Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighty-two high performance young male fast bowlers (mean age 16.8 years) were tested immediately prior to the season for selected kinanthropometric and physiological data. Subjects were also filmed both laterally (200 Hz) and from above (100 Hz) while bowling so that their front foot impacted a force platform during the delivery stride. The players then completed a log book over the ensuing season that detailed their training and playing programs. All cricket related injuries over this season were assessed by a sports physician who used computerized tomography to assist in the diagnosis of spinal injuries. At the completion of this season the players were grouped according to their injury status (Group 1--bony injury to a vertebra; Group 2--soft tissue injury to the back that caused the player to miss at least one game, and Group 3--no injuries). A one-way analysis of variance was used to identify if any variables were significantly (P less than 0.05) different between the three groups, and a Scheffe post hoc comparison was used to determine which groups were significantly different. Eleven percent of the players sustained a stress fracture to a vertebra (e) (L4 to S1), while 27% sustained a soft tissue injury to the back. Bowlers with a low longitudinal foot arch were more likely to develop a stress fracture than those with a high arch. Shoulder depression and horizontal flexion strength for the preferred limb and quadriceps power in the non-preferred limb were also significantly related to back injuries. Bowlers who rotated the trunk to re-align the shoulders by more than 40o to a more side-on position between back foot impact and front foot impact, in the delivery stride were more likely to sustain back injuries. No significant relationship was determined between peak vertical (5.4 BW) or horizontal (-2.5 BW) ground reaction forces at front foot impact, however, these forces may predispose a bowler to back injuries if the person is required to bowl for long periods. Nineteen of 32 players (59%), who bowled in excess of the mean number of matches for the group, suffered a stress fracture or soft tissue injury to the back compared to the 38% injury frequency for the total group. A greater release height when expressed as a percentage of standing height was also significantly related to back injuries. Results suggest that players with the above physical characteristics, who bowl with these biomechanical techniques for extended periods, may pre-dispose the bowler to back injuries. Despite its long history and global appeal, relatively little is known about the physiological and other requirements of cricket. It has been suggested that the physiological demands of cricket are relatively mild, except in fast bowlers during prolonged bowling spells in warm conditions. However, the physiological demands of cricket may be underestimated because of the intermittent nature of the activity and the generally inadequate understanding of the physiological demands of intermittent activity. Here, we review published studies of the physiology of cricket. We propose that no current model used to analyses the nature of exercise fatigue (i.e. the cardiovascular–anaerobic model, the energy supply–energy depletion model, the muscle power–muscle recruitment model) can adequately explain the fatigue experienced during cricket. A study of players in the South African national cricket team competing in the 1999 Cricket World Cup revealed that, in a variety of measures of explosive ('anaerobic') power and aerobic endurance capacity, they were as 'fit' as South African national rugby players competing in the 1999 Rugby World Cup. Yet, outwardly, the physiological demands of rugby would seem to be far greater than those of cricket. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the prevalence, causes, mechanisms, and prevention strategies for back injuries in fast bowlers in cricket. It reviews existing literature, highlights risk factors, biomechanical considerations, and rehabilitation techniques, aiming to enhance the understanding and management of this prevalent issue in the sport
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".