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

[Khota]

Look at Ashwin and you will understand. That man has no business in any team.

[Khota]

3 hours 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.

You are wrong. It is all about athleticism. You need reflexes to top it off but it is always about athletisim and it will always be.

[Khota]

@Gollum you are doing excellent work here.

[Khota]

3 hours ago, chewy said:

Men field hockey would be higher even?! 

 

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

 

Baseball should be the benchmark.

 

The worst baeball player of a major league team is a better athlete than the best cricket player. people have no idea how tough it is.

[Khota]

22 minutes ago, Gollum said:

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. 

This is understandable. Women are smaller in size and have less muscle mass. This leads to lower score. That is why it is higher forman then women. I hope this is not coming across in a negative way because both men are and women are equal but physically men are bigger.

[Gollum]

17 minutes ago, Khota said:

This is understandable. Women are smaller in size and have less muscle mass. This leads to lower score. That is why it is higher forman then women. I hope this is not coming across in a negative way because both men are and women are equal but physically men are bigger.

Men have better records in every athletic endeavor without exception because of higher testosterone, larger lungs, more hemoglobin,  higher muscle density, muscle fiber composition, less body fat % etc. No way should an elite cricketer in India be so comprehensively beaten by a relatively unknown, under funded, monetarily poor women's hockey team. That means they aren't working hard enough while the women are very hardworking and committed in their fitness. That is why I included Indian women because genetically we are same. Slavic women have different genes (plus doping standards ) and hence some of the Russian and Eastern European women have better records in certain athletics events than the very best of Indian men........that excuse people can't use here. It all boils down to attitude of the individuals and the team. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Gollum

[Khota]

1 minute ago, Gollum said:

Men have better records in every athletic endeavor without exception because of higher testosterone, larger lungs, more hemoglobin,  higher muscle density, muscle fiber composition, less body fat % etc. No way should an elite cricketer in India be so comprehensively beaten by a relatively unknown, under funded, monetarily poor women's hockey team. That means they aren't working hard enough while the women are very hardworking and committed in their fitness. That is why I included Indian women because genetically we are same. Slavic women have different genes and hence some of the Russian and Eastern European women have better records in certain athletics events........that excuse people can't use here. It all boils down to attitude of the individuals and the team. 

 

Great post.

 

I have been saying this for decades. Even before you posted this I mentioned it yesterday that of all the sports I have watched Cricket players are the least athletic. 

 

I will once again get hate for this but not one cricket player is as fit as any baseball player who plays infield or outfield.

[Gollum]

25 minutes ago, Khota said:

Look at Ashwin and you will understand. That man has no business in any team.

I beg to differ. In cricket skills have a place and if a player is very skilled an exception can be made, especially in test cricket. In fast paced T20/ODI the fitness benchmark should be very high and standards imposed strictly. Unless a player is freakishly good there should be no leniency in the shorter formats. I wouldn't want people like Ashwin, Shami, Pujara in my T20/ODI teams but in tests they will be in contention because they are indispensable, leniency can be shown but at the same time they must be pushed to improve their fitness gradually. 

[Gollum]

3 minutes ago, Khota said:

 

Great post.

 

I have been saying this for decades. Even before you posted this I mentioned it yesterday that of all the sports I have watched Cricket players are the least athletic. 

 

I will once again get hate for this but not one cricket player is as fit as any baseball player who plays infield or outfield.

I don't know much about baseball but I concur, cricket is not a demanding sport. I follow tennis, boxing, basketball, badminton, hockey etc and all are much more athletic than cricket. Only sports like chess, table tennis, shooting, archery, billiards/snooker are below cricket in the athletic scale IMO.