Why does the current generation of fast bowlers suffer so many injuries?

[Texan]

It's not like these bowlers are the fastest ever. There have been numerous examples of fast bowlers in the past who were said to be faster than most of the current lot. They also didn't have access to physiotherapists and gyms as much as the current lot. Even in the current lot, Steyn can consistently bowl fast and maintain his fitness. So, the question is why are most of these players suffering so many injuries? Pat Cummins, Ryan Harris, James Pattison, Umesh Yadav, Varun Aaron.... just a few of them, there are plenty of others. Vote in the poll or post your views.

[Trichromatic]

How do we know that fast bowlers suffer more injuries than their previous generations? In 80s, fast bowlers used to bowl 70-75 overs in a day.

[Texan]

How do we know that fast bowlers suffer more injuries than their previous generations? In 80s, fast bowlers used to bowl 70-75 overs in a day.

Most of them had long careers - Wasim Akram, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee. They didn't suffer as many injuries as the current lot. Just look at the examples of Varun Aaron and Pat Cummins... they just played one test and now have been out of the team injured for more than a year.

[rkt.india]

Most of them had long careers - Wasim Akram, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Michael Holding, Dennis Lillee. They didn't suffer as many injuries as the current lot. Just look at the examples of Varun Aaron and Pat Cummins... they just played one test and now have been out of the team injured for more than a year.

Do you think the ones you named did not have injuries? They too had their share of injuries. Lillie had long lay of due to aback stress fracture. Same with others. If they had not suffer injuries, they all would have played 100 plus tests like Kapil Dev but the did not, only Akram that too because his career span is of 18 years. Important this keep going and keep yourself level with international cricket after injuries. One or two years of lay off because of injuries is not a big deal when a cricketer have 10-15 years of career if he is good enough to play at the highest level. If a bowler debuts at 20 and plays till 35 for his team, it is 15 years and if he has injury lay offs in between of 2-3 years even then he has played 12-13 years of cricket and that is 70-100 tests. Most important thing is come back after injuries because lot Indian bowlers fizzle out and does not stay the same after they come back. Look at Brett lee, he had so many injuries, still was able to play 76 odd tests and 221 ODIs in an 11 year career span.

[Texan]

Do you think the ones you named did not have injuries? They too had their share of injuries. Lillie had long lay of due to aback stress fracture. Same with others. If they had not suffer injuries, they all would have played 100 plus tests like Kapil Dev but the did not, only Akram that too because his career span is of 18 years. Important this keep going and keep yourself level with international cricket after injuries. One or two years of lay off because of injuries is not a big deal when a cricketer have 10-15 years of career if he is good enough to play at the highest level. If a bowler debuts at 20 and plays till 35 for his team, it is 15 years and if he has injury lay offs in between of 2-3 years even then he has played 12-13 years of cricket and that is 70-100 tests. Most important thing is come back after injuries because lot Indian bowlers fizzle out and does not stay the same after they come back. Look at Brett lee, he had so many injuries, still was able to play 76 odd tests and 221 ODIs in an 11 year career span.

Most of them did play many matches without being injured much. Of course, all fast bowlers face injuries at some point or another. But, to me, the current crop just seems too fragile. They can barely play one or two matches before missing out for a year or so.

[Junyfan]

too much workload,should follow styne path

[rkt.india]

Most of them did play many matches without being injured much. Of course' date=' all fast bowlers face injuries at some point or another. But, to me, the current crop just seems too fragile. They can barely play one or two matches before missing out for a year or so.[/quote'] The ones you have chosen likes of Cummins, Pattinson, Aaron are young bowlers whose bodies are not matured. Some bodies are also naturally fragile and prone to injuries like it was in case of Akhtar and Bond. Look at the likes of Johnson now who too was seriously injury prone in his early 20s, Peter Siddle, Steyn, Morkel, Gul, Anderson who himself was injury prone in his early days, they rarely get any serious injury now because they have passed that fragile age.

[adi B]

for indian pace bowlers i`ll say most bowlers are short,have less muscles,body incapable of bowling too fast..some of these bowlers have not even played 10 test match or even 30 odis and often get injured,so excessive bowling aint the biggest problem

[Texan]

too much workload' date='should follow styne path[/quote'] But Steyn plays all 3 formats and bowls long spells too. The others like Cummins, Aaron rarely play a month or two of cricket before breaking down. I feel they're not sufficiently strong to be able to bowl at those speeds consistently.

[Zero_Unit]

I personaly believe they don't maintain a proper FOOD intake and a proper EXERCISE ... just take a look at all the DESI bowlers. Some looks like a pregnent man while others look like they need some meat on their body!

[Texan]

I personaly believe they don't maintain a proper FOOD intake and a proper EXERCISE ... just take a look at all the DESI bowlers. Some looks like a pregnent man while others look like they need some meat on their body!

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. They are not fit enough to bowl at that pace.

[panther]

Not bowling enough the more you bowl at a young age the less injury prone you will be after 25.

[I6MTW]

Because they are not physically fit.

[tweaker]

Not enough guidance.

[Muloghonto]

How do we know that fast bowlers suffer more injuries than their previous generations? In 80s, fast bowlers used to bowl 70-75 overs in a day.

Look at how many FC games these fast bowlers played. Yes, they bowled at a more sedate rate than they do today, but not by much. The fast bowlers of the 70s- 90s played atleast twice as much cricket as the fast bowlers today. As for their fitness issues, it is due to the focus on the wrong thing. Fast bowlers don't need six packs and be gym monkeys like they are today. They need to have a strong back & midsection along with extremely durable butt muscles that can only be made through long running. Malcolm Marshall was one of the fittest pacers ever and his 'regimen' was 200 situps, 100 back-ups and running 5kms everyday. He didn't go around pumping iron for his biceps, triceps, shoulders, quads, etc. and certainly didn't skimp out on the running. If pacers did the same today, they'd be a lot fitter.

[Muloghonto]

But Steyn plays all 3 formats and bowls long spells too. The others like Cummins' date=' Aaron rarely play a month or two of cricket before breaking down. I feel they're not sufficiently strong to be able to bowl at those speeds consistently.[/quote'] Steyn hardly plays much ODIs. At this stage in his career, Steyn has played about 60% of the matches ( FC, Tests and LO matches) than Alan Donald did.

[Crookbond]

Others - I get a feeling bowlers spend more time in the gym than they spend bowling.

[Texan]

Steyn hardly plays much ODIs. At this stage in his career, Steyn has played about 60% of the matches ( FC, Tests and LO matches) than Alan Donald did.

He's almost 30 now, so it makes sense to rest him for the meaningless limited overs internationals. When he was younger, he played all 3 formats. Nevertheless, he is still by far the fittest of all fast bowlers.

[Muloghonto]

He's almost 30 now' date=' so it makes sense to rest him for the meaningless limited overs internationals. When he was younger, he played all 3 formats. Nevertheless, he is still by far the fittest of all fast bowlers.[/quote'] Err, he's been always 'managed' to play only a handful of ODIs in his career. He's also rarely overbowled like Donald was. Trust me, at 30, Dale Steyn has played much less cricket than his predecessors. Dale Steyn is relatively fit. He's not as fit as Walsh or Akram or Ambrose, who played far more cricket than Steyn has in 10 years. Look at it this way- in 10 years, Steyn has played 333 sanctioned cricket games. Thats 33.3 sanctioned cricket matches per year. Donald played 776 sanctioned cricket games in 17 years. Ie, 45.5 sanctioned cricket matches per year. This, despite Donald not having played test cricket for 6 of those 17 years due to Saffies being under sanction. Steyn, while the fittest pace bowler going around today, is nowhere close to the 'android-like fit' pacers of the yesteryears- players like Walsh, Ambrose, Marshall played over 2x more matches per year than Steyn does. Factor in that back then most matches were 3-4 day FC matches, while Steyn has 4 over 20/20 for 1/3rd of his sanctioned matches, it becomes a no-contest. Steyn has spent less than a third as many days playing professional cricket in his career as the 'fittest of the yesteryear' bowlers like Marshall, Walsh, etc and is in the 'average fitness of the yesteryear pacers' category, sort of like Darren Gough, Jeff Thompson, etc. Ie, nothing more than average.

[Texan]

Err, he's been always 'managed' to play only a handful of ODIs in his career. He's also rarely overbowled like Donald was. Trust me, at 30, Dale Steyn has played much less cricket than his predecessors. Dale Steyn is relatively fit. He's not as fit as Walsh or Akram or Ambrose, who played far more cricket than Steyn has in 10 years. Look at it this way- in 10 years, Steyn has played 333 sanctioned cricket games. Thats 33.3 sanctioned cricket matches per year. Donald played 776 sanctioned cricket games in 17 years. Ie, 45.5 sanctioned cricket matches per year. This, despite Donald not having played test cricket for 6 of those 17 years due to Saffies being under sanction. Steyn, while the fittest pace bowler going around today, is nowhere close to the 'android-like fit' pacers of the yesteryears- players like Walsh, Ambrose, Marshall played over 2x more matches per year than Steyn does. Factor in that back then most matches were 3-4 day FC matches, while Steyn has 4 over 20/20 for 1/3rd of his sanctioned matches, it becomes a no-contest. Steyn has spent less than a third as many days playing professional cricket in his career as the 'fittest of the yesteryear' bowlers like Marshall, Walsh, etc and is in the 'average fitness of the yesteryear pacers' category, sort of like Darren Gough, Jeff Thompson, etc. Ie, nothing more than average.

Completely agree that Steyn has played far less cricket than Donald and other predecessors like Akram. All I was saying is that he is the fittest of the current lot. That just tells you how poor the fitness levels of other fast bowlers currently playing are.