Injuries and their effects on teams (and player absences)

[Flem274*]

Over the past week or so we've been debating who sits where in the test pack. This thread is inspired by a PEWPEW post in the locked version for the also-rans.

A common variable is injuries. Everyone posts full strength line ups, but for many of these sides they are hardly ever likely to happen or bonuses. England when they had Flintoff, India with Zaheer, West Indies with Edwards and Taylor, NZ back when they had Bond. You get the picture.

One of the big possible variables worldwide is Dale Steyn for South Africa. Yes Morkel has improved but removing the best fast bowler in the world leaves a huge hole.

Then there are Sri Lanka and Pakistan, who look nice fully in on paper but if you remove Malinga, YK, MoYo, Asif...remove them and they don't look too good.

I think one of the biggest ruiners would be removing Vettori or Taylor from New Zealand.

I think the biggest reason for Australia's success since well...ever....is their lack of injuries. Warne and McGrath almost always played.

Now they get to sweat a little over Watson, Hilfy, Johnson. But they've had a decent run at times with these players as well and put in solid performances.

Anyway, going on the most likely line ups and taking depth into account, how do you think the sides are affected? I realise there are variable answers, but I think injury is often seen as an inconvenience when comparing teams as opposed to a real bone of contention.
It's a bit like back in the day people (pre-2006) used to say NZ without Bond=mid table and NZ with Bond=up there. NZ hardly ever had Bond, so really they were just mid-table.

Also, why do some countries have more injuries than others?

 

[andyc]

A lot of it has to do with the systems in place, I'd imagine. Clearly a better physio, and better training and workout regimes will prevent injuries for the top level players, but also systems that are in place for younger cricketers to sort out kinks in their bowling action and make sure they're doing the right sort of training so that when they come through they're not breaking down every two games. Whether or not that had anything to do with it, but surely part of the reason for Australia's dominance in the 00's was their very small amount of injuries, especially like you said to their pivotal players in Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, etc.

 

[social]

Oz has been forced to use 18 fast bowlers in the last 24 months due to injuries so there goes that theory!

 

[vcs]

I'd say Warne and McGrath had their fair share of injuries and absences but the Aussie bowling depth from that period is very underrated. In fact I even created a thread about it once. Here it is.

 

[Umar_Akmal]

Pakistan drew with Aus without their 2 best batsmen where as India were hammered by SA at home without Dravid & Laxman in 1st test.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, but India didn't lose 13 consecutive tests to SA prior to that

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think even the most optimistic England fan (that's Corrin, ftr) has admitted defeat on ever seeing Jones the Swerve back in an England shirt. Crying shame, really. How many of us thought the 4th test in 2005 would be his last?

Could be nudging 300 test wickets now if he'd stayed fit.

 

[GIMH]

Priveliged by the accolade BB just awarded me but can confirm he's correct

 

[Cevno]

Oz has been forced to use 18 fast bowlers in the last 24 months due to injuries so there goes that theory!

And all of them would make the Indian Bowling attack at the moment.

 

[Shifter]

I like what England/Flower is attempting to do at the moment. Not everyone is a fan of a rotation policy but since injuries are unavoidable, having 15+ players who could make up your first 11 without too big hole being created is something I think all teams should be aiming for.