International cricket injury surveillance: a report of five teams competing in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011

Abstract

This is the first study to use recommended injury surveillance guidelines to reporting injury rates across multiple teams at a major cricket tournament. Non-time-loss injury incidence appears relatively high and further study of the effect on performance and progression to subsequent time-loss is required. Fast bowler injury prevalence rates are lower than reported elsewhere, however this may be due to the nature of the tournament and match format, which is likely to impose a lower relative workload. In future, data from all competing teams over all formats of the game (Twenty20, ODI and Tests) needs to be analysed to effectively inform injury prevention research and practice.

Craniofacial injuries in professional cricket: no more a red herring

“…Injury surveillance by the England and Wales Cricket Board and ICC has documented nearly 50 cases of injuries to batsman. 26,27,35 In 2005, cricket narrowly preceded football and rugby union to the publication of the sport's first consensus statement of injury definition. 21,22,27 A few injury surveillance reports are available in cricket, dating back to World Cup tournaments of 2003 and 2011.…”

“…However, an initiative by the ICC to identify the current burden of injury, especially head injury in professional cricket, should be welcomed. 21,22,27 Injury surveillance in cricket has so far concentrated on injuries resulting in match time loss only, in comparison with football and rugby, where all injuries are reported. With the different formats of cricket being played year round, injury surveillance has become a rather difficult task because of independent clubs and ownerships failing to share data.…”

“…The injury prevalence rate in the injury surveillance report by the ICC has been reported to range from 10% to 15%, classifying cricket as a game associated with a moderate injury risk in comparison with football and rugby. 8,21,22,27,33 The reports were criticized as they covered only one format of cricket, i.e., One Day International. There was no formal analysis available for Twenty20 and Test cricket-related injuries, as prolonged play, a tired player, and different degrees of pressure to perform change the vulnerability and spectrum of injuries.…”

“…There was no formal analysis available for Twenty20 and Test cricket-related injuries, as prolonged play, a tired player, and different degrees of pressure to perform change the vulnerability and spectrum of injuries. 21,22,27 Another important shortcoming is the data collection from players of 5 of 14 countries only (Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Pakistan). In the remaining 9 countries, the national cricket councils were independently collecting the data, which was not shared with the ICC.…”

Problems of Injury Surveillance and Documentation in Cricket: Indian Experience

“…Focused efforts can then be made toward optimizing player preparation and the training and competition environment to manage injury and illness risk. 12 As suggested by Orchard, 3 good injury surveillance requires ongoing funding. Funding has already been reported as a crucial factor in the success or failure of national joint replacement registries.…”