Don't wrap our fast bowlers up in cotton wool

And that is just it, marrying the 2 and listening to both the scientist theories , and also to the player actually telling the scientist how his body feels and types of reactions and sensation it feels after say a specific bowling spell in each of the 3 forms of the game, and then developing analysis form that. ANd like you said and i added in detail , sports science and full time professionalism in cricket are very young industries, and there will be a lot of mistakes made in finding the right raining programs and appropriate playing schedules.

Johnno, As to who knows more, the ex-player or the sports scientist I reckon we can assume they both do. The scientist knows more about muscles, skeletons, movement and exercise while the player knows more about batting, bowling and fielding. The trick is to marry the two to actually improve the player. At the end of the day, this is the only thing that counts. If the player is a better player purely because of the science then the value is there. If he is not then the value is not there. In this case the only thing to do is either get better sports scientists or get rid of them altogether.

One thing bayman and i think this is a problem in the sports medicine/science industry, is cricket and say rugby union, and rugby league i will add as well ,they are only been truly full time all players the same amount as rugby, is these industries are still very young, and a lot of trial and error is still going on, despite all the new gadgets and technolgies(eg heart rate montiors,gps, navigation). And all these theories get popped up , eg altitiude training, ice baths, types of stretching (static, dynamic),. Ad the problem then arisies in science is you get all sorts of experts all giving different programs and having different agendas and conlficts of interest. And you are 100% right we the fans and the players should 100% question the sports science experts theories So 100% accuracy in using the science term is not always accurate. -eg global warming has not 100% been proven - heck for years people believed the earth was not round but flat - For years so called experts did not understand or know the dangers of things like 2nd hand tobacco smoke form other smokers in close proximity to others, or the dangers of Aspestos dust. -stretching many say is counter productive as it puts pressure on the muscles and stretches the muscles after warm up and reduces explosive power. Read up on stretching and you get varying degrees of opinions, many sports science experts for example are against stretching before a workout but most supper tit after. I think warm ups as well can be excessively ong in modern sprot as well as stretching you have all typers of stretching. -core work is another that has germinated criticism, core work is needed but after reading some of the science on core training and how to work the abdominals, and what are bad ab work, and what the abs are and how to burn fat and generate lean muscle on the abs and strengthen lower back, i see tonnes of athletes for my mind in cricket doing the wrong core work. -So you see like you said Bayman sport medicine, has a lot of agendas , is not 100% certain on every theory, so many conflicting theories and agendas, it is hard to know what is right. -And the modern sport science industry in the sport of cricket to my mind is very young, so still massively in the experimental stage Bayman. -And playing 3 forms of the game as is now in cricket, as Hadlee did rightly point out works all 3 different muscles int he body as the deliveries are different and the intestines and styles are different in all 3 forms of the game, thus putting more pressure on the player with limited time to develop his body so called scientifically to speak Bayman. -You raise some good potions on the validity and cirtisms of sports medicine. i agree with you especially based on theory based not 100% conclusive science , and also with modern sprots science begin very young, much like general medicine, many theoroies doctors had 10 years ago they no longer agree with, or some medications they no longer agree with as being suitable medical treatment ,. -Sports science is still a mystery to the so called experts, and modern full time cricket like rugby league/unions are very young industries just like the modern internet is a very young industry still developing , and mistakes on theories about the right training programs will be made, and also the right technology to eg( some heart rate monitors have not been found to be accurate, some mating weight training vs free weight rainings have had serious questions marks, weight training vs natural body trianing(push ups, sit ups, chin ups).

The Bush do NZ rugby players play less, maybe you should go to the top of NZ rugby and get that awnser yourself, former and so recently former AB'S coach Grahame Henry. He will give you a good lesson in the art of rotation lol. They said Grahme Hnery reversed his rotation ideas form 2007, hardly. Look at the tri nations thus year, and a lot of the ab's who were actually fit missed large parts of the super 15. So I don't know where you got your NZ rugby players play less theory form, when the HEAD ALL BLACK COACH Grahame Henry to my opinion loves good rotation . And Henry i presume was making these rotations of the his AB'S squads based on the sports science experts that he got his information from I would assume.

james, I guess it depends on your definition of "elite sport". As I pointed out to BA Sports elsewhere in this thread, David Lord is a former first grade cricketer with Mosman (and he captained the first grade team). Spiro opened the batting for Wellington against MCC (Trueman and Tyson) at the Basin Reserve. So while they never quite became Don Bradman they do have some experience of what it's like to play with and against good players and, like everyone else on the Roar, they're entitled to their opinion. They also have an advantage, possibly, of actually being involved in the game at a reasonable level. I find it fascinating, as an "old-timer", that modern followers of the game have such faith in sports medicine and fitness experts. There is an assumption, held in blind faith apparently, that because these people exist they must be of value. All Jeff Thomson and David Lord are doing is questioning this basic premise. If you are of value, prove it. On the evidence of cricket's fast bowlers, at least in this country, those experts have manifestly failed to prove their worth. They may not have been able to do much about Johnno's toe but they surely have an input into the recent fortunes of Starc, Hazlewood, Harris, Tait, Siddle, Cameron, Cummins, Bracken etc. Bracken is attempting to sue CA for their mishandling of his injury. Hazlewood was misdiagnosed. Now I accept there may be collision course of sorts between the techos and the on-field captains. Cummins, for example, was bowled into the ground during the Shield final last year and suffered for it. It still raises the question as to why his body failed. Was he too young, too under-developed and not mature enough in his body, not experienced enough to know when to pull the pin (hard to do when the skipper keeps chucking you the ball)? Was he picked too soon? Cummins is of interest only because of his age, or lack of it, and his enormous potential. He was always going to get picked to see what he could do. The other bowlers mentioned (with the possible exception of Hazlewood) are older and more mature in their body. One could possibly argue that Harris is injured now, and frequently, precisely because he failed to do the "hard work" Lord mentioned when he was younger. In Adelaide he never rose to the status he now seems to hold in Australian cricket - and he never looked like it. He was lazy, he was undisciplined and he relied too much on his talent alone. Queensland has improved the work ethic and he's reaped the rewards. His fitness base, however, is perhaps questionable. All the sports science in the land does not seem to get over the problem of that missing hardness which he might have acquired when much younger with a better attitude. Perhaps, if as Thommo has suggested, he spent more time actually bowling in the nets, and training as he intended to play instead of going through the motions, he might now have had a long international career and be less prone to injury every time he exerts himself. He's had the gurus for a couple of years but they have not solved the problem. Could it be that at some fundamental, basic level Thommo is actually right. We'll never know. What we can be sure of, however, is that the gurus will ridicule the suggestion for no other reason than it raises doubts about their value. And at the end of the day they are protecting their arse - after all, they have an income depending on it. Blind acceptance of things does not improve anything. Only by questioning and re-evaluating can some reasonable conclusions be drawn. The sports gurus may well be right but it serves nobody any good to just accept their word for it without question. They have convinced the powers that be - in any sport - of the need and the possible advantages, they have created a niche for themselves and they're not about to let that go. This is a truth which should always be considered when evaluating their advice. Are they helping the sport - or helping themselves? No doubt there are good, even great sports scientists in many sports. There are also a lot of hangers-on with a vested interest. One thing about cricket which is interesting. With all the technology, the off-field gurus, the coaching - bowlers today are not quicker than days gone by, they don't swing the ball more, they don't spin the ball more. What we can say though, particularly in relation to the quicks, they are a lot more injured. More often and for longer periods. Perhaps the real solution is less gurus and a longer gap in the schedule. Do we really need to play four Tests against India in five weeks?

Chris, I think the point David Lord is trying to make is rarely did they break down for such long periods. I don't recall Lawson or Lindwall being out of the game for long periods. Reid certainly (but he was a beanpole) while my memory of Alderman was a shoulder injury caused by tackling an intruder who ran onto the field. I don't recall Davidson missing too many games, or McKenzie, or Hawke, or Walker or Thomson. Or even Lillee after his much publicised sabbatical. Certainly fast bowlers had "niggles" and sore spots but that is to be expected given the strains placed on the body. Today though we have had Starc out for a year, and Hazlewood, now Cummins for the summer, Harris for most of any year, Johnson for the summer, Tait, Siddle a year or so ago for the year, Lee for a long time, remember Bracken. Missing the odd game is fair and reasonable but whole seasons? One bowler and it may be considered unlucky. Two and it suggests some carelessness. But half a dozen and more and somebody should be asking questions (that might be Thommo and David Lord) and somebody (perhaps CA or the Centre of Excellence) should be giving an explanation - and a justification - because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the gurus at CA simply do not know what they are talking about. Just a possibility. In other words, Chris, if the medicos and fitness gurus are so damn good - why do we have the problem?

Well bayman maybe you right, they may not know either. The thing with a lot of sports science it is a complex industry. Coz your dealing with humans , not robots/machines one can never work out the perfect program as every human body is different and so many complicated variables get in the way. EG lifestyle stresses of the athletes(eg family life, partying lifestyle perhaps. But exercise scientist have more idea than Thommo i think, but they should listen to former bowlers, and even conduct some scientific test son there theories or Richard Hadlee, but i think the sports science experts have more basic knowledge than ex players like Thommo or Hadlee. And like doctors, doctors if one looks at medical science i am no doctor but medical science has changed it's opinions over the years on medical treatment, they have removed pharmaceutical drugs after later fining out they did more harm than actually cure the medical problem. But in this review i have said everything must be looked at, - The type of grass being used at the ovals, - Nutrition advice and a review of the nutrition diets recommended by nutritionists -And of course the strength and conditioning programs that are used - I also think who ever is doing this review should study the patterns of why shane watson is getting injured less in the last 4 years and what changes Watosn has done to his program But modern elite level cricket sports science is still a relatively young industry and mistakes will be made, but i would back sprot science expert eg a exercise scientist or human movement specialist specialising in the sport of cricket would know more than Thommo at least i'd hope so, but maybe im wrong.

Johnno, The other side of that coin is; Based on the sheer volume of injured players in recent years, and now in particular, what do exercise scientists or human movement specialists know? Not much it would seem!

B.A. I think you'll find that David Lord, as a former captain of Mosman DCC, and first grade player for several years did indeed face Jeff Thomson. The upshot of that is that your attempt at sarcasm has only highlighted your own ignorance of things cricket. Keep up the good work!

AFL, You obviously never saw Jeff Thomson bowl - and you've clearly never had a conversation with any batsman who had the misfortune to face him. Bob Simpson once famously put fast bowlers into three classes; Quick, Very Quick and Oh Shit! Trust me, Thommo was in the Oh Shit! class. As for making the cut - based on the attrition rate for fast bowlers today Thomson would be the first picked because he never got injured because of his action, or stubbing his toe, or pulling a hammy. He did injure his shoulder by running into Alan Turner while both were trying to take the same catch but then Steve Waugh and Gillespie collided too. As did Matthew Elliot and Mark Waugh. Accidents happen. What Thommo is saying though, and David Lord and I agree, is that bowlers today would be best served bowling rather than doing gym work, or resting for long periods, or meditating or whatever they damn well do. Perhaps you, claiming to be a physio, could give the scientific rationale as to why, since medical science became so popular in cricket, we have had so many injuries and far more than used to be the case (and please don't tell me they play more cricket today because they do not). What they do have today is far more people telling them how to spend their "down" time and perhaps those people don't know as much as they would have us believe. After all, I'm yet to hear any Backroom guru suggest he's a waste of space and time. Nobody tells us we need medical science like a guy trying to make a living in the field of medical science.

Guru - so if I understand it, Bret Lee (and you) think sports training should involve the following training: stamina, speed, strength, sports specific. Sounds familiar... Maybe with a little bit of suppleness thrown in you're onto something!

This is the worst article I've ever read on The Roar. Utterly embarrassing. Can we please have the 'expert' title removed from underneath Lord's name? What a joke. And an insult to people that actually know something about injuries and the human body.

The comments above that modern cricketers play more cricket is actually misleading. They play more Test cricket, sure, but they do not play more cricket. In the '70s, or indeed any era before the '90s, cricketers had to play this thing called Shield cricket as well. I remember reading once that Brett Lee, despite all his Tests, bowled far less First Class balls than Lillee, because he never played for NSW. I won't get into the medical side of it because I simply don't know. All I do know is that players of any sport perform better with match fitness - not gym fitness. New Zealand rugby players breakdown less because they play more than our players. The Roar's success and fitness was built on an immense warm-up season/pre-season of something like 20+ games (last season). Even Brett Lee admitted that he was too much of a gym junkie. David Lord has probably not quoted the best source, and the reference of beer is a joke surely, but I'm a believer that these young blokes should be bowling as often as possible - be it at Test Level, First Class or otherwise - not less.

Thommo was bowling as fast as those guys after he was injured. He was quicker then any of those guys and by a lot more then then you might think. Watching Marsh leap helplessly trying to take a bouncer delivered for Thommo only to see it fly past his glove and hit the sight screen on the full is something that's hard to forget.

Lyon is pretty good. Harris, Pattinson, Cummins and Siddle would be top 4. Starc, Copeland, Cutting and even Johnson and Hilfy battling for next. That's 9.

so who are you first pick 4 bowlers ?

my hunch is we could be building one of the strongest quick bowling line ups for some time if we could emerge that spinner to tie down the batsmen and allow our quicks to bowl lesser overs...........well then we will have a serious quartet of bowlers which will alleviate pressure on our batsmen also !

Fascinating comments AFL guru and interesting to see you agreeing with me about cardio/general being one of the main factors. You need that sort of background so your body is strong enough to handle the more intense training. I am fascinated by what you said about Arsenal. What sort of training did they do that gave them the edge in the early 2000s? Can you elaborate? I've got a kid who's a high level age middle distance runner, and I've been researching the Kenyans, in training and diet. I'm always interested in other fitness type innovations.

rl Actually what I should have said is that I like Shane Warnes comments more than anything. I agree with you that he is a shi...t house commentator, he needs to learn the art of not talking too much. He over analyses things to much for my liking, but he does make very good comments at times when it comes to tactics. My point being I can appreciate his opinion on field placement etc... but Nasser I can't. He has to be the most boring commentators on the planet. Living in the UK for 7 years listening to the BBC is just tragic, although David Llyoyd and Michael Atherton are great commentators.

Wow David Lord - Did you face Jeff Thomson!? Because I am guessing if you are telling someone they are wrong in their opinion of Thomson because they never faced him, then you must have in order to have developed your opinion! In which case i am suprised you didn't mention it in your "article". Although to be honest i didn't bother to read the whole thing...