January 13, 2013

Adequate rest resulting in injuries now?

Anyone who has read my recent posts will know that I've been shouting myself hoarse over the injury epidemic that is sweeping through world cricket

Anyone who has read my recent posts will know that I've been shouting myself hoarse over the injury epidemic that is sweeping through world cricket. The last time I wrote on that topic was during the Boxing Day Test when I lampooned the 'system' for resting Mitchell Starc because there was a likelihood that he might get injured while at the same time allowing Shane Watson to play when he was injured. Things have now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Starc is now unable to play in the second ODI in Adelaide, suffering calf-soreness. It begs the question: how does one pick up a pseudo-injury like that even after being rested? Was he not rested for long enough? Should he have also been rested for the Sydney Test? Should Watson have been allowed to play when he was injured in a medical culture that rests a team-mate who might get injured? It's just plain ridiculous. At what point are we going to accept that the current system is simply not producing better outcomes?

It's not just Australia that suffers these indignities. Vernon Philander played in Brisbane in mid-November, missed the Adelaide Test due to injury at the end of November, played the Perth decider in early December, had three weeks off before the Cape Town Test against New Zealand and is now unavailable to front up again (after a three-day Test against the Kiwis). Is anyone inside Cricket South Africa questioning why this is happening to a premier fast bowler who presumably is receiving the best medical advice that money can buy? Is his fitness, recovery and rehabilitation so poor that he is unable to play more than one game in succession? And this is his profession?

No point asking the Sri Lankan conditioning staff for any tips. Chanaka Welegedara tore a hamstring bowling at 125 km/h in an early spell at the MCG when fatigue clearly cannot be cited as a factor. The impressive Dinesh Chandimal, forced to sit on the bench for the first two Tests, plays one Test in Sydney that only lasts four days and can't make it through a single ODI without also succumbing to the accursed hamstring strain.

Over in the England camp, Steven Finn rarely plays back-to-back games. The Indian fast bowlers regularly miss games through similar injuries while New Zealand have elevated it to an art-form by having to replace injured players who were in turn, replacing other injured comrades. I haven't heard any bad news from Pakistan, West Indies or Bangladesh recently but I daresay their fitness and conditioning regimes mirror all the other countries. So what is the problem? Where is the problem?

The spate of hamstring injuries in particular need to be addressed. How do players who are (supposedly) massaged, warmed up, hydrated and conditioned to achieve peak performance, keep tearing muscles when performing routine tasks (routine for their job descriptions anyway)? None of these guys were injured doing something extraordinary (taking brilliant catches at full stretch like we've seen recently in the Big Bash). None of them were playing in freezing cold conditions (even if they were, isn't that the whole point of the conditioning staff, to warm them up adequately?). All of them sustained injuries in the course of a normal day's work. So what does that say about their own fitness or the system that prepares them to be so ill-equipped to get through a normal day's work? Is there something that we're all overlooking?

Is it the new type of footwear perhaps? Can that be a common link to these similar injuries across the globe? Are the run-ups and bowling creases any harder than they used to be, thereby putting more strain on the muscles? Unlikely. Are modern bowling actions vastly different to those of even five years ago, thereby exposing bowlers to greater stress on their lower backs, hamstrings or intercostals? They're not necessarily bowling a whole lot quicker than in the recent past so we can discount sheer pace as a contributing factor.

Do we need to take a closer look at the pre-season and pre-match conditioning program? What benefits, in terms of measurable outcomes is it producing, despite the extra expense of employing an army of experts? Here are some questions that need to be asked in simplistic terms (in comparison with bowlers of say 10 years ago).

Are bowlers bowling any faster? No. Are they aerobically fitter? Yes (probably). Is this superior aerobic fitness resulting in less injuries? No. Are they being rested (rotated) pre-emptively to prevent the likelihood of injuries? Yes. Is this policy of rotation/rest making any difference to their propensity for subsequent injury? No. Are they bowling more balls (in the nets and in matches)? No (probably).

Are they being massaged and pampered more? Yes. Are they on strictly managed bowling workloads? Yes. Are they eating and drinking nutritionally balanced meals under strict supervision? Yes. Are they warming up for at least twenty minutes before the start of each day's play? Yes. Are they warming down under strict supervision after play? Yes. Are they flying business class on long-haul flights? Yes. Are they sleeping in single rooms to ensure better sleep patterns? Yes. Are they wearing compression garments, at training, when travelling and in competition? Yes. Are they getting injured more often and playing less cricket as a result of all this special attention? YES!!!

Perhaps that last question can be re-phrased. Are bowlers now not being allowed to play (by management or by their own admission) when they complain of minor injuries or niggles that would otherwise have been ignored in times gone by? Probably, yes. Is this policy of caution resulting in a better outcome for future injury prevention? Clearly, no.

Final searching question: are they training with more intensity, bowling long spells at full speed in the nets? Answer: don't know for sure but I suspect this is highly unlikely. I've rarely seen this in the last few years, despite fairly close observation of training sessions and workloads. What do we need to change in order to make a difference? The current system is clearly not working. Even Blind Freddy (not the Flintoff-type version in a pedalo in the Caribbean) can see this.

If cleverer minds than mine are not asking these questions, they're simply throwing good money after bad. I mean, how do the conditioning staff explain why Ben Hilfenhaus got injured in Hobart after being rested in Perth? How do they explain why Starc gets injured after bowling just six overs in an ODI after being deliberately rested in Melbourne (in order to prevent exactly this sort of injury)? If they have no credible explanation, why not just let the players take the field when they don't actually have an injury and withdraw them when/if they physically get injured? What have they got to lose? Philander, Hilfenhaus and Starc have just proved that the "pre-emptive resting theory" is no more effective than allowing them to keep playing and keeping the body loose and supple.

The number of recent 'victims' is staggering. In the last two months alone, I can think of James Pattinson, Patrick Cummins, Josh Hazlewood, Jacques Kallis, Michael Clarke, the Kiwi lads and Ben Rohrer to name but a few of the cricketers who have had soft-tissue strains (other than the names already mentioned).

If modern sports science cannot provide answers (and outcomes) that can improve the current system, perhaps we should be looking to alternative therapies like yoga or meditation or Chinese medicine? Peter Siddle is as tough as teak and is now a vegetarian. Perhaps a radical alternative might be to let these modern cricketers start taking control of their own destinies. Allow them the freedom (and responsibility) to prepare themselves for 'employment' in whatever way they choose and then hold them accountable for their own future employment prospects. Dispense with the trappings of the central contracting system and simply pay them handsomely for turning up for work fit and ready to perform. Controversial and 'never-to-be-adopted' my suggestion may be but worth the hypothetical question for the sake of friendly debate. It can't produce worse outcomes than the current system where cricketers who are rested when they are fit in order to prevent injuries, then get injured the very next game. If it's broke (or strained/pulled/dislocated/sore), fix it!

PS - latest injury update from Adelaide…Mitchell Johnson ruled out with minor injury. Clearly nine overs at the MCG and no batting was enough to see him off.

Michael Jeh is an Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, and a Playing Member of the MCC. He lives in Brisbane

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • testli5504537 on January 16, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    The problem is too much of the wrong type of cricket. Test cricketers nowadays tend to play only test matches and one day matches, and low-intensity non-first class "warm-up" matches, and they play year round. How on earth can you prepare your mind and body for a 5 day test match by playing only non-first class and one day cricket? No wonder they break down! In the old days it is true that they might have played "only" 5-10 test matches per year (25-50 days of cricket), but they also played a first class season of 5-10 three day to four day first-class matches, or if they were playing in England they played 20 or more three day games of first class cricket. Add it up: 25-50 days of test cricket plus 15-60 days or more of first class cricket, plus some one day competitions but nowhere near the amount of one day cricket played today, PLUS a clearly defined off season to rest and recover, equals better, more specific preparation for test cricket, and less injuries.

  • testli5504537 on January 15, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    Sorry Michael, this article is far too smug and offers very little to the debate.

    for example, this sort of statement is patently ridiculous...

    "Is this policy of caution resulting in a better outcome for future injury prevention? Clearly, no."

    ...no, not 'clearly' at all

    you can't measure 'prevented' injuries so it makes it impossible to refute your type of criticism...please note that doesn't make your argument valid, just circular

    what you CAN do is measure and learn from the serious injuries that ignoring the warnings can lead to

    for example, James Pattinson was selected in Sydney Test 12 months ago and ended up with stress fractures and a long time out of the game...would you prefer the selectors didn't learn from that experience?

    at least Cricket Australia have an evidence base for their views...all you have is a bunch of populist, jingoist and entirely subjective hyperbole

    not impressed, extraordinarily ordinary work...


  • testli5504537 on January 15, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    we may see players are becoming unfit to play as there muscles are stiff by resting too much :).

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 23:22 GMT

    My theory: That it's the fitness work causing the breakdowns. You have these guys working on "core strength" (the latest buzzword). But humans aren't designed to have the core of a 500lb gorilla. Strengthen the core, and that just overstresses the hamstring, or the ribcage.

    In the old days, they bowled. Their legs, stomach, back, ribs and shoulder all strengthened at about a proportionate rate over their lives and was balanced. Something occasionally bloke, but they weren't explicitly using one body part to break another one.

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    Your premise appears to be that current fast bowlers are more injury prone than their predecessors, yet you provide no supporting evidence and merely answer some loaded questions with equally loaded answers. The truth surely is that the human body is poorly adapted to repeatedly propelling a cricket ball at 90mph and, of the few who are able to do so, even fewer are able to avoid injury.

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    Perhaps someone should study Dale Steyn

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 14:29 GMT

    Someone mentioned that cricketers long ago got less injuries, that's true, but how much cricket was played in those days. some countries played 10 test matches Max per year, but the average was 5 and only 5 countries played test cricket. there was no one day international cricket until the middle 70s, and no 20/20 cricket. One day cricket was play before of after a Test series and the maximum amount of games were 3. The record would show that cricketers of that era, career lasted about 15/20 years but they played about 50 or 80 test matches. at present a top cricketer with a career of 15 years would play over 125 Test matches plus lots of one day and 20/20 cricket, so how can one compare the fitness of cricketers THEN and NOW. It's simple, at present there is too much cricket, that's why players are always injured, long ago it was mostly bowlers that were injured, now it all players. it has nothing to do with training. anything that is abused will breakdown.

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    Michael, at least you have found that shouting yourself hoarse does not solve this injury problem.

    Simplistic solutions rarely do when it comes to problems with sophisticated machines or organisms, like the human body. I know there is an understandable nostalgia for simpler times, but introducing the pay structure that was around when Lillee & Thommo were playing just a fraction of today's cricket & just one format, will not work either.

    I do not believe that impatience or the use of emotive words such as "rotation" changes anything either.

    It is, however, helpful to ask questions (as in the Michael's article) & I would also ask whether lack of adequate preparation for a particular format also causes injury. The search for real solutions should continue.

    The selectors' stated aim was to create a squad of fast bowlers to handle the realities of today's cricket & I think they have succeeded. I think a lot of Aussies are yet to wake up to the considerable advantages of this.

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 10:18 GMT

    great article Michael. I suppose there is something called cricket fit. Just like each sport requires different types of training so probably does fast bowling. It is probably about conditioning your body to that kind of workload which is to bowl long spells in the nets and reproduce it in the games

  • testli5504537 on January 14, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    I am very confident that the Real Culprit is WEIGHT-TRAINING. Criketers in the Past never did this- ask Gary Sobers / Alan Davidson / Wesley Hall / Charlie Griffiths / Andy Roberts / Malcolm Marshal - Cricketers are not Rugby Players - they require a lithe & flexible body & NOT Muscle Mass. Just simple Jogging / Skipping Rope / Swimming is all they need. To hit a Six, one does not need Muscle Mass - Azharuddin, a lithe & flexible Cricketer, hit a Six in Auckland, out of the Stadium & into the Car Park ! Azharuddin was an agile & excellent Fielder. CEASE WEIGHT - TRAININGS & go for Aerobic Non-Weight-bearing Exercises & stop cotton-wooling Cricketers. Dr. Ahad Khan

  • No featured comments at the moment.