terminated and the only way you get it back is by playing the minimum amount of games that non contracted players are required to play to get a contract (which i think is 3 tests or 10 odi's - not sure about state players but there would be something similar)

i haven't thought that one through entirely and it was something we threw up around the dinner table over the weekend.

I also don't think these meaningless one day tours, where the guys go England or wherever 5 ODI's and 2T20's in the middle of June help the situation either. That should be right in the middle of their recovery time. Whilst I think there is way too much cricket being played and it's to the detriment of the game, but if they are determined to get this much cricket in, I think they'd be better of packing into a 8-9 month schedule with a proper off season, rather than the current scheduling method which seems to stretch it out over the entire year with a couple of month long breaks interspersed over the year.

getting back to addressing more closer to the op is talking about and you look at shane watson and he has about the worst body shape you could imagine for a quick bowler. big through the chest and upper body, and unlike a guy like merv hughes who was pretty solid up top, watto doesn't look as solid through the ass and legs, although solidity in a body area doesn't always equate to strength. but one would think if watson dropped off the bulk from his upper body it would surely have to help with his injury run. i can't see how it could hurt anyway.

you're ideal quick bowler should be strong and big through the ass and thighs, not too much muscle through the upper body, particularly the heavy chest region, though a good strong back, particularly lower, would be good.

i've got no problems with them doing gym work, but i think it should be primarily focussed on legs and back, and not so much through the upper body chest and shoulders.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There's no substitute for match conditioning. Too much off-field work, and not enough bowling in the middle.

 

[Black Diamond]

Could part of it go back to juniors where bowlers are limited to 4 over spells and 10 for the innings, and batsmen have to retire after 60 balls? That is what Pattinson, Cummings and Starc grew up with.

 

[Black Diamond]

There's no substitute for match conditioning. Too much off-field work, and not enough bowling in the middle.

Definitely. People have forgotten the likes of Dennis Lillee would play ever single game of the year, and that meant playing for WA every single time he was available. Sure, he had a bad injury, but every elite sportsman has to deal with that at least once in their career.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It could've been someone else but I'm pretty sure it was Bradman that said if he wanted to improve his fitness he would run between wickets, rather than going out and running laps or time trials.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Could part of it go back to juniors where bowlers are limited to 4 over spells and 10 for the innings, and batsmen have to retire after 60 balls? That is what Pattinson, Cummings and Starc grew up with.

Yes, although I wonder more about the transition. There probably is a place for limits in junior cricket, but it may need to be staged better. These guys go straight from under 19s to First Class, or from Futures (where there are also limits on bowlers, even in multi-day games) to First Class. I'm not sure about grade cricket across all states, and what provisions may apply there.

They step into unprotected four day cricket, from often highly restricted lower forms. The higher demands are in place both in quality and quantity at the same time. I can't help feeling this step up is the problem child, and that the levels just before First Class cricket may need the workload restrictions loosened, or perhaps removed.

 

[The Passenger]

re the bowling limits, theres a lot of merit in them but they definitely need a bit of tweaking. your daily limits were always about 2.5 times your spell limits.

so for instance, u/17 was (going off memory) 18 overs daily, 8 in a spell. u/16 was 16 overs daily, 6 in a spell.

i would much rather those be 18 overs daily, 9 in a spell. u/16 16 overs daily, 8 in a spell. i'd much rather see them bowl when they're work and only have 2 spells in a day rather than 3 or 4 spells, where they getting warm then cooling down then having to get warm again etc,.

also, they need to change the grade cricket limits.

whilst i don't think first grade and second grade should be unlimited for under 17 and under 19 bowlers, they should be able to bowl more than their under 17 and under 19 counterparts who in 3rd grade and lower.

the limits when i was playing were something like
under 17 - 8 spell, 18 daily (should be 9 spell)
under 19 - 8 spell, 20 daily (should be 10 in a spell)

i think for first and second graders should be
under 17, 2nd grade - 10 spell, 20 daily
under 17, 1st grade - 11 spell, 22 daily
under 19, 2nd grade - 12 spell, 22 daily
under 19, 1st grade - 12 spell, 24 daily

futures and 2nd XI cricket the same deal as first grade.

this will give them a slightly better preparation if they get pulled into shield cricket at a young age.

i'd also like to know what are considered high workloads in terms of net bowling. for state cricketers in september, right at the end of their pre-season when they should be peaking, they should be looking at a net session every 2nd day, swapping between ~150 balls one session, ~75 balls the next session. about 15% less for under 23 bowlers (~130/~65) and about 25% less for under 20 bowlers (~110/~55), obviously tailoring those figures for different individuals... i reckon they're about the numbers grade bowlers get up to at the end of pre-season, and they're usually bowling 3 days a week. but i have a feeling they would be considered too high by the guru's these days.

and i reckon my comments in another thread were very valid whereby quick bowlers under the age of 23 can only play two forms of the match in competitions sanctioned by CA (you can't really prevent them playing in the IPL) and 50 over cricket has to be one of the two formats. So you can't go for test glory and the $$$ of T20 cricket - it's arguable their the two most stressful forms of bowling in the game as well.

From ages 23 to 25 they've got to prove their fitness and resilience to be ale to play in all three formats. After the age of 25 I don't think you can restrict them any more. If they're gonna to continue getting injured it's going to be a management job.

I know a lot of youngsters get the $$$ signs in their eyes and there are no guarantees in the future so they wanna make some coin while they can, but i think with proper management they'll, on average, end up making more money as when they get to their prime years of 24 to 28 they'll be on the park a hell of a lot more than guys are now which is better for them, their bank balance and their employers. The obvious concern is how much legs does this IPL cash bandwagon have? It'll be a bit irritating for a young quick if they took the longer forms of the game, gave up some cash, and 6 years from now they're a gun in all 3 formats but the IPL was no longer.

i really must have nothing to do at work