hazsa19
International Regular
I dunno, there haven't been many fit cricket teams knocking about before 2000.And who in your mind was the last?
I dunno, there haven't been many fit cricket teams knocking about before 2000.And who in your mind was the last?
Well, since you're confident there won't be "another", you must have some idea surely.I dunno, there haven't been many fit cricket teams knocking about before 2000.
Yeah, well, same. I can watch my way through a day of Test Cricket easily as I love cricket. But if I asked my mate to watch an 8 hour ODI with me he would probably punch me, hard.What does this mean? I find it perfectly watchable as it is to be honest.
The thing is, whilst developments in sports science and so on have lead to teams in the modern day (in any sport) being fitter and better condition than those who have played in previous generations, the concept of "fitness" in sport is nothing new.Fair point. Being #1 isn't the same as "dominating". As England are currently proving.
& I think England would beat the team they replaced on beep tests.
I think the actual landmass would beat the previous #1's in a beep test.& I think England would beat the team they replaced on beep tests.
Well yes, but that's surely a case of each to his own. The length in this instance is the nature of the beast.Yeah, well, same. I can watch my way through a day of Test Cricket easily as I love cricket. But if I asked my mate to watch an 8 hour ODI with me he would probably punch me, hard.
I'm not saying shorten the formats, I'm saying make them more sizeable, and high paced.
You want more t20s? ewI think for cricket to develop it needs to be more high-paced, watchable.
Of course it does if you're a fast bowler.Yup he's insane, but he is a freak case. Cricket in general doesn't require near the cardio-levels of football, rugby etc.
Needs more synergy.Well yes, but that's surely a case of each to his own. The length in this instance is the nature of the beast.
And if you're not suggesting the formats are shortened, what do you mean by making them "sizeable" and "high-paced". Sounds like management jargon to me.
Yeah, the game needs to become proactive, not reactive. That's the only we can incentivise the streamlining that needs to occur before we can bring it to the table and improve its core competencies.Needs more synergy.
That's a poor example though; because of the international nature of the sport at the highest level, if one or more of the countries involved has poor standards then you'll always get below average players playing at the top level.Doesn't stack very high. Exhibit A; India.
Case closed.
Of course you CAN have cricketers with great fitness as many players do but it's clearly not a requirement to get to the top level, unlike other sports.
No it's a perfect example since it shows you can win matches without being all that fit and even be the best in the world. A football team with the level of fitness that India have would be so far outside the world cup that it's not even funny.That's a poor example though; because of the international nature of the sport at the highest level, if one or more of the countries involved has poor standards then you'll always get below average players playing at the top level.
Like the Indian Football team?A football team with the level of fitness that India have would be so far outside the world cup that it's not even funny.
Ranked penultimate in the world (165th), one ahead of Pakistan (166th) IIRCI barely knew India had one, let alone know what their fitness is like.
No it doesn't.Of course it does if you're a fast bowler.
It's no coincidence Doug Bollinger broke down and bowled medium pace in Adelaide whilst Anderson got better as the series went on despite flying home in the middle of the series.
Of course it is, and much of fitness is sport specific. Merv Hughes had a gut but could bowl 15-20 overs a day. Warne wasn't "fit" in the classic sense of the word, but could bowl 25 overs in a spell if need be.But surely it's an enormous disadvantage to be an unfit fast bowler?