https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/05/20/do-england-fast-bowlers-keep-getting-injured/

Simple explanation:

(1) the rule that no one under the age of 18 may bowl no more than (I think) 6 overs in a spell has meant that bowlers do not have an opportunity to toughen their bodies from an early age by bowling as much as they wanted .

(2) Coaches tinker with actions and run ups far more these days than they did previously. Sometimes it is a freak problem , eg Stephen Finn had his career severely disrupted by the correction to his run up because every now and then he knocked the stumps at the bowlers's end.

(3) Fast bowlers (who are mostly tall these days) are now required, particularly in short form cricket, to throw themselves about in a way unheard of 25 years ago.
RH

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 8:51:19 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/05/20/do-england-fast-bowlers-keep-getting-injured/
>
> Simple explanation:
>
> (1) the rule that no one under the age of 18 may bowl no more than (I think) 6 overs in a spell has meant that bowlers do not have an opportunity to toughen their bodies from an early age by bowling as much as they wanted .
>
> (2) Coaches tinker with actions and run ups far more these days than they did previously. Sometimes it is a freak problem , eg Stephen Finn had his career severely disrupted by the correction to his run up because every now and then he knocked the stumps at the bowlers's end.
>
> (3) Fast bowlers (who are mostly tall these days) are now required, particularly in short form cricket, to throw themselves about in a way unheard of 25 years ago.

None of which is proven to be the cause so in no way are you proven to be right.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 8:51:19 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/05/20/do-england-fast-bowlers-keep-getting-injured/
>>
>> Simple explanation:
>>
>> (1) the rule that no one under the age of 18 may bowl no more than (I think) 6 overs in a spell has meant that bowlers do not have an opportunity to toughen their bodies from an early age by bowling as much as they wanted .
>>
>> (2) Coaches tinker with actions and run ups far more these days than they did previously. Sometimes it is a freak problem , eg Stephen Finn had his career severely disrupted by the correction to his run up because every now and then he knocked the stumps at the bowlers's end.
>>
>> (3) Fast bowlers (who are mostly tall these days) are now required, particularly in short form cricket, to throw themselves about in a way unheard of 25 years ago.
>
>None of which is proven to be the cause so in no way are you proven to be right.

As usual he's wrong and needs to be corrected..

Up to 13 5 overs per spell 10 overs per day

U/14 & U/15 6 overs per spell 12 overs per day

U/16 & U/17 7 overs per spell 18 overs per day

U/18 & U/19 7 overs per spell 18 overs per day

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 20 May 2022 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 8:51:19 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/05/20/do-england-fast-bowlers-keep-getting-injured/
>>
>> Simple explanation:
>>
>> (1) the rule that no one under the age of 18 may bowl no more than (I think) 6 overs in a spell has meant that bowlers do not have an opportunity to toughen their bodies from an early age by bowling as much as they wanted .
>>
>> (2) Coaches tinker with actions and run ups far more these days than they did previously. Sometimes it is a freak problem , eg Stephen Finn had his career severely disrupted by the correction to his run up because every now and then he knocked the stumps at the bowlers's end.
>>
>> (3) Fast bowlers (who are mostly tall these days) are now required, particularly in short form cricket, to throw themselves about in a way unheard of 25 years ago.
>
>None of which is proven to be the cause so in no way are you proven to be right.

For once, I think the village idiot has got a particle of the right
answer, but largely by mistake.

When the bowlers of the 1950s were small, their families mostly did
not have cars, and certainly not spare cars for mum to use when dad
had gone to work. So small children had to walk and bike to and from
school from a very early age.

That meant that by the time they were in their teens, they were
considerably tougher.

The consequence of that across the population has been the idiot's
point 1. However, it is not the cause, as he fondly imagines, but the
effect of the changes in society. Because most of the kids' bodies
weren't toughened up by age 9, it would be extremely dangerous for
most of them to bowl long spells at age 14, so lifting the new rule as
he no doubt recommends would simply stem the flow of new bowlers by
invaliding them out of the game before they'd even left school.

Given the present UK government's policy of impoverishing the country,
it's entirely possible that we could regress to levels of material
discomfort not experienced since the 1930s, but on the other hand,
fast bowlers wouldn't break down as often. As an electoral pitch for
the Conservatives, I'm not sure that it would be all that effective.

Cheers,

Mike