Cricket has come a long way from it’s early days. From a part time hobby to a full time job to a profession with serious money in it. Players are fitter then ever before just so they can compete at the highest level. Yet after all those changes we tend to hold the players of today agaisnt those of yester years.
Marshal, Lillie, Thompson, Imran, Garner etc. were great bowlers and were seldom unfit atleast much rare then what we see with the fast bowlers of today. Mind you there are very few genuine quick bowlers in world cricket and most of them have struggled to stay fit for an extended period of time. Bret Lee, Shoaib Akhtar and Shane Bond are the fastest of the lot and the only one that has played the game with somewhat consistency is Bret Lee. Even Lee has missed some cricket due to injuries but Akhtar and Bond have been injured more then they have been fit. Neither one lacks the talent, speed or the ability to send teams packing in one motivated spell and both have shown it whenever they have played.
So what is it that makes today’s fast bowler more vulnerable to injury then those from the past ? Shoaib has said time and again that a fast bowler’s life is very little and inury is part of being a fast bowler. But then how did Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Waqar played so much cricket without being injured as much ?
People have blamed it on the amount of cricket we play these days compared to the past where matches were far and few in between. If this argument is true wouldnt it make sense to conserve the energy of the bowlers for the big games. Like if you are playing an ODI series either rotate your fast bowlers or if the series has already been decided just dont play the fast bowler in the games that matter little to the outcome of the series. Or in a big tournament you unleash your quicks only agianst top sides so as as to conserve their energy.
It is a shame that two of the most devastating fast bowlers of the modern era (Shoaib and Bond) have not entertained as much as they could have due to injury issues. Bond is not as high profile a celebrity as Shoaib, perhaps cause he likes to keep a low profile. But when it come to performing at the highest level there arent too many people that can bowl better then Bond. Shoaib is a high profile player and many people dont like his attitdue but there shouldnt by any doubt about his abilities as a bowler. Shoaib in full cry is a treat to watch and brings back memories of the good 'ol days of Wasim and Waqar. It’s shame that both these talented bowlers have has more or less a wasted career. Maybe now the boards can decide to either play less but competitive cricket or have a bigger pool of players prepared to give the injury prone players a little rest between games.
Those who ruminate nostalgically about the good old days only need to watch videos of ODI or test matches from the early 80s.
Players in bell-bottoms, who would not dive for the fear of getting their *patloon *dirty. Outfield fielders jogging after the ball only to collect it from the boundary. The game had plenty of lazy, lethargic (some obese) laggards e.g. Mohinder Amarnath bowled as if he would go to sleep in the middle of his run-up. Also, without TV technology, you had to be out by a yard to be given run-out or stumped. Umpiring mistakes were much more rampant.
Cricket, thankfully, has become much more athletic since. The primary reason why injuries have increased.
btw, in direct response to LahoriMunda's questions :
Shoaib & Bond are exceptions even by today's standards. You dont see even current folks like McGrath, Ntini, Pollock, Vass etc get injured that often.
None of the bowlers you mentioned are as quick as Shoaib or Bond. In my post you might notice I did not mention Hadlee as has wasnt as quick as the others I mentioned. But Lillile, Thompson, Imran, Garner etc were pretty quick. While I am not advocating Sami's ability with the ball but he has maitned his fitness despite having very good pace. That might have to do with the fact that he get's dropped so often that he doesnt get a chance to get inured. There are very few bowlers in world cricket that bowl as quickly as Shoaihb, Bond or Lee. Malinga is pretty quick as is Tait but Tait will have to play a little more time before anyone can form an opinion about him.
So who bowls(or chucks) as fast as Shoaib and Bond ?
Bret Lee....may be. Does he get injured as often as Akhtar and Bond. I don't think so, his missing the WC notwithstanding.
I think its totally because of too much cricket. Even though I don't agree with the statement "too much cricket." Athelte's at this level should be fit enough to last through the amount cricket these guys play.
In the older days, in the times of Marshall and Imran...there was never this much Cricket played, thus, less injuries...bowlers could bowl through the whole series without any major injury.
I think the fault lies within the players. Whether you bowl fast or medium pace...you have to remain fit. If you're a fast bowler like Shoiab or Bond you must pay extra attention to your fitness since their body needs when they bowl at those speeds. Brett Lee has never been injured as often as Bong and Akhtar and that clearly proves you can bowl 90mph+ and yet still remain fit. Sami is another example. Even though he doesnt play for Pakistan all the time, he still plays a lot of domestic cricket and I have rarely seen him miss a game due to injury.
These days, with county commitmens, domestic commitmets, ODI tournaments, test matches, Twenty20 games...players must pay extra attention to fitness if they are to keep up. Time changes everything and gone are the days when you played cricket after months of resting.
Good thing working for Bond is that he actually performed well in World Cup, '03 and '07. Shoaib has a stupid obsession with pace, he needs to learn a lesson or two from Imran, Wasim and Waqar. Lower down pace and extend your career.
Shoaib akhtar comes back from an injury and bowls 10 overs ,gets injured and out for 1 year ,yeah height of fitness and athletism.Yes he does play a lot of cricket unlike the older ones .He did play 45 tests while the older generation just 90 tests or 100 tests ,so silly.