Player burn out

[andrew_nixon]

I've just posted this over at my blog ( http://www.baseballonvalium.co.uk/blog/blog.html ), but thought some of you here may be interested in it.

Recent high profile cases of what appear to be player burn out (Marcus Trescothick and Shahid Afridi) have led some to call for a major cut back on the amount of international games played.

But do we need to cut back on the amount of games played, or the amount of games played by individual players?

Allow me to explain.

In the recent World Baseball Classic tournament, pitchers were limited to a strict pitch count, ie. they could only pitch a certain amount of times in each game, and couldn't play two games in a row. I think something similar to this could be implemented in cricket.

With teams shoe-horning extra fixtures into nearly every gap created by the FTP, and the increasing trend to play back-to-back tests, without tour games inbetween to gave players a rest, means that player burn-out could become a serious issue in future.

I say the ICC should introduce a playing condition that states how much international cricket a player can play each year. Don't limit the amount of matches, but the number of days, wether in Tests or ODIs. Something around 70 should be fine, limiting a player to, for example, 10 tests and 20 ODIs in each year. A Twenty20 game would count as half a day.

Rules should also be introduced to ensure that players get sufficient time off. Let's say if a player plays more than half his quota in a 6 month period, he then gets a month away from cricket.

I think rules similar to this, if properly implemented, could reduce the issue of player burn out, and help keep the quality of the game at a high level.

 

[irottev]

I don't think the ICC should do any limiting. That should be up to players, selectors and coaches.

Look, selectors and coaches are going to have to start to have more players under their belts and rotate more and prevent it. Its not hard to give 1 player a few games off. Australia seem to be doing that (except they need to for Brett Lee NOW!!! and probably are going to)

 

[m_vaughan]

I fully agree with this. The amount of international cricket being played by some of the top playing nations is ridiculous. I think if you leave it upto the players, then the fear of being dropped or losing your place in the side might force the player to carry on playing. I think the number of games (especially the ones away from home) should be reduced to atleast 70% of what it is at the moment.

Look at the Australians. They according to me play the maximum amount of cricket in a year (test, odi and twenty20 combined). Had it not been for their rotation policy, I am almost certain, that the likes of Glen McGrath and Brett Lee would have their career spans reduced or would have been injured a lot more often. But again, with the quality that they have in their reserves, allows them to rotate thier players a lot more easily.

 

[Kev]

I agree more with Andrew on this point, It think its important to keep a team the same wherever possible so the players get used to playing with each other rather that chopping and changing players, besides the big players just wont be dropped, more and more pressure is put on them and they are given less time to recover from injuries. While its good to see new players being given a chance every once in a while, I'd rather watch a match full of the top players than half full of fringe players anyday.

 

[irottev]

Games played definatly needs to take a cut. But where players start to feel that their workload is too tough, coaches and selectors need to be understanding and give them a few games off.

 

[FishBowlMan]

I don't think Andrew's idea would be workable. The main problem is the quantity of games played, the conditions they are played in, and the travelling time in-between. If you bowl 10 overs in 45 degree heat and 95% humidity, how does that equate to sitting in the dressing room watching your batsmen bat all day in 20 degree temperatures? A player may be tired at the end of a year, probably because they've been involved in one or more test series, these days involving back to back tests, and a ridiculous quantity of one day matches, and possibly some 20/20 stuff as well.

Imagine this: the score is 2-2 with the final game of the series (probably 3 days after the last match) and all of a sudden, 3 or 4 players from each side cannot play as they would be over their "days played" quota at some point during the deciding game.

I believe there is too much international cricket being played and it is trying to be squashed into the minimum time possible. If we were to reduce the number of series played, (e.g. play a team every 3 years rather than every 2) there would be less pressure on players to recover and we would have better matches. Quality over quantity!

Incidentally, in baseball, teams will normally have 4 or 5 starting pitchers who play in a rotation (mainly as the MLB season lasts 162 games, not including the playoffs). This restriction is not mandatory, just that pitcher's will not be able to play at their best if they play too frequently.
The baseball classic tournament was forced to accept the pitch count as it fell during the MLB pre-season and it was the only way club managers would release their pitchers through risk of injury and overdoing it when not fully fit.

 

[andrew_nixon]

The two problems are the following:

1. Broadcasters, sponsors and the ICC want a lot of games.
2. Players don't due to fears of burn out.

Some compromise needs to be reached between these two positions. I feel the best way is my way, or some modified form of it. It allows the broadcasters, sponsors and the ICC to keep the number of games at a high level, whilst still giving the players some breathing space.

It's by no means a concrete proposal, it took me as long to come up with as it did to write the article. There may be room for flexibility, ie. A fast bowler has a tighter quota of playing days than a spin bowler. For test matches, you'd also look at what a player did on the day to decide wether or not it counts as a full or half playing day.

 

[Sureshot]

I think that there should be a minimum ammount of time between tours.

It'll be 3 and a half weeks to the next test vs Sri Lanka for England, India are going to WIndies in a similar ammount of time.

I think a minimum of 6 weeks between tours should be implemented.

 

[sohum]

There may be room for flexibility, ie. A fast bowler has a tighter quota of playing days than a spin bowler. For test matches, you'd also look at what a player did on the day to decide wether or not it counts as a full or half playing day.

Overall, I'd give your idea a thought, but I really don't see this above part working. Who reserves the right to judge whether it is a full or half playing day? And why discriminate between different types of bowlers. That's only lead you to the mess that is the chucking scandal.

I prefer Sureshot's method--have a minimum non-playing period between tours. That way, you are not affecting the strength of the squads out there, but are making it necessary to have a rest period. I think that is ideal and simple--teams get to play their full sides every time they play, and don't have to play too much.

One thing is for certain, though, and that is that the ICC need to do something about the matter.

 

[nightprowler10]

I prefer Sureshot's method--have a minimum non-playing period between tours. That way, you are not affecting the strength of the squads out there, but are making it necessary to have a rest period. I think that is ideal and simple--teams get to play their full sides every time they play, and don't have to play too much.

But that brings up one of Andrew's points, there is a lot of domestic cricket going on in the gaps created by FTP. Players wouldn't get that much rest at all.

 

[andrew_nixon]

But that brings up one of Andrew's points, there is a lot of domestic cricket going on in the gaps created by FTP. Players wouldn't get that much rest at all.

Certainly in England and Australia, the top international players are usually withdrawn from domestic cricket on a regualr basis. England players play hardly any domestic cricket even when there is a break in the schedule.

Overall, I'd give your idea a thought, but I really don't see this above part working. Who reserves the right to judge whether it is a full or half playing day?

Obviously a day spent on your arse in the pavillion watching your team-mates bat wouldn't count as a playing day at all. This would be mainly done for batting, eg. batting for more than a session equals a full playing day.

 

[Sureshot]

How many times has Tres played for Somerset in the last 4/5 years?

20 times tops probably.

 

[sohum]

Obviously a day spent on your arse in the pavillion watching your team-mates bat wouldn't count as a playing day at all. This would be mainly done for batting, eg. batting for more than a session equals a full playing day.

I still think the proposed method would add more complications and controversies than a simple strategy. The ICC has no business what is going on in domestic cricket. They should simply say something like, "a minimum of 5 weeks must pass between international games of two different oppositions, in test cricket". International players hardly play domestic cricket unless they've been dropped or want to prove themselves to the selectors. But by restricting the number of days that a player can play, you are taking away an incentive to be fitter or younger than the rest.

 

[icyman]

I feel that it should be upto the players.
Every Cricket Board nowadays has a contract policy.
This policy must state the minimum number of games to be played to be eligible for payment.
I don't think the ICC will do anything.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

How about limit hours on field/overs bowled per year?

Limiting won't work. Best would be to have less matches in a year. Period. Domestic circket can be covered if broadcasters are desperate for more cricekt to show.