• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bowling Workloads. Food for thought?

Midwinter

State Captain
He makes some good points.

Someone hear mentioned that the number of injuries is directly proportional to the number of medical staff a team has.

At-risk actions ? I wonder if Paul Adams had an at-risk action ?
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't have time to read the article either, but I think consistent bowling and building up some fitness with regards to this is better than trying to work out exactly how many overs you should bowl each guy, when, and how many games he should play before resting etc etc etc.

I know people are different, and some get injured more than others, but I think second-guessing everyone's ability to bowl regularly just because some guys break down isn't the way to go. The best seasons I had bowling injury-wise were ones where I was expected to bowl 20 overs or so Saturday and then back up Sunday for another 10 or more. I know that doesn't match a test player's workload, but I don't think being put in cotton wool helps.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
agree with your assessment.

I think too much emphasis is being put on managing bowler's workloads rather than actually trying to get them in position to be able to bowl longer spells
 

uvelocity

International Coach
He goes on a bit about changing actions and can this be the cause, I think coaching good actions is a good idea.

But he mentions in the article 1000 overs per season in the old days, and that the bowling workloads are getting less and less.

The less overs per season would extend a bowlers career I think, and preserve knees and backs for later in life, but in week to week injuries the more bowling, the more hardened the body is and therefore probably a lot less of the niggles that seem to sideline bowlers constantly.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
but that is what his contention is I think that bowlers used to bowl more overs per season and seemed to be quite fit compared to what they are now
 

uvelocity

International Coach
yeah I'm agreeing with that bit. He also asks is all the biomechanical stuff a good idea in terms of modelling actions, I say probably.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I am not sure how developed a science bio-mechanics is tbh

seen more breakdown of bowlers since it started intruding into cricket (cbf checking it)
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
yeah I'm agreeing with that bit. He also asks is all the biomechanical stuff a good idea in terms of modelling actions, I say probably.
I wonder does it depend on when you decide to change the bowler's action too? I'd imagine early intervention and getting a good action from the outset (or near to) would be preferable to trying to change things around in the mid to late teens.

If you're lucky enough to have an action similar to McGrath's then you don't really have to worry too much.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
Agree 100%, If you're weak at squatting, find technical faults, eliminate them, and keep squatting. Going over to the smith machine or substituting squats with leg presses doesn't help fix anything; the body has a way of self correction and discovering its groove through repetition.
 

Top