How does Cricket stack up in terms of Fitness?

[slowfinger]

Me and a few mates were agruing as per. I said that to play cricket properly, you needed to be REALLY fit and be able to last at least 6 hours. He laughed at me and said all you do is stand around and run when batting. He then said Rugby and Football were MUCH more high intensity and required more fitness.

Your thoughts?

 

[sledger]

Different kinds of fitness are required for different sports tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, I'd guess as a whole cricketers don't really need the explosive pace or even the cardivascular stamina of association footballers (criketers tend to go on longer and peak later, with the exception of goalkeepers, who also don't need quite the same fitness as their on-field confreres), but "cricketer" is a broad church. Obviously bowling quick requires a different sort fitness to keeping wicket.

 

[Burgey]

Aerobic fitness and strength requirements in any code of football will be way higher than those necessary to succeed in cricket. If you're measuring physical fitness by objective measures needed to succeed in a sport, such as pinch tests, aerobic capacity, muscle strength, I'd think the football codes would come out on top quite easily.

But the fitter you are for cricket the more it helps, I'd say. in that it aids stamina and concentration.

 

[sledger]

Would say Cricket is one of the sports where one's mental condition is as nearly as important as one's physical state, particularly for Batsmen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Aerobic fitness and strength requirements in any code of football will be way higher than those necessary to succeed in cricket. If you're measuring physical fitness by objective measures needed to succeed in a sport, such as pinch tests, aerobic capacity, muscle strength, I'd think the football codes would come out on top quite easily.

But the fitter you are for cricket the more it helps, I'd say. in that it aids stamina and concentration.

Have to say my guess is AFL players would be somewhere near the top in terms of overall fitness.

The engines on some of the chaps in the middle are amazing and, as a whole, they carry more muscle mass than association footballers.

 

[slowfinger]

Interesting responses. What about in terms of skill and concentration? Surely cricket would lead the way?

 

[sledger]

"Skill" is an entirely subjective term. I doubt a player of any sport would be particularly pleased to hear someone say that his sport requires "less skill" than any other.

 

[MrPrez]

Concentration: Yes. Skill: more than Rugby, unsure about soccer.

Fitness is a broad term, but I'd say cricket is way behind in terms of general fitness required.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting responses. What about in terms of skill and concentration? Surely cricket would lead the way?

It'd be up there on concentration. Most other sports give one a chance to recover from an error; for batsmen one slip of concentration can be terminal.

"Skills" are pretty hard to quantify tho. I will say generally that those players with the better techniques can go on at a higher level for longer. Blokes who rely on exceptional hand/eye can struggle as the years go by. I guess Kallis and Ponting is the obvious comparison there.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Makhaya Ntini was reputed to be fit enough that he once trained with the SA national middle distance running team and matched them.

Then again, I can't imagine Dwayne Leverock or even Jesse Ryder have what it takes to jog five km without a breather.

Didn't they put a motion tracker on Peter Siddle in a recent Test and find out that he moved 29km in a day?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah fair shout. I think midfielders cover up towards 15km per game, then lay tackles, read the game etc.

It's not that there aren't fit cricketers. There are loads. It's just someone who looked like Cosgrove, Fatty Gra, Dan Smith etc wouldn't get a look in at a footy club, let alone represent.

 

[sledger]

Yeah fair shout. I think midfielders cover up towards 15km per game, then lay tackles, read the game etc.

It's not that there aren't fit cricketers. There are loads. It's just someone who looked like Cosgrove, Fatty Gra, Dan Smith etc wouldn't get a look in at a footy club, let alone represent.

Blasphemy!

 

[MrPrez]

Makhaya Ntini was reputed to be fit enough that he once trained with the SA national middle distance running team and matched them.

Then again, I can't imagine Dwayne Leverock or even Jesse Ryder have what it takes to jog five km without a breather.

Didn't they put a motion tracker on Peter Siddle in a recent Test and find out that he moved 29km in a day?

Yup he's insane, but he is a freak case. Cricket in general doesn't require near the cardio-levels of football, rugby etc.

 

[slowfinger]

I see what you mean, but tbh I'm a goaly in Football so I should be fat .

But yeah, I understand that if you wanted a choose a sport as a rookie in terms of less running/fitness required, one might choose cricket.

AB De Villiers ran 15KM in his last ODI.

I think for cricket to develop it needs to be more high-paced, watchable.

 

[hazsa19]

Modern and professional cricket teams are seeing fitness as another way to gain an advantage.

Just look at the differences between England/India in the summer, and Australia/India now. One team very much relies on traditional cricketing abilities alone to compete, the other is doing absolutely everything in their power to succeed.

I don't think we'll ever see another unfit team dominate the cricketing world.

 

[sledger]

I think for cricket to develop it needs to be more high-paced, watchable.

What does this mean? I find it perfectly watchable as it is to be honest.

 

[sledger]

I don't think we'll ever see another unfit team dominate the cricketing world.

And who in your mind was the last?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Yup he's insane, but he is a freak case. Cricket in general doesn't require near the cardio-levels of football, rugby etc.

Although I agree with this, I think stamina is a crucial element of fitness that many cricketers have more than cardio. I'd expect that Rahul Dravid would beat any rugby forward over an 80km hill march.

In terms of short-term power over say, an hour, rugby forwards > soccer players > rugby backs > cricketers, I reckon.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And who in your mind was the last?

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.