Indian women's hockey team eviscerate Indian national men's cricket team in yo-yo test

[Gollum]

Pleasantly surprised. These girls are something aren't they? Their average yo yo score was just above 18, lowest 17.7 (33 women players took the test). Indian men's cricket team has an average of 16.5 with passing mark of 16.1. NZ cricket team has passing mark of 18, Aus 19.....

 

Surprising thing was 4 women scored 21.1 which is higher than the highest of Indian cricket team. Manish Pandey's score is 21, Kohli and KL Rahul top at 20.9 and Pandya 19.5.

 

I knew field hockey was bloody tough, but this is unexpected. We won the 2017 Asia Cup beating heavyweights like China, Japan and South Korea. 10 years back a suggestion about beating China would have been laughed at, they would beat us like 6-0/8-0 those days and compete with the likes of Netherlands and Australia in Champions Trophy/WC/Olympics etc. South Korea and Japan too are heavyweights in the women's game. Now in the last couple of years we have an even H2H with China and positive H2H against other Asian teams, besides stealing occasional wins against the European and Southern Hemisphere ladies. 

 

Nari Shakti 

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/hockey/top-stories/indian-womens-hockey-players-acing-the-yo-yo-test/articleshow/62482398.cms

[beetle]

Hats off to out tough girls!

[Gollum]

Just now, BeardedAladdin said:

Who gives a ****, this has nothing to do with cricket 

Ofc this has everything to do with cricket, eg our low benchmark in fitness.

[velu]

field sportrs need more athletism 

[velu]

11 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Pleasantly surprised. These girls are something aren't they? Their average yo yo score was just above 18, lowest 17.7 (33 women players took the test). Indian men's cricket team has an average of 16.5 with passing mark of 16.1. NZ cricket team has passing mark of 18, Aus 19.....

 

Surprising thing was 4 women scored 21.1 which is higher than the highest of Indian cricket team. Manish Pandey's score is 21, Kohli and KL Rahul top at 20.9 and Pandya 19.5.

 

 

 

Dhonis score is above 20 right ?

[Gollum]

11 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said:

??? You're comparing fitness levels between players in two completely different sports.

 

Kaisa chxthya argument hai yaar. SoJao, Bhai Saab, aapki bas ki baat nahin hai yeh. 

This is a cricket team, not a chess team. There should be some standards. Look at our fielding this test, misfields every now and then, 0 athleticism. 

[chewy]

Men field hockey would be higher even?! 

 

Maybe ...These people nerd to check yo yo score of rugby players .

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Stuge

[beetle]

15 minutes ago, Gollum said:

This is a cricket team, not a chess team. There should be some standards. Look at our fielding this test, misfields every now and then, 0 athleticism. 

Six packs and eight packs in plenty though .

[rkt.india]

22 minutes ago, Gollum said:

This is a cricket team, not a chess team. There should be some standards. Look at our fielding this test, misfields every now and then, 0 athleticism. 

Yo yo score has nothing to do with athleticism, it is about endurance and fielding is more about reflexes than just athleticism.

Edited January 16, 2018 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

38 minutes ago, velu said:

 

Dhonis score is above 20 right ?

No

[Gollum]

29 minutes ago, velu said:

field sportrs need more athletism 

Bhai these are women of the same country (genetics), am not comparing our team with men hockey players because that will be a no contest. Women are nowhere near men in terms of athletics records, a University athletics team will have men with better records than women national record holders (I had a better long jump than anyone not named Anju Bobby George in my college days and I was frankly a nothing athlete compared to some of the guys who participated in the University meet)..... our cricket team scores are so low because they don't work hard enough. Cricket is not a board game, it involves fielding for a significant amount of time besides bowling and running between the wickets, there should be some standards for fitness. I was earlier skeptical of this test but since our standards are so low, we need to back the team management on this one. Guys hardly move an inch on the field and give away 50 extra runs per innings because they have such poor fitness. I mean these are elite level players who have all the money and training tools at their disposal to get fitter. 

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Yo yo score has nothing to do with athleticism, it is about endurance and fielding is more about reflexes than just athleticism.

It is about endurance but then you field for long time periods and bat/bowl for long time periods. If you have better endurance you will perform better, period. Reflexes, speed, endurance, concentration, technique all matter out there. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Gollum

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, Gollum said:

It is about endurance but then you field for long time periods and bat/bowl for long time periods. If you have better endurance you will perform better, period. Reflexes, speed, endurance, concentration, technique all matter out there. 

there is a always a threshold after which whether your  is 20 or 24 does not matter. i think Yo-Yo score or Kohli, Pandey, Rahul, Pandya is good enough for cricket. It might other players who are not matching that level. Like some woman might have 22 Yo-Yo Pandey 21 but that is good enough for Pandey and might not make much difference after a threshold. Nehra had a Yo-Yo of 19 but if you ask Nehra to bowl 20 overs a day, he wont be able to do that.

[Singh bling]

Yo yo tests have different standards for men and women , scores are not comparable because different methods are used in it

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/yo-yo-intermittent.htm

 

 

[Gollum]

3 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Yo yo tests have different standards for men and women , scores are not comparable because different methods are used in it

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/yo-yo-intermittent.htm

 

 

Where in that article is mentioned that different standards are used for men and women? I know that in shot put and discus throw, men use lighter weights but in yo yo test I couldn't find if there are different standards used. Besides if that is the case from that article it would seem that the average of Indian women players is comparable with AFL-Women's best which is incredible. Not only is AFL extremely demanding physically but the best sporting talent of Australia opts for it over cricket/tennis/football/swimming. 

[adi B]

What's this yoyo test?

[Stuge]

57 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

there is a always a threshold after which whether your  is 20 or 24 does not matter. i think Yo-Yo score or Kohli, Pandey, Rahul, Pandya is good enough for cricket. It might other players who are not matching that level. Like some woman might have 22 Yo-Yo Pandey 21 but that is good enough for Pandey and might not make much difference after a threshold. Nehra had a Yo-Yo of 19 but if you ask Nehra to bowl 20 overs a day, he wont be able to do that.

Yes ,thing is can 100 meter / 400 meter racer run Marathon ..I guess no .We are comparing apples with oranges .

[kira]

Different game, different requirements, why is this news?

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

Where in that article is mentioned that different standards are used for men and women? I know that in shot put and discus throw, men use lighter weights but in yo yo test I couldn't find if there are different standards used. Besides if that is the case from that article it would seem that the average of Indian women players is comparable with AFL-Women's best which is incredible. Not only is AFL extremely demanding physically but the best sporting talent of Australia opts for it over cricket/tennis/football/swimming. 

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/norms/yo-yo.htm

Check this 

[Gollum]

44 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/norms/yo-yo.htm

Check this 

It isn't well explained but what I can gather is that total distance and level are just different ways of reporting the same level. For women level>17.5 is elite but for men 17.6 will fall in the good category. Do you think I am getting this correct? The test is same for both but for women a lower score means they are still good but that same low score if a man gets, he is below average. I think this is similar to strength standards where for a 75 kg man if he bench presses his weight (75 kg) for 1RM he might fall in the novice/intermediate category but if a 75 kg woman bench presses 75 kg she will fall in the elite category......something like that. 

 

In the below table level 17.5 for both men and women corresponds to 1600 m. Just that the 17.5 woman is elite level while the man is a couple of rungs down at 'good'. If my assessment is correct the women hockey players indeed have smashed Kohli and co in this test and their lowest score is much higher than the average score of the men. I have never done the yo-yo test myself, so if I got it wrong please correct me.