• 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.

***Official*** India vs England 2021 General Discussion thread

cnerd123

likes this
Of course you can. But the point of these standards is to force good cricketers to get better.
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.

It's fine to have fitness benchmarks to ensure a degree of professionalism and commitment across the squad, but let's not pretend that these are reflective of a player's ability. At the end of the day what they're being selected and paid for is to score runs and take wickets.

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
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.
 
Last edited:

Pup Clarke

International Captain
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.
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

In the 80s/90s, sure fitness wouldn't have been that big a deal. That's why someone like Rhodes was a pioneer - here was someone who was not only an awesome fielder generally, but he was incredibly agile and had amazing reflexes. He prided himself on his fielding. Guys just after him like Symonds, Gibbs, Ponting, AB would have likely been influenced by him - and this likely impacts the current generation and coaches and their thinking

Find it an interesting discussion tbh
 
Last edited:

cnerd123

likes this
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
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.

Sure being fitter can help some players score more runs or bowl better at the back end of an innings, but then that will be reflected in their performances, and you can just pick them on the weight of runs/wickets. Cricketers should want to be fit to enhance their own performances and chances of selection. But what we saw was a couple of spin bowlers who earned their spot through weight of wickets only to get dropped because they didn't spend enough time running, which is just silly.
 

cnerd123

likes this
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
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.

1% and intangibles are also fine to factor in, but that's only assuming you've got the remaining 99% sorted out. If you're dropping you 1st and 2nd choice spinners just because of fitness then you're probably doing your squad more harm than good. Not that Varun and Tewatia are necessarily 1 and 2 in the pecking order, but they did get picked ahead of Chahar, who eventually came in to replace them. At this point how much are you losing to gain that 1% from a good run time?
 

cnerd123

likes this
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.
that's fine and a totally different stance to arguing that somehow passing the fitness test makes you a better cricketer.
 

Arachnodouche

International Regular
that's fine and a totally different stance to arguing that somehow passing the fitness test makes you a better cricketer.
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.
 

srbhkshk

International Regular
It's a question of whether Pakistan would have been a better team without Inzamam which is definitely not true, but those standard might have given them a fitter inzamam which would be absolutely fantastic for them.
Really depends on whether the standards motivate people to get fitter or do they flat out stop people from ever getting in the team - given these guys have cricket as their life goal I'd hope it would be the first case for the overwhelming majority of the people.
 

Top