Fitter != Better. Time spent cracking that 8.30 in the 2km could instead be used to sharpen the skills that they will actually use in a game.Of course you can. But the point of these standards is to force good cricketers to get better.
If you can turn 1s into 4s by being a good batsman then who cares how fast you can run?But it's not arbitrary at all. T20s often come down to very fine margains, so the ability to turn 1s into 2s when batting/chase and retrieve a ball/make repeated sprints etc when fielding are absolutely crucial in this format. They can directly impact the match as a whole
That's cool we differ. To me running faster or being "quicker across the ground" is the absolute essence of fielding - especially for the shorter more intense form of cricket like T20. It allows you to cover ground to make that catch/save that run/prevent batsman taking on a run etc.If you can turn 1s into 4s by being a good batsman then who cares how fast you can run?
Similarly if you're a fat **** who can lob a ball down off 4 steps and take wickets at a good rate then surely it doesn't matter how fit you are?
Being good at fielding is a valuable skill, but running faster is just 1 tiny part of that. You still need to be good at actual fielding - collecting and catching the ball, throwing it in, anticipation, reflexes, judging where you are relative to the boundary.
If a team wants to put being fit as a priority above actually being good at cricket then that's fine, but that doesn't mean they're actually picking a stronger team. Fitness is a good tie breaker between equally capable cricketers, nothing else.
I think I have a point no matter how low these benchmarks are. You're picking players to win you cricket matches, putting arbitrary fitness benchmarks as a pre-requisite ahead of actual cricketing ability isn't all that justifiable to me.This is literally like running 2-3x a week, maybe less
I can’t stress how low this particular benchmark is
You’d have a point if the standard was like 5% bf and 200 pushups in 15 seconds or something
Fielding is a great asset to have and should certainly be factored into selection, but just because someone can run 2k in a certain time doesn't mean they're a good fielder. I've actually played with a guy who would crush most fitness benchmarks but couldn't catch a ball to save his life.That's cool we differ. To me running faster or being "quicker across the ground" is the absolute essence of fielding - especially for the shorter more intense form of cricket like T20. It allows you to cover ground to make that catch/save that run/prevent batsman taking on a run etc.
I think it's more applicable in this current generation of sport - which looks fundamentally at the 1%ers and the intangibles which can effect the outcome of the game
that's fine and a totally different stance to arguing that somehow passing the fitness test makes you a better cricketer.Hot take: if you can't even be bothered to try and pass a basic fitness test that literal high schoolers can do in order to play for your country, I think it sends a message about your motivation to improve your cricket-specific skills.
It's a cumulative thing. Niggles can arise out of seemingly innocuous events but they usually point to a glitch in the conditioning regimen. Meeting certain fitness standards - 2 km run being one among a group of them I assume - implies you've put in the work that will enable you to survive in the faster-paced modern game. Doesn't matter if you're a seamer or a spinner, everyone has to sprint after a ball, everyone has to show up three times a week for a game. There's no way you can say an Ashwin or a Cornwall aren't a liability while chasing down the ball, not just w.r.t. shaving runs off the opposition total, but also with regards to their own longevity.that's fine and a totally different stance to arguing that somehow passing the fitness test makes you a better cricketer.