Why are injury breakdowns so frequent?

Is the modern cricketer a high-performance low-endurance beast? Has medical science created a new paradigm, whereby international cricketers are fitter than they've ever been in terms of agility, speed, physical skills but in so doing, they are as unfit as they've ever been in terms of endurance, stamina and "breakability"?

This World Cup, not played in the sapping humidity of the subcontinent, has been remarkable for the number of players who continue to injure hamstrings, endure back spasms and experience serious cramps. This, in an era where every team, even the minnows, have medical and conditioning staff to prepare them adequately to ensure that this very outcome does not happen. It is almost as if the reality is proving to be the polar opposite of the intent.

So perhaps there is a valid question to be posed, a line of research worth investigating; in the quest for high performance, is there a price that necessarily needs to be paid? Is that price an increase in soft-tissue injuries and cramps?

Mohammad Hafeez and Jeevan Mendis are out of the World Cup already with hamstring strains. John Mooney of Ireland cramped after bowling just four overs against the West Indies in Nelson, hardly the most humid cricket city he would have played in. Darren Sammy was in a bad way that afternoon too. A few days later, Darren Bravo caught the same disease and he too has returned home. Vernon Philander lasted just four overs before he pulled his hamstring at the MCG against India. At the Gabba, a few UAE players hobbled off with cramp, curious in light of their presumed familiarity with extreme heat. Ireland's Gary Wilson was treated on the field for cramps too.

The list goes on… it would take too long to list the number of instances when physiotherapists have treated players for minor strains and cramp. It is almost a daily occurrence. And yet, this coincides with players having unscheduled drinks breaks every few overs, numerous changes of gloves, face-wiping sessions and cold rags around their necks. They've never been more hydrated, the game has never been more interrupted and the injuries are significantly more prevalent than in any other time in history.

To digress slightly, one wonders why the ICC even bothers having a drinks break every 70 minutes these days. When batsmen need a drink after five overs and new gloves every 20 runs, when the fielding side get drinks handed out to them after virtually every small break in play, why bother with a formal drinks break? Watch the next time an early wicket falls and see the substitutes run drinks out to the players when the game is barely ten minutes old. And it doesn't seem to lessen the injuries. In fact, the opposite is almost the case.

I'm no physiologist so let me pose a few questions and hope some clever doctor chaps can shed some light. Can it be possible that over-hydration can put you at greater risk of tearing a muscle? We keep hearing that the modern cricketer is the uber-athlete these days so assuming that is true, why are they breaking down more often? Are their muscles so finely tuned for high-performance that they are more susceptible to tearing? Is it like a Formula 1 car, made for incredible acceleration and cornering but necessarily not suited for a long road journey?

Can the problems be traced back to the elaborate warm-up routines that all teams undertake before training or a match? They're all put through their paces for hours before the actual on-field action kicks off, presumably to get them warmed up so they lessen the risk of doing exactly what they've been doing - breaking down! This didn't happen in the first few World Cups where it was played over 120 overs, where over-rates were maintained, drinks were only taken at scheduled breaks, compression clothing had not been invented and special diets were unheard of. In fact, support staff were unheard of.

Could it be that the cramping phenomenon is down to the fact that many of the bowlers have already lost electrolytes in the warm-up drills and are therefore fatigued when it comes to the real thing? How else can you explain Philander breaking down after just four overs or Mooney cramping up in New Zealand's mild weather after bowling over gentle overs at 125 k's? How do you account for Mendis tearing a hamstring at training? How does Sammy have back spasms when he's scored a half-century, many of them coming in boundaries too? Surely this cannot be "normal" for an athlete who has been prepared to avoid this exact outcome. When a bowler cannot complete his spell or does it under severe duress after just four overs of genuine work, do the medical staff wonder what they've done, perhaps unwittingly, to put the athlete's body under this sort of duress, given that the entire point of their existence is presumably to make sure this very thing does not happen!

What can we learn from the past? Are cricketers less likely to be injured if they don't spend hours warming-up before the game? Arrive an hour before, a cup of tea and a biscuit, a few throw-downs in front of the picket fence, roll your arm over, touch your toes a few times and then warm up properly after the captains have tossed. I don't see much point in warming up two hours before and then cooling down again. In my modest career, despite sometimes playing 5-6 days a week for weeks on end, often bowling up to 25 overs unchanged in league cricket in England, I never once tore a muscle because I only warmed-up just before we had to bowl. I never cooled down in between. Is there something in that theory or is that just too simplistic for the medicos to justify their jobs?

Then again, it could just be that I never had much muscle so it's impossible to tear anything. It's a bit like an old car, one of those Ambassador taxis in Kolkata. Anyone ever heard of the catalytic converter going on one of them? They may not go fast, they may not look pretty but they just keep going, long after the Lamborghini is up on blocks.