KNEE ACTIONS AND STRENGTH PREDICTORS OF BALL RELEASE SPEED AMONGST

FAST BOWLERS IN CRICKET

by
SAJEEL CHAUDHRY
June 2015
A RESEARCH PROJECT
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MASTERS OF SCIENCE STENGTH & CONDITIONING

ST. MARYS UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
A more extended knee angle at front foot contact (FFC) is a technique variable which is known to be
moderately to strongly correlated with the release speed of the ball. Previous literature has proposed
that a straighter knee is able to resist flexion due to its greater eccentric capacity whereas a knee which
is able to extend after front foot contact has a greater concentric capacity.
The aim of the study was to characterise the relationship between the various types of knee actions and
eccentric and concentric capacity of the knee musculature via isoinertial strength assessments amongst
fast bowlers. Participants were male right handed club bowlers (n = 20, Age 24.3 5.6 years, mass 76.4
9.3 kg and height 1.79 0.06 m). A high speed video camera operating at 250 Hz was used to
measure the release speed of the ball and group bowlers according to the types of knee actions.
Independent t-tests revealed that there was no significant difference in the release speeds of the ball or
in the strength assessments of countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ) and 1 RM (% body
weight) eccentric squat between the groups. The results highlighted that bowlers with a straighter knee
action did not possess a greater eccentric capacity nor did the knee action which extended possess a

greater concentric capacity. However there was a significant (p<0.05) difference in the RSI scores
between a flexed knee (1.06 0.15) and the knee action which flexed and then extended (1.26 0.17)
upon FFC, revealing that bowlers who flexed and then extended possessed a better stretch shortening
cycle quality compared to other knee actions. A backward stepwise multiple linear regression analysis
revealed the 1 RM (% body weight) eccentric squat as a single significant predictor variable (r = 0.47,
p = 0.04) explaining 22% of the variance in the release speed of the ball.
Keywords: Male fast bowlers, high speed video, front foot contact, delivery stride, isoinertial strength
assessments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
METHOD......................................................................................................................................10
Participants........................................................................................................................10
Categorisation of Knee Actions.........................................................................................11
High Speed Camera Analysis for Measuring Release Speed and Knee Angle..................13
Bowling Session................................................................................................................20
Strength Assessments.........................................................................................................20
Statistical Methods.............................................................................................................24
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................25
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................32
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................44

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Four distinct stages in a bowlers action............................................................................5
Table 2. Correlation between knee angle and ball release speed at front foot contact....................6
Table 3. Lower limb strength measurements and release speed of ball...........................................7
Table 4. Bowlers grouped according to the 3 types of knee actions..............................................12
Table 5. Speed measurement of bowling machine with high speed camera..................................17
Table 6. Bowling speed inaccuracies within crease (Camera 10.80 m away)...............................18
Table 7. High speed camera calibration out of plane from bowling line.......................................19
Table 8. Comparison of strength assessments................................................................................21
Table 9.Mean and Standard Deviation of Performance Variables (where n=20)...........................25
Table 10. Correlation Coefficient (r) for Release Speed vs. Performance Variables (n=20).........25
Table 11. Knee action type and number of participants in each group..........................................26
Table 12. Studies investigating correlation of knee angle with release speed of the ball..............33
Table 13. Anthropometric and strength predictors amongst junior and senior bowlers................35
Table 14. Comparison of current study with previous studies on knee action and release speeds 37
Table 15. Classification of bowlers according to release speed.....................................................40
Table 16. Relationship between run up speed and release speed of the ball..................................41

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Top bowling speeds to date in international cricket (Cric Info: ESPN Cricket)..............2
Figure 2. ACB report on injury rate against player workload between 1996 - 2002.......................3
Figure 3. SMA report on injury rate against player workload between 1999 - 2006......................3
Figure 4. High speed camera set up to measure release speed of ball...........................................15
Figure 5. Accuracy of bowling machine with distance away from high speed camera.................16
Figure 6. Set up to measure bowling speed errors within crease...................................................18
Figure 7. Calibration of objects in background or foreground for release speed..........................19
Figure 8. Significant correlation between 1 RM (% BW) and release speed of the ball...............26
Figure 9. Group A release speed vs. knee angle (r=0.98, t=6.34, =0.05)....................................27
Figure 10. Group B release speed vs. knee angle (r=-0.33, t=-1.10, = 0.05)...............................27
Figure 11.Group C release speed vs. knee angle(r = -0.22, t = -0.39, = 0.05)............................28
Figure 12. Comparison of release speed of the ball between groups.............................................28
Figure 13. *Significant difference in mean RSI between Group B and C (t = -2.50, p<0.05)......29
Figure 14. Comparison of mean values of CMJ between groups.................................................30
Figure 15. Comparison of mean values of SJ between groups.....................................................30
Figure 16. Comparison of mean values of 1RM (% BW) between Groups..................................31

INTRODUCTION
Fast bowlers are considered critical components to the success of the teams by dismissing batsmen due
to their sheer speed, bowling in excess of 85mph (Bartlett, Stockill, Elliot & Burnett, 1996). As a result
fast bowling is biomechanically the most highly studied area in cricket as research continues to explore
the factors that contribute to the increase in the release speed of the ball and because of the high injury
rates associated with the action, particularly spinal related (Foster et al., 1989, Elliot, 2000). Studies
have been conducted understanding factors such as technique, anthropometric and strength which show
significant correlation with the release speed of the ball (Pyne et al., 2006; Wormgoor, Harden &
McKinon, 2010; Worthington, King & Ranson, 2013a). Various aspects of the bowling technique have
been identified that are correlated with the release speed of the ball such as run up speed, trunk flexion,
knee angle, shoulder angle and ground reaction forces at front foot contact (Worthington et al., 2013a;
Worthington et al., 2013b). Similarly strength relationships have also been investigated with the release
speed of the ball (Wormgoor et al., 2010; Loram et al., 2005), however no interaction between
technique and strength variables has been investigated in order to understand the model of physical
fitness which is specific to a sport (Verkhoshansky & Siff, 2009) allowing the design of strength
training programs more specific to the performance enhancements of fast bowlers.
Due to limited knowledge of the interaction between technique and strength variables with the release
speed of the ball, there is scarce coaching application available in improving the performance of fast
bowling by increasing the release speed (Worthington et al., 2013a). Though there is limited scientific
literature investigating the relationship of technique related coaching interventions and any impact to
the release speed of the ball, anecdotally it is considered that the bowling speed at the international
level has not really increased over time and has stayed within a range since the 1970s (Robinson,
2013; Brenkley, 2012) despite the introduction of more specific and scientifically designed training
programs for fast bowlers (Woolmer & Noakes, 2008; Noakes & Durandt, 2000). Figure 1 shows the
1

top bowling speeds recorded by year at international level according to ESPN Cricket (2008), however
the methods of measuring these speeds have varied, using video footage or different types of radar guns
to calculate the speed of the ball.

Bowling Speed (KPH)

Linear Slope of Bowling Speed (KPH)

180
160
Bowling Speed (Km/h)

140
120
100
1975
Time (Year)

Figure 1. Top bowling speeds to date in international cricket (Cric Info: ESPN Cricket)
Bearing in mind the range of bowling speeds at international level it appears that improved physical
conditioning hasnt contributed to increasing the bowling speeds over time despite the introduction of
enhanced training programs at the elite level (Woolmer & Noakes, 2008). Though there isnt any
scientific evidence to justify this relationship, there are indications to support such claims. The increase
in physical demands and injury rates over time amongst fast bowlers may provide some indication to
the increased physical condition of players over time.
The physical demands of fast bowling have increased steadily due to the increased match schedules at
domestic level by an average 10% year on year from 1996 to 2002, and at international level by an
average of 2% year on year from 1999 to 2006 in Australia (Orchard, James & Portus, 2006; Orchard &
James, 2002). Injury rates on the other hand have stayed relatively stable at both domestic and
international level in Australia with an increase of 1% year on year (Orchard, James & Portus, 2006;

Orchard & James, 2002). Figures 2 & 3 show the match load against injury rates from the cricket board
reports.

Player Hour Exposure

Player Hour Exposure

Injury/10000 player hour

12

30

10

25

20

15

10

Injury/10000 player hour

Season

Figure 2. ACB report on injury rate against player workload between 1996 - 2002

Player Hour Exposure

Player Hour Exposure

Injury/10000 player hour

18500
18000
17500
17000
16500
16000
15500
15000
14500
14000

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Injury/10000 player hour

Season

Figure 3. SMA report on injury rate against player workload between 1999 - 2006
Though the above injury rates comprise of all roles and activities within cricket, fast bowling is the
activity which is most affected by injuries accounting for over 41% of the total injuries (Gregory, Batt
& Wallace, 2004; Stretch, 1993). Amongst fast bowlers the most common stages of injury are the
3

delivery stride & follow through, and overuse or increased bowling workload, both accounting for 26%
and 19% respectively, according to a study conducted by Stretch and Venter (2003). These injuries
comprise mainly of muscle strains & tears (38%), spasms (8%), ligament tears (2%), tendonitis (7%)
and rotator cuff injuries (3%), which can all be prevented by via the use of physical conditioning
programs (Heidt, Sweetnam, Carlonas, Traub & Tekulve, 2000).
The risk of injury amongst fast bowlers is dependent upon technique, physical preparation and bowling
workload (Dennis, 2007; Dennis, Finch & Farhart, 2005) which can be displayed as a linear equation:
Injury Rate = Technique + Physical Preparation + Bowling Workload (Equation 1)
From data reported previously, injury rate has remained relatively stable despite the increased
workloads over the years amongst cricketers. Thus by observing Equation 1, for injury rates to remain
stable either technique or physical preparation must have improved or both. Very little is known about
altering the bowling technique amongst fast bowlers, as only a handful of studies have investigated the
efficacy of modifying a fast bowling technique or action (Wallis, Elliot & Koh, 2002; Elliott and
Khangure, 2002; Ranson, King, Burnett, Worthington & Shine, 2009). These studies have shown that
there are certain aspects of a bowling action that can be changed amongst junior bowlers, such as the
amount of shoulder rotation at back foot contact and more side on shoulder alignment in order to
reduce injuries related to the spine as Stretch and Venter (2003) have reported a reduction in injury due
to micro trauma and stress fractures amongst junior fast bowlers in South Africa by administrating
correct and safe bowling techniques. However its effectiveness to in elite bowlers is yet to be
determined as the actions are highly developed. Thus the relatively stable rate of injury amongst the
elite level maybe associated with the improved physical condition of bowlers over time, though
improved technique may also be a contributing factor as very little is known about it.

Despite the indications that physical conditioning has improved with the advancements in training
programs, it appears that the transfer phenomenon to bowling performance due to training stimulus is
not effective in increasing the release speed of the ball. With a lack of knowledge and studies
conducted in understanding the relationship between technique and strength variables, there appears to
be a gap in understanding the dominant bio motor abilities in fast bowling. As a result adaptations due
to training stimulus which are not aimed at specifically enhancing these bio motor abilities diminish as
sporting proficiency increases (Verkhoshansky & Siff, 2009). Thus improvements in performance are
determined mainly by the ability to target specific motor abilities as dictated by the sport (Bompa &
Haff, 2009) as athletes become more skilful.
In order to understand the technique variables that are linked to the release speed of the ball, various
investigations have been conducted by identifying the three types of actions within fast bowlers (front
on, side on and mixed) along with the four distinct stages in a bowling action (Worthing et al., 2013a;
Elliot & Foster, 1986; Liebenberg, 2007; Bartlett et al, 1996). These stages and further elements in a
bowling action investigated are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Four distinct stages in a bowlers action

Stage
Elements investigated
Run up
speed, length, rhythm
Pre delivery stride
Delivery stride
back foot strike, front foot strike, stride
length and alignment, front knee angle,
shoulder and hip orientation, non bowling
arm, trunk, the ball release
Follow through
The delivery stride has been an area of great focus and a greater knee angle (extended) at front foot
contact (FFC) is a variable which has received much attention and is believed to be moderately to
strongly correlated to the release speed of the ball according to studies shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Correlation between knee angle and ball release speed at front foot contact
Author
r value
P value
Wormgoor et al. (2008)
r = +0.52
P = 0.005
Burden & Bartlett. (1990)
r = +0.41
P = 0.02
Loram et al. (2005)
r = +0.71
P = 0.011
Studies have further broken down this relationship into knee actions based on common movement
patterns observed amongst fast bowlers (Bartlett et al., 1996; Portus et al., 2000; Portus et al., 2006).
Though there are subtle variations in the categorization of these knee actions, it is acknowledged that
there are three types of knee actions. The first is where the bowler lands with almost a fully extended
knee known as a straight leg at front foot contract (knee angle >150). The second type of knee action
is where the bowlers land with a flexed knee (knee angle <150). The third type of knee action has been
identified as the bowler flexing the knee at front foot contact however then extending to almost a fully
extended knee or straight leg action.
There are a number of reasons why a greater knee angle at FFC is thought to increase the release speed
of the ball. Elliot, Foster and Gray (1986) state that a greater knee angle increases the tangential
velocity of the ball, as it is released, due to a greater lever arm from the front foot to the arm as the
radial distance is increased. According to Portus et al. (2004) a more stable platform is provided when
the leg is straighter as the leg is stiffer allowing a more effective transfer of kinetic energy from the
momentum of the run up. Thus it is essential for the knee musculature to resist flexion upon FFC which
is dependent upon its eccentric ability whereas extension of the knee is a function of its concentric
capacity (Wormgoor et al., 2010).
A number of studies have investigated the relationship between lower limb strengths and release speeds
as shown in Table 3, however these studies have inconclusively been able to establish strength
predictors of release speed of the ball. This may be due to the selection of the types of strength
assessments, as only one study has used isoinertial strength tests which has a close correspondence to
6

sporting movements that include closed kinetic chain type of movements (Meylan, Cronin & Nosaka,
2008) and a strong correlation with dynamic sporting movements and performance (Cronin & Hansen,
2005).
Table 3. Lower limb strength measurements and release speed of ball
Study
Test
Results
Wormgoor et al.
Isokinetic strength
No significant
(2010)
test of knee
correlation between
flexion/extension
isokinetic knee
strength
Pyne et al. (2006)

Isoinertial strength
test (Counter
Movement Jump)

Loram et al. (2005)

Knee
extension/flexion
peak torques

Moderate
significance between
senior and juniors
with large effect size
(1.4)
No significant
relationship
(extension r = -0.11,
flexion r = -0.08)

Comments
Negative correlation
between increased
knee flexion and
release speed,
implied knee needs
to resist flexion
Release speed was
greater for greater
lower limb strength
tests
Positive correlation
between knee angle
and release speed
however no strength
predictors

Studies have also failed to address the relationship between the knee strength and the type of knee
action. Instead statistical analysis has been performed with the knee action and release speed of the
ball. Thus there is no evidence to suggest that a straighter knee does possess more eccentric ability
whereas a knee that is able to extend after front foot contact possesses more of a concentric ability.
Having such evidence would also expose the issue whether knee flexion is a function of technique or
strength, as a study by Ranson et al. (2009) showed that knee angles have not known to change despite
coaching interventions over a period of two years, and thus there is a possibility that strength training
programs may be able to impact a change in knee angle at front foot contact.
Interestingly literature so far has failed to investigate another possible bio-motor ability explaining the
concentric action of the knee and a greater correlation with the release speed of the ball (Portus et al.,
2004). According to Wormgoor et al. (2010) the knee action which flexes and then extends upon front
7

foot contact has more concentric strength in the knee musculature. The time to peak force within a
bowling action is 0.16 secs from FFC (Hurion et al, 2000) which is within the fast stretch shortening
cycle of <0.25 secs (Wilson & Pryor, 1994) where the knee flexes in order to decelerate the body,
storing elastic energy, and then extending releasing the stored elastic energy which contributes to the
power development in the concentric phase (Turner & Jefferys, 2010). Thus it is possible that the knee
action which flexes and then extends has a greater stretch shortening cycle score than the other knee
actions.
Thus based on the models presented, and the lack of understanding of these various knee actions and
strength relationships, this study shall aim to test the below hypotheses in order to characterise these
strength technique relationships:
H1: Bowlers with an extended knee on FFC technique have stronger eccentric capacity of the knee
musculature.
H2: Bowlers who flex and then extend their knee on FFC have greater concentric capacity of knee
musculature.
H3: The stretch shortening cycle is stronger in the knee action which flexes and then extends at FFC.
Below is a flow diagram of how to test the above hypotheses for this study:

Analysis and categorisation of types of knee actions (Grouping and knee angles)

Evaluation of Strength assessment & selection

Analysis of methods to use for bowling analysis using high speed camera

Calibration, error analysis & recommendations of use of high speed camerasProtocols to use for strength assessments

Biomechanical and video analysis of bowlers (knee angles & release speed)

Strength assessments of bowlers

Hypotheses analysis, discussion & conclusion

METHOD
Participants
20 male right handed bowlers (Age 24.3 5.6 years, mass 76.4 9.3 kg and height 1.79 0.06 m)
from premier division clubs in the Shepherd and Neame League Essex participated voluntarily in the
study. St. Marys University, Twickenham, London Ethics Committee approved of all the procedures
and informed consent before the study commenced. Participants were required to attend three sessions
as below in the following order:
1. Bowling session Use of high speed cameras to measure knee angle and release speed of the
ball
2. Familiarisation session Techniques for the strength assessment
3. Strength assessment session Collection of data for strength assessment
Prior to the study the participants were provided with participant information letters (Appendix B) and
were briefed in regards to the risks associated with the project. Consent forms (Appendix C) were
signed and medical questionnaires (PAR-Q- Appendix D) were filled to assess the physical condition of
the participants in order to participate in the study.
During the data collection period, participants were informed not to participate in any strength and
conditioning activities which would confound the results of the study due to neuromuscular and
physiological adaptations. Similarly the participants were required to attend the strength assessment
session within two weeks of the bowling session mitigating any detraining effects (Garcia-Pallares,
Sanchez-Medina, Perez, Izquierdo-Gabarren & Izquierdo, 2010) due to any potential loss in
neuromuscular and physiological performance. Also a time frame of seven days was provided in
between the familiarisation session and the strength assessment session, allowing ample time to
dissipate any gains in neuromuscular and physiological adaptations according to the General Adaptive
Syndrome (GAS) according to Verkhoshansky and Siff (2009). The aim of the familiarisation session
10

was to develop skill in order to perform the required technique which is important when performing
isoinertial strength tests (Mayhew, Ball & Arnold, 1989; Reynolds, Gordon & Robergs, 2006).
Categorisation of Knee Actions
Knee actions were categorised into three main groups. If the knee is extends to an angle greater than
150 at front foot contact and remains extended is considered a straight leg. This is based on
recommendations from Elliot, Foster & Gray (1986) that a minimum angle of 150 is sufficient in
maximising the release speed of the ball as it provides a stable lower body to act as an effective lever.
Evidence of bowlers with this type of knee action is present from studies by Mason et al. (1990), Elliot
& Foster (1984) and Portus et al. (2000) where the knee angles have been greater than 173. This type
of knee action can also involve further extension after front foot contact, however no flexion is
observed. Thus a straight leg action is considered where the knee lands at an angle greater than 150,
does not flex and then either remains at that angle or extends further.
The flexed knee technique occurs when the knee is less than 150 at release of the ball at front foot
contact. At front foot contact the knee maybe greater than 150 however then flexes to stabilise to less
than 150 at release of the ball. This is based on studies by Elliot et al. (1986) where on average
bowlers landed at 158 at front foot contact however flexed by 29 by release of the ball. A study by
Portus et al. (2000) showed that bowlers landed with a knee angle of between 129-139 however no
details of whether the knee flexed further upon front foot contact. Thus the criterion for a flexed knee
action is that the knee angle is less than 150 at release of the ball irrespective of where the knee was at
FFC.
The third type of knee action flexes upon front foot contact, however extends to a straight leg technique
i.e. > 150 till the release of the ball. A study by Burden & Bartlett (1990) showed that three out of the
seven elite bowlers landed with a mean knee angle 173 3 then flexed their knee by a mean of 6.6
and then extended till release of the ball to a mean angle of 17311. Whereas amongst the college
11

bowlers only one out of the nine bowlers flexed the knee by approximately 31 and then extended to an
angle of approximately 166. Similarly Stockill & Bartlett (1992) and Burden (1990) showed that a few
bowlers flexed their knee upon contact and then extended to an angle greater than 150, which is a rare
action amongst fast bowlers. Thus the criterion for this type of knee action is that it flexes after front
foot contact, irrespective of what the initial knee angle is, and then extends to an angle greater than
150 at the release of the ball i.e. becomes a straight knee action.
Based on the literature bowlers were grouped into three categories with the criteria summarised in
Table 4.
Table 4. Bowlers grouped according to the 3 types of knee actions
Group
Knee action
Criterion
Group A
Straight Leg
Knee at FFC> 150,
does not flex but may extend
till release
Group B
Flexed Knee
Knee flexes
irrespective of start at FFC
and is < 150 at release
Group C
Knee flexes and then extends
Knee flexes
irrespective of start at FFC,
then extends to > 150 at
release

12

Data Collection for Release Speed and Knee Angle

The bowling analysis took place in an indoor sports hall. Lake Image Systems Fastec In-Line 1000
mono-chrome high speed camera with a resolution of 640*680 and a 6 mm lens was used to record the
knee action and measure the release speed of the ball, by placing it perpendicular to the popping crease,
mounted on a Dynasun EL9901 tripod. The camera operated at 250Hz which is in line with other
studies which have used a minimum operating frequency of 200Hz (Burden & Bartlett, 1990; Stockill
& Bartlett, 1992; Worthington, King & Ranson, 2013a). However most studies into biomechanics of
fast bowlers have used a high speed camera to analyse joint kinematics and not the release speed of the
ball (Worthington, King & Ranson, 2013b; Ranson, Burnett, King, Patel & OSullivan, 2008;
Worthington et al., 2013a; Glazier, Paradisis, & Cooper, 2000; Pyne et al., 2006; Wormgoor, Harden &
McKinon, 2010). These studies have used radar guns which point towards or away from the bowler in
line with the stumps to measure the speed of the ball. Radar guns use the principle of the Doppler shift
to measure the speed of a moving object (Kaur & Kaur, 2013) and generally are two types. A fast gun
measures the speed within a few feet of the ball being released i.e. release speed, whereas a slow gun
measures the speed after 20-25 feet of the ball being released i.e. average speed. Though studies in fast
bowling speed measurement have not stated the type of speed gun used, there are indications that they
have used fast guns in order to measure the release speed and not average speed. In a study by Glazier
et al., (2000) the radar gun was adjusted to reject any speeds less than 16 m/s in order to cancel out any
influences of limb velocities. Unless adjusted fast guns are known to pick up false targets such as limb
motion as it is trying to measure the speed of the ball very close to the bowler. Also release speed is
important as this is the maximum velocity of the ball as it is measured just as the ball leaves the
bowlers hand. According to Adair (1991) the velocity of a baseball decreases over its trajectory due to
resistance caused by air drag and the velocity of the ball can decrease by 0.21 m/s for every 1m the ball
travels.

13

Fast radar guns are expensive to buy with prices ranging from $750- $5600 and require inputs such as
distance to bowler and often require a trigger control i.e. someone constantly operating it. For a
strength and conditioning coach, budgetary and resource constraints are often the case and hence the
study used the high speed camera to measure the release speed of the ball. Worthington et al., (2013a)
used a similar approach in measuring the release speed and measured the distance the ball travelled
between the first frame, when the ball was released, to about 10 frames after at approximately 0.033
secs. However the study used a motion tracker, to measure the velocity of the ball, which is digitised
software to measure an objects kinematics. Such software cost in the region of $6000-$15000 and may
not always be accessible for strength and conditioning coaches, and thus using relatively simple
distance/time calculations were used to measure the release speed of the ball. This method requires a
calibration process before each session via the following steps:
1. Place two objects, at a measured distance away from each other, on the same plane as where the
bowler shall be releasing the ball. During the study two poles were spaced at 2.74 m, on the
same plane as where the bowlers would be bowling, mid-distance between the stumps and the
return crease as illustrated in Figure 4
2. Using the high speed camera, record this steady state with the poles in focus (The camera must
not be moved from its designated position at all times during the session, nor must any of the
settings be changed)
3. Using the high speed cameras proprietary software, playback the above recording and measure
the distance of the poles on the player (During the study this was measured to be 34.92 mm
Return Crease
using a Vernier calliper)
4. Use ratios to estimate the actual distance of the object moving on same plane i.e. Real

Distance/Playback Distance (Ratio = 2740/34.92 = 78.46)

62cm it actually travels 0.39m (5*78.46/1000)
5. If the ball travels 5mm on the playback screen
6. If the ball travelled 5mm in 0.033 secs on the playback then the velocity of the ball was 11.88
Stumps

62cm

m/s (Distance/Time = 0.39/0.033)

14
Figure 4. High speed camera set up to measure release speed of ball

Camera

4.95m

In order to assess the accuracy of using high speed cameras in measuring the release speed of the ball, a
8.17m

Bola bowling machine was used and set to a pace of 70 mph. The projectiles of the bowling machine
were recorded and then the speeds calculated as described previously. The bowling machine was placed
at three different positions as there were three pitch markings in the sports hall. Pitch A was 4.95m
from the high speed camera, and pitch B and C were 8.17m and 10.80m respectively as illustrated in
10.80m

the Figure 5.

15
Figure 5. Accuracy of bowling machine with distance away from high speed camera

From the results in Table 5 it can be seen that the further away the camera is placed from the travelling
object, the more accurate the velocity measurements due to reduction of the effect of the lens curvature.
However the measurements recorded by the high speed camera are generally higher and this can be
associated to the limited resolution of the high speed camera used, low lighting conditions and an
operating frequency of 250 Hz (Theobalt et al., 2004). A study by Smith, Broker and Nathan (2003)
16

reported ball speeds of up to 8% higher when recorded by high speed cameras as compared to a radar
gun as the trajectory of the ball was not linear or same plane as the camera. However it may also be
pointed out that there is no information available in regards to how the bowling machine is calibrated
and the manufacturer provides an accuracy of 2 mph, hence errors also exist within the speed of the
bowling machine.

Table 5. Speed measurement of bowling machine with high speed camera

High speed
Bowling
camera
Speed difference
Pitch Position
machine Speed
measurement
(mph)
(mph)
(mph)
A
70 2
73.00
+3.00
B
70 2
72.46
+2.46
C
70 2
72.13
+2.13

% difference
+4.29%
+3.51%
+3.04%

Another error during the calculation of the release speed is associated with the ball moving in a
different plane as to where the two objects are placed. Coaches must be aware of these errors during
studies, though bowlers may be specified to bowl in the same plane as the objects during the set up,
there are errors associated with bowlers landing and releasing the ball anywhere in between the stumps
and the return crease. The amount of error was quantified by placing the objects as illustrated in Figure
4 and using a bowling machine which was filmed on the stumps, between the stumps and return crease
and at the return crease, positions D, E & F respectively as illustrated in Figure 6 with the results in
Table 6.
Return Crease
F
E

Stumps

17
Figure 6. Set up to measure bowling speed errors within crease

Table 6. Bowling speed inaccuracies within crease (Camera 10.80 m away)

Pitch Position
Bowling
High speed
Speed difference
% difference
machine Speed
camera
(mph)
(mph)
measurement
(mph)
D
70 2
67.07
-2.93
-4.18%
E
70 2
72.13
+2.13
+3.04%
F
70 2
76.74
+6.74
+9.63%
(Approximate error of 7% if the speed at pitch position E is normalised value of bowling machine)
The results in Table 6 also highlight how important it is to calibrate on the same plane as the bowlers
and not to take any measurements of objects for reference in the background or foreground. In order to
show the significance of measuring the velocity of a moving object in the same plane as the fixed
objects, the bowling machine was placed two meters to the left and right of the stumps where the
objects were placed as illustrated in Figure 7. The results in Table 7 indicate how significant the errors
can be if the calibration is performed to a different plane as to where the bowlers release the ball.

Table 7. High speed camera calibration out of plane from bowling line
Pitch Position
Bowling
High speed
Speed difference
machine Speed
camera
(mph)
(mph)
measurement
(mph)
2m (left)
70 2
81.96
+11.96
Middle Stump
70 2
72.13
+2.13
2m (right)
70 2
59.56
-10.44

18

% difference

+17.09%
+3.04%
-14.91%

Camera
Foreground

2m

Stumps
2m
Background

Figure 7. Calibration of objects in background or foreground for release speed

Thus after performing the calibration before each session and recording the bowling actions 10.80 m
away from the camera, the release speed of the ball was measured 10 frames after the first frame where
the ball was released at 0.04 secs. The knee angles were measured using a protractor by identifying
features closely related to the ankle, knee and hip on the cameras playback software and a vernier
calliper to measure the distance on the playback monitor.

Bowling Session
Before recording the video footage of the bowlers to measure release speed, knee action and knee angle
a warm up was provided using the RAMP model (Jefferys, 2007). This included light plyometric drills
such as stride walkthrough, wall drives, stride & stick, A skips, backward skips and straight leg skips
followed by activation phase using ankle dorsi & planter flex, glute bridges, crab walks, scapula
protractors and scapula setting. Mobilisation drills such knee tucks, high kicks, leg swings backwards
19

and side to side, carioca, bodyweight squat, lunge, lunge with thoracic rotation, lunge with overhead
reach, hip drive and shoulder rotations were performed followed by short sprints and bowling practice.
Post warm up bowlers were provided with 5.5oz Shepherds and Neame Essex League issued cricket
balls and allowed to perform their own personal bowling procedure in order to gain their rhythm and
accuracy. Bowlers were required to pitch the ball at good length on a line between the stumps and
return crease. Bowlers were allowed a maximum of four deliveries for the data collection and the
average speed and knee angles were used for the data analysis.
Strength Assessments
Isoinertial strength assessments were selected to measure the concentric & eccentric strength, and
stretch shortening cycle qualities of the participants. Studies performing isoinertial strength tests have
identified a moderate to strong correlation with dynamic movements (Cronin & Hansen, 2005) and due
to its close correspondence with sporting movements including closed kinetic chain assessments
remains a favourable choice over other types of strength assessments (Meylan, Cronin & Nosaka,
2008) as highlighted in Table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of strength assessments

Assessment
Advantages
Isometric (Constant
tension through
ROM)
Isokinetic (Constant
velocity through
ROM)
Isoinertial (Constant
gravitational load)

Disadvantages

Reproducible,
eliminates technique

Expensive to run, often

single joint

Peak torques at various

constant velocities,
eliminate technique,
highly reproducible
Closed kinetic chain,
multi-articular,

Open chain
assessment, constant
velocity, expensive to
run
Reliability, technique

20

Correlation with
Athletic
Performance
Low to moderate
correlation
Low to moderate
correlation
Moderate to high
correlation

variable velocities,
easy to implement
Concentric capacity was measured by vertical jump tests such as the counter movement jump (CMJ)
and the squat jump (SJ) as they are the most utilised assessments of concentric performance of leg
extensors (Baker & Nance, 1999; Wisloff et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2003) and produce high reliability as
compared to other vertical jumps such as the sergeant jump and abalakow jump (Markovic, Dizdar,
Jukic, & Cardinale, 2004). Eccentric strength was measured by obtaining the 1 RM of each participant
by progressively loading the barbell on a modified smith machine and performing a bi-lateral squat
movement pattern (Murphy & Wilson, 1997). The stretch shortening cycle (SSC) was quantified by the
reactive strength index (RSI) which is the most commonly used method by performing depth jumps via
the use of a drop box (Flanagan & Harrison, 2007). The vertical jumps and the RSI were measured
using an electronic switch mat (ESM) developed by FLS Jump Mat, Tyrone, Ireland which could
measure jump height in millimetres and flight and ground contact time to 0.001 secs.

Prior to the strength assessment, the participants went through a warm up. This included a raise,
mobilize, activate and potentiate phase according to Jefferys (2007) model. This involved a 5 min static
cycling, ankle dorsi & planter flex, good mornings, high kicks, leg swings backwards and side to side,
bodyweight squats, walking lunges, lunges with overhead reach, jumps in place, and single leg jumps.
The strength test took place in order RSI, CMJ, SJ and 1 RM of eccentric strength according guidelines
by Tanner & Gore (2013) and Baechle & Earle (2008), where more explosive and power movements
along with multi-joint movements should precede aerobic and isolated joint type of movements. A 5
min rest was provided during the transition to each strength test and four practice and four trial jumps
were performed for the RSI, CMJ and SJ. The greatest result for each trial for each participant was used
during the analysis. The RSI, CMJ and SJ were performed without any arms swings according to
21

guidelines by Bosco et al., (1995) as the arm swings may act as a confounding variable in producing
greater jump heights, peak power production and take off velocity whilst measuring the knee extensor
concentric and stretch shortening cycle ability, and hence hands were kept on the hips during these
vertical jump tests.
For the RSI measurement, participants were asked to perform a depth jump using a drop box of 33 cm
which is a standard depth used in most studies (Kenny et al., 2012; Flanagan et al., 2008) and landing
on the ESM half a metre in front of the drop box. Participants dropped off with both feet, without
stepping down or jumping up, landing with toes facing downwards, with ankles, knees and hips all in
one line. Countermovement was reduced by stiffening the lower limbs and exploding off the jump mat
immediately after making contact and reducing the ground contact time. Jump height was maximized
and legs kept straight during the flight time with participants finally landing with toes pointing down in
the same position at take off. A minutes rest was provided during each jump (Read & Cisar, 2003).
For the CMJ and SJ participants stood on the jump mat with feet shoulder width apart with hands on
hips with knees and hips fully extended. They were then asked to squat until hips crease was in line
with knees or thighs were parallel to the floor. In case of SJ this position was held for 3 seconds,
however in case of CMJ, participants instantly jumped explosively and forcefully causing the hips,
knees and ankles to extend. Participants landed with both feet on the mat with straight knees, toes
pointing downwards, however cushioning the landing by flexing at ankles, knees and hips. A rest
period of 2-3 minutes was provided during the jumps. The difference between a SJ and CMJ is the
contribution of the SSC towards the maximal power production phase during concentric phase. During
a SJ a 3 sec isometric hold is observed before the concentric phase of the jump is executed, known as
the amortization phase, which is sufficient time to dissipate the energy stored due to the SSC (Wilson &
Pryor, 1994). Whereas during the CMJ the amortization phase is kept <0.3secs in order to use the
energy stored more efficiently (Schmidtbleicher, 1992).
22

Eccentric strength was measured by measuring the 1 RM of each participant and calculating the value
as the participants percentage body weight (% BW). Using a modified smith machine the barbell was
placed across the upper trapezius and rear deltoids, with hands firmly gripping the barbell as close to
shoulders as comfortably. In an upright position and feet shoulder width apart, participants descended
till the hip crease was in line with the knees using a tempo of 3 secs (Schoenfeldn, 2010), whilst
maintaining a neutral spine. During the descent heels were not allowed to lift off the floor and knees
were allowed to travel beyond the ankles however in line at all times. Metal stops were used on the
smith machine to prevent the participants from going past hips breaking parallel. 1 RM was assessed by
performing 3-5 attempts, with a rest period of between 3-5mins between the eccentric phases of the
squat (Newton et al., 2011).
Statistical Methods
Summary statistics of the measured variables were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The
correlation (r) between variables was calculated using the Pearsons product-moment correlation. To
determine whether these correlations were statistically significant, critical values were calculated using
two-tailed test of significance via t-distribution tables with = 0.05. A backward stepwise multiple
linear regression analysis was performed to predict the best performance variables in a model for the
release speed of the ball with = 0.05. The strength of the relationship was characterised by r, whereas
the meaningfulness of r was measured by r2 by measuring the variance of the release speed of the ball
caused by the performance variables. In order to establish whether there was any significant difference
between the groups in the release speeds and strength measurements, independent t-tests were
performed using a two-tailed test of significance using standardised tables from the t-distribution where
the critical values were calculated at =0.05.

23

24

RESULTS

The means and standard deviations of the performance variables measured of the 20 participants in the
study are summarised in Table 9.
Table 9.Mean and Standard Deviation of Performance Variables (where n=20)
Performance Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Release speed (m/s)
29.2
1.4
Knee Angle ()
140.8
19.0
RSI
1.132
0.170
CMJ (mm)
293
42
SJ (mm)
269
39
(Bowler data available in Appendix E)
The correlation coefficients for the individual mean performance variables with mean release speed are
given in Table 10. 1 RM (% BW) and RSI showed a moderate correlation with the release speed of the
ball. However 1 RM (% BW) was the only performance variable which showed a significant
correlation with the release speed of the ball (t = 2.25, p<0.05).
Table 10. Correlation Coefficient (r) for Release Speed vs. Performance Variables (n=20)
Correlation Variables
Correlation Coefficient
Significant Correlation
(r)
vs. 1 RM (% BW)
0.47
Yes
vs. RSI
0.32
No
vs. CMJ
0.23
No
vs. SJ
0.14
No
vs. Knee Angle
0.03
No
Note: Above have been sorted highest to lowest in terms of correlation strength
Despite only one variable significantly correlating with the release speed of the ball a backward
stepwise multiple linear regression was performed in order to capture any correlation amongst the
performance variables, known as multicollinearility, thus allowing more than one variable to be
included in the regression model to a significance level of = 0.05. The regression model still reduced
the performance variables to 1 RM (% BW) which correlated significantly with release speed of the
ball (r = 0.47, t= 2.46, p = 0.04) shown in Figure 8. This models describes that 22% of the variance in
25

the release speed of the ball observed between the bowlers can be explained by the 1RM (% BW) of
the participants.
34
32
30

R = 0.22

28
Release Speed (m/s)

26
24
22
20
1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

1 RM (% Body Weight)

Figure 8. Significant correlation between 1 RM (% BW) and release speed of the ball
As no correlation was found between the knee angle and the release speed of the ball in the complete
sample of bowlers (r = 0.03), correlation coefficients of average knee angle against average release
speed of the ball were produced within groups of the varying knee actions. None of the groups showed
any significant correlation of knee angle with the release speed of the ball despite showing moderate to
strong correlations. A breakdown of the total number of bowlers into their respective knee actions is
shown in Table 11 with Figures 9, 10 & 11 plotting average release speeds against average knee angles
for Group A, B & C respectively.
Table 11. Knee action type and number of participants in each group
Group
Type of knee action
A
Straight Leg
B
Flexed Knee
C
Knee flexes and then extends

26

No. of bowlers
3
12
5

30.5
30

R = 0.98

29.5
Avg.Release Speed (m/s)

29
28.5
28
27.5
150

155

160

165

170

175

Avg .Knee Angle (degrees)

Figure 9. Group A release speed vs. knee angle (r=0.98, t=6.34, =0.05)

34
32
30
28
Avg. Release Speed (m/s)

R = 0.11

26
24
22
20
115

120

125

130

135

Avg. Knee Angle (degrees)

Figure 10. Group B release speed vs. knee angle (r=-0.33, t=-1.10, = 0.05)

27

140

Avg. Release Speed (m/s)

32
31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
R = 0.05
29
28.5
28
27.5
27
156 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 174
Avg. Knee Angle (degrees)

Figure 11.Group C release speed vs. knee angle(r = -0.22, t = -0.39, = 0.05)
Though there was a difference in the average release speed of the ball between the groups shown in
Figure 12, these differences were not significantly different according to the independent t-tests. The
group where the knee flexed and then extended had the greatest release speed (29.4 0.8 m/s) followed
by Group A which had a straight knee action (29.2 0.8 m/s), and Group B, a flexed knee action,
reported the slowest average release speed of the ball (29.1 1.8 m/s).

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Ball Release Speed (m/s)

Knee Action

Figure 12. Comparison of release speed of the ball between groups

28

For the strength measurements, no significant difference in the measurements was observed between
the groups in all the measured variables apart from the RSI. Though Group A reported a higher mean
RSI value (1.216 0.042) than Group B (1.056 0.153), these were not significantly different.
However Group C reported a significantly higher mean RSI value (1.264 0.167) when compared to
Group B as shown in Figure 13. For the CMJ mean values Group A and Group B reported similar jump
height values of 298 mm whereas Group C had an average value of 276.8 mm, with no significant
difference between the groups as illustrated in Figure 14. Group B had the greatest mean SJ height
value (276 46 mm) followed by Group A (265 31 mm) with Group C having the least SJ height
value (254 25 mm). Neither of the groups had any significant difference as shown in Figure 15. For
the 1 RM (% BW) Group C had the highest value (1.89 0.27 %) followed by Group B (1.82 0.29
%), with Group A having the lowest 1 RM value (1.77 0.15 %) with no statistical difference in the
mean values between the groups as shown in Figure 16.

1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95

1.26
1.06

RSI

Knee Action

Figure 13. *Significant difference in mean RSI between Group B and C (t = -2.50, p<0.05)

29

300
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
CMJ (mm)

Knee Action

Figure 14. Comparison of mean values of CMJ between groups

280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
240
SJ (mm)

Knee Action

Figure 15. Comparison of mean values of SJ between groups

30

1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1 RM Body Weight (%)

Knee Action

Figure 16. Comparison of mean values of 1RM (% BW) between Groups

31

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that within this sample of bowlers, the knee angle at FFC had no significant
correlation with the release speed of the ball. This was also true for the within group knee angle
correlations with the release speed of the ball for the varying knee actions, as moderate to strong
correlations were found however with no statistical significance. As such within this sample of bowlers
the knee angle cannot be used as a single predictor variable for the release speed of the ball or even
within a multivariable model as the multiple regression analysis did not achieve statistical significance
with the knee angle as a variable within the model. Though there were differences in the mean release
speeds of the ball for the varying types of knee actions these were not statistically significant and can
be associated with experimental errors in the studies. There was no significant difference in the
eccentric capacity, as recorded by 1 RM (%BW), between the varying knee actions thus rejecting the
hypothesis that a more extended knee possessed more eccentric ability. This is also supported by the
result that a straighter knee group had a lower mean 1 RM (% BW) score than the flexed knee. The
flexed knee action reported the highest mean CMJ and SJ heights, though these were not statistically
significant the findings contradict the hypothesis that a knee action which flexes and then extends
should possess a greater concentric capacity of the knee musculature. Though there is limited literature
available on fast bowlers utilising the stretch shortening cycle in generating greater power in the release
speed of the ball, interestingly RSI of bowlers who flexed and then extended at front foot contact had a
significantly greater mean value than the flexed knee action. This indicates that the stretch shortening
cycle maybe a bio-motor quality within this type of knee action used for power production. During this
study the 1 RM (% BW) was the only variable which could be classified as a predictor variable in the
release speed of the ball, suggesting that within this sample of bowlers increased strength had a greater
role to play than other variables such as knee angle, action or concentric capacity of the knee
musculature.
32

No correlation was observed between the knee angle and the release speed of the ball (r = 0.03,
p<0.05). This is contrary to other studies, summarised in Table 12, which have reported a moderate to
strong relationship between a more extended knee angle at front foot contact and the release speed of
the ball.
Table 12. Studies investigating correlation of knee angle with release speed of the ball
Author
r value
P value
Wormgoor et al. (2008)
r = +0.52
P = 0.005
Portus et al. (2004)
r = + 0.37
P = 0.02
Burden & Bartlett. (1990)
r = +0.41
P = 0.02
Loram et al. (2005)
r = +0.71
P = 0.011
The variation in the strength of the correlation can be associated with the differences in the studies in
terms of selection of bowlers with Burden et al. (1990) selecting international bowlers for their studies,
whereas the other studies have taken bowlers from college, club and first class level. In particular
whereas other studies have recorded average knee angles and release speeds of the ball by providing a
number of deliveries, Portus et al. (2004) recorded only one delivery per bowler in the sample. The
frame rates used have also varied from 50 Hz to 250 Hz. The release speed of the ball has been being
measured via a radar gun or video imaging. Similarly the knee angle has been measured either by
placing markers, manual tracking or auto tracking using biomechanical software in two dimensions.
Experimental errors also exist due to the true joint angle may not have been measured in exactly the
same plane perpendicular to where the camera was placed (Bartlett et al., 1996). However in a study
conducted by Portus et al. (2000), a moderate but insignificant correlation (r = 0.52) between knee
angle and release speed was reported in a sample of 14 club cricketers. The study also showed that a
more flexed knee at front foot contact was significantly negatively correlated to the trunk stability tests
performed (r = -0.64, p=0.01). The trunk is defined as the lumbo-pelvic region which is required to
provide a stable foundation for the movement of upper and lower limbs and in transmitting forces
(Kibler, Press & Sciascia, 2006) and thus it has been proposed by Portus et al (2000) that bowlers who
33

land with a more flexed knee develop the trunk musculature for stability more so than bowlers with a
straighter knee transferring forces more efficiently in a closed kinetic chain by allowing the trunk to act
as a rigid lever as opposed to the front limb in order to increase the release speed of the ball. Thus it is
possible that trunk stability is a factor in increasing the release speed of the ball amongst club fast
bowlers who do not extend their knee and hence compensate for the lack knee extension.
Though previous studies have identified a significant relationship between the knee angle and release
speed of the ball, they have failed to provide a rationale as to the cause of the knee action and its
relationship with the release speed of the ball. In the current study no significant relationship was
established between the strength qualities of the lower limb and its relationship with the knee action
thus rejecting previous theories that a straighter knee possesses more eccentric ability whereas a knee
that extends upon front foot contact possesses a greater concentric ability. These results may indicate
that the knee action amongst fast bowlers is potentially a function of skill and not motor abilities such
as strength (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2000). If this was a valid finding it may be possible that an increase
in release speed of the ball is also a factor of the radial distance between the lever arm i.e. front foot
and the bowling arm at the point of release (Elliot et al, 1986). In which case a more extended knee
would increase the height of the release position of the arm, which in turn would increase the tangential
velocity of the ball according to the equation V= r (where is the angular velocity). As this
relationship is mechanically credible, studies into anthropometric measurements of fast bowlers and the
relationship with the release speed of the ball may provide an insight into whether this relationship is
true or not, as greater anthropometric measurements should correlate with the release speed of the ball.
According to Glazier, Paradisis and Cooper (2000), a significantly moderate correlation was found
between the upper body limb lengths and release speed of the ball such as the total arm length (r = 0.58,
p < 0.05), shoulder wrist length (r = 0.62, p < 0.05) and right humerus (r = 0.36, p<0.05) amongst nine
collegiate fast bowlers. A study by Pyne et al. (2006) showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in the
34

peak and mean release speed of the ball between first class senior and junior bowlers (V Peak 35.2 vs.
27.7 m/s, Vmean 34.2 vs. 26.6 m/s). It was observed that though arm and leg length were contributing
factors to the difference in the release speed of the ball between the groups, the magnitude of the
difference was only moderately larger in senior players and differences in upper and lower limb
strength, body mass and muscle composition were larger in magnitude. However when multiple linear
regression analysis was performed by selecting anthropometric and strength variables within junior and
senior bowling groups, arm length was a variable that was only significant within the senior bowlers
amongst other variables as the predictor for release speed. Table 13 shows the variables that were
shown to be the best predictors of release speed in the groups according to Pyne et al. (2006).

Table 13. Anthropometric and strength predictors amongst junior and senior bowlers
Group
Variables
Multiple r
Multiple r2
Junior
Static jump, bench throw, CMJ,
0.86
0.74
body mass
Senior
Deltoid throw, static jump, CMJ,
0.74
0.54
arm length, A-P chest depth
Study taken by Pyne et al. (2006)
It appears that within bowlers at a junior skill level, anthropometric measurements such as arm length
and leg length do no significantly contribute to the release speed. With these results in mind it is
possible that a greater knee angle at front foot contact would have no significant impact on the release
speed of the ball due to a greater release height of the ball contrary to the theory proposed by Elliot et
al. (1986). The current study showed no correlation (r = 0.03) between the knee angle and release speed
of the ball, and though no method was established to measure the differences in release height of the
ball and the amount of knee extension in the current and previous studies, there are indications from
previous literature that release height of the ball does not significantly impact the release speed of the
ball amongst junior and club bowlers (Wormgoor et al., 2010; Loram et al., 2005). This relationship of
knee angle and release speed of the ball due to greater release height of the ball may only be significant
35

amongst senior high performance bowlers (Wormgoor et al., 2008; Portus et al., 2004; Burden &
Bartlett.,1990) which play a part post growth and maturation, as according to Pyne et al. (2004) the
difference in release speeds of the ball between junior and senior bowlers was due to contributing
factors of muscle and body mass, and concentric measurements of strength of the upper and lower
body. These results may be supported by the current study where 1 RM (% BW) was the only variable
which had a moderate and significant relationship with the release speed of the ball explaining 22% of
the variance in the release speed of the ball amongst the sample set of club bowlers. Though this
strength assessment was a measure of the lower limb eccentric ability, significantly moderate to strong
correlations have been reported between concentric and eccentric modes of knee flexor and extensor
muscle groups (Wu, Li, Maffulli, Chan & Chan, 1997). Strength development is also a pre-requisite
and major contributor to power generation (Stone et al., 2003; Paavolainen, 1999) and is a fundamental
pillar upon which other bio-motor abilities such as speed can be expanded upon (Kraemer & Szivak,
2012). There seems to be evidence to support that amongst junior fast bowlers strength and physical
maturation plays more of a critical role in increasing the release speed of the ball than extension of the
knee at the front foot contact. A study by Ranson et al. (2009) showed that contrary to the coaching
interventions to extend the knee at front foot contact, a less straight knee was observed i.e. increased
knee flexion, amongst junior fast bowlers after a two year period. Despite the reduction in knee
extension, the bowlers still increased the release speed of the ball by a mean of 1.4 m/s. Though the
coaching interventions used are questionable, as no details have been provided on the types of feedback
mechanisms used which is key to skill acquisition (Liu & Wrisberg, 1997; Guadagnoli & Kohl, 2001),
the increase in release speed of the ball was proposed to be due to the physical maturation of the
bowlers over the two years.
According to the knee actions prescribed by Bartlett et al. (1996), a difference in release speeds of the
ball was observed in the current study however these were not significantly different between the
36

different knee actions. These results support the findings of Portus et al. (2004) and Portus et al. (2000)
who recorded a difference in the mean release speed of the ball between the groups with no significant
difference. Both studies also reported that the knee action which flexed and then extended produced the
greatest mean release speed, and the knee action which was more extended at front foot contact also
recorded a greater release speed than the flexed knee action. However both studies also used different
criteria than Bartlett et al (1996) in order to classify the knee action and grouped the knee actions based
on within sample movement patterns with no reference to other studies. Table 14 summarises the knee
actions and release speeds of the studies mentioned and compares it to the current study.
Table 14. Comparison of current study with previous studies on knee action and release speeds
Study
Types of knee actions
Respective release speeds
Current
Straight, flexed, flexes then 29.2 0.8; 29.1 1.8; 29.4
extends
0.8
Portus et al. (2000)
Knee angle >177,148-171; 32.4 0.7; 32.1 1.5; 31.3
123-139
1.5
Portus et al. (2004)
Flexor-extender; extender;
35.6 1.3; 35.4 2.3; 33.9
braced; flexed
2.5; 33.8 1.8
According to previous literature the knee action which is able to extend after the point of front foot
contact and before the release speed of the ball, should possess a more concentric ability of the knee
musculature (Wormgoor et al., 2010). This hypothesis has been rejected in the current study as the knee
action that extended did not measure greater concentric capacity as assessed by CMJ and SJ heights.
The flexed knee action had greater jump heights in the CMJ and SJ than bowlers who extended their
knees, though the mean values were not significantly different. Most studies into kinematic analysis of
fast bowlers have been taken during the delivery stride (Bartlett et al., 1996) and thus performance
measurements such as release speed of the ball and strength measurements are assessed relative to this
isolated discrete moment in time and studies fail to address technique factors that underpin these
performance measurements in the entirety of a bowling action from run up to follow through (Glazier
& Wheat, 2014; Lees, 2002). This maybe the case with the bowlers who have a flexed knee (<150) at
37

point of release, however extend their knee during the follow through for a more upright position which
has been observed in this sample of bowlers, though no formal knee angles and time to extension have
been calculated. It may be possible that bowlers with a flexed knee action develop more concentric
ability of the knee musculature as assessed by CMJ and SJ, as they go through a greater range of knee
extension whilst overcoming vertical forces ranging from 4-9 times the body weight (Hurrion et al,
2000; Elliot et al, 1986; Foster et al, 1989; Portus et al, 2004) as compared to straight knee actions
which overcome the same forces within a smaller range of knee extension. Thus CMJ and SJ may be
assessments of concentric ability, more specific to bowlers with a flexed knee action during the follow
through. Due to the possible effect of the principle of dynamic correspondence (Siff & Verkhoshansky,
2006) between CMJ and SJ and the follow through of flexed knee actions, these bowlers may develop
more concentric capacity of the knee musculature. Interestingly the efficacy of the CMJ test has been
questioned by Pyne et al. (2004) for fast bowlers as the study reported a negative correlation between
the release speed of the ball and the CMJ, though the testing protocol was different using a modified
smith machine to assess single leg concentric capacity with errors due to execution of technique, and
hence did not recommend the use of single legged CMJ assessment in future studies.
The rationale as to the movement pattern of knee actions during fast bowling have predominantly been
proposed by bio-motor abilities of either having high eccentric strength of the knee musculature for a
straight knee action (Portus et al., 2004) or having a high concentric capacity for a knee action that
extends after front foot contact (Wormgoor et al., 2010). Very little consideration has been given to the
knee action which flexes and then extends after front foot contact, effectively utilising the stretch
shortening cycle in order maximise the power production in the release speed of the ball by increasing
the joint centre speeds sequentially from proximal to distal segments of the body. This may partly be
because this type of knee action is very rare amongst fast bowlers according to a review by Bartlett et
al. (1996). However similar movement patterns have been observed in javelin throwers, which exhibit
38

the same generic movement patterns from run up to release of the javelin as fast bowlers (Bartlett et al.
1996; Komi & Mero, 1985). The knee action where the joint flexes and then extends has been observed
amongst javelin throwers (Komi et al., 1985; Mero et al., 1991), and the stretch shortening cycle may
be a contributor to the peak joint centre speeds in the proximal to distal firing pattern in such a knee
action (Mero et al., 1994) though an increase in joint centres is observed in most throwing activities
irrespective of type of action (Whiting, Gregor & Halushka, 1991). Whilst no studies have quantified
the efficacy of the stretch shortening cycle in this type of knee action, the results of the current study
showed that there is a significant difference in the RSI scores between a flexed knee and one which
extends. Thus bowlers who flex and then extend their knees may potentially utilise the stretch
shortening cycle more efficiently causing an increase in the work output from the knee musculature
(Portus et al., 2004) which may be a contributor to the increase in release speed of the ball, though a
significant difference in the release speed was not observed in the other knee actions.
In the current study, the bowlers had release speeds in the range of 26.7 to 32.5 m/s (mean 29.2 1.4
m/s). According to the classification of bowlers by release speed, this sample of bowlers can be
classified as medium-fast bowlers and places the bowlers towards the medium end of the spectrum of
the medium-fast category (Abernethy, 1981). Table 15 shows the classification of bowlers according to
release speed.
Table 15. Classification of bowlers according to release speed
Classification
Release speed (m/s)
Slow medium
18 - 27
Medium fast
27 - 36
Fast
36 40.5
Express
> 40.5
Though the study aimed at specifically targeting fast bowlers the sample set was formed of medium
paced bowlers as pre determining and selecting bowlers based on their classification could not be
performed due to time constraints. However a contributing factor to the medium pace of the bowlers
39

maybe explained by the short run up that was provided during the bowling analysis within the indoor
setting, though this was not scientifically evident. During the analysis bowlers were provided with a
run up length of 12 meters due to the dimensions of the sports hall, whereas most studies into the
biomechanical analysis and measurements of release speed of the ball have provided a full run up at
club and elite level (Hurrion, Dyson & Hale, 2000; Worthington et al., 2013). Though these studies
have not specifically provided the exact dimension of the run up length it may be assumed that this run
up length was up to 30 m as Hurrion et al (2000) conducted the study outdoors and Worthington et al.
(2013) conducted studies in facilities sponsored by the English Cricket Board (ECB). Although run up
length has not statistically been reported as having a direct and significant relationship with the release
speed of the ball, it is considered a contributing factor to the run up speed of the bowlers which has
been reported to significantly impact the release speed of the ball summarised in Table 16.
Table 16. Relationship between run up speed and release speed of the ball
Study
Correlation
Measurement
Glazier et al. (2000)
r = 0.73 (p<0.05)
Taken at back foot strike
Ferdinands et al. (2010)
r = 0.58 (p<0.001) Taken at back foot strike
Burden et all. (1990)
r = 0.21 (p<0.05)
Taken at release of ball
Worthington et al.(2009)
r = 0.45 (p<0.001) Taken at back foot strike
A study on run up speeds by Mason, Weissensteiner & Spence (1989) showed that run up speed
increased when the run up length was increased amongst 15 medium-fast bowlers. Run up speed was
recorded at 6.1 m/s, 5.7 m/s and 5.1 m/s for run up lengths of 8-16 m, 4-8 m and 0-4 m respectively.
The study did not report any release speeds of the ball however reported the mean speed of the all the
trials at 32.4 m/s. A study by David and Blanksby (1976) also showed that bowlers with a longer run up
were faster than the slower bowlers by a mean release speed of 4.7 m/s, though the run up lengths were
not reported. Though the relationship between run up length and release speed of the ball has not been
investigated thoroughly, as most studies have been more focused with the run up speed (Glazier &
Worthington, 2014), the results of the current study may have been obscured by placing constraints on
40

the bowlers via the run up length and reducing the run up speed and rhythm within the indoor setting
(Hurrion et al., 1997). In order to maximise release speed of the ball Elliot and Foster (1986) have
prescribed a run up length between 15 m and 30 m.
During the filming of bowlers, experimental errors existed in measuring the release speed of ball within
the bowling crease. Though this was minimized by bowlers aiming to pitch the ball on a line in
between the stumps and return crease, errors exist in two dimensional analysis because of the angle at
which the ball is released due to the shoulder and hip rotation at the delivery stride (Bartlett et al.,
1996) causing movement of the bowling arm in the transverse plane. Due to the various types of
bowling action errors in measuring the release speed of the ball in two dimensions will always be
inherent, however can be minimized via the use of a radar gun. Similarly errors existed in measuring
the amount of knee extension via a protractor by identifying features the joint centres of the ankle, knee
and hip. Previous studies have used markers (Worthington et al., 2013a; Ranson et al., 2009) to identify
joint centres to measure the knee angle. According to Segal et al. (2013) the knee angle should be
measured from the knee centre of rotation forming a line to the lateral malleolus at the ankle and to the
greater trochanter at the hip. However without the aid of markers specifically placed at these joints,
inaccuracies existed in identifying these features due to the limited resolution of the video images. Further
errors existed in measuring the joint angle as the knee actions may not have been recorded in exac tly the

same plane perpendicular to the camera due to bowlers positioning their front foot at various positions
at the popping crease.
The results and literature review of this study indicate that amongst club level fast bowlers, the knee
angle and type of knee action does not significantly impact the release speed of the ball and strength
plays a greater role as a predictor variable for the release speed of the ball. However at a senior level
where bowlers have developed physical maturation and a solid foundation of bowling with the correct
technique, knee angle and actions may become contributors to the release speed of the ball as it
41

increases the tangential velocity of the ball due to an increased release height. It also appears that the
type of knee action is not dependent or related to the strength of the lower limb and rather is a function
of skill and technique. Strength or bio-motor ability of the knee musculature is not necessarily related
to the type of knee action at the delivery stride but could correspond to other dominant stages in a
bowling action. For the Strength & Conditioning coach the results indicate that amongst junior and club
level bowlers strength development should be an area of focus along with a safe bowling technique in
order to increase the release speed of the ball. However amongst skilled senior bowlers a goal to
increase the knee angle at front foot contact maybe considered via the use of feedback coaching
interventions, in order to increase the release speed of the ball. Future studies should include
homogenous sample of bowlers in order to remove covariate influence of skill level on performance
measurements such as release speed and investigate the strength and knee actions relationship. Studies
should be performed further at junior, senior, first class and international level independently to
understand at what level of skill knee actions influence release speed of the ball. Similarly as strength
was identified as a predictor variable, strength programs should be provided and tracked via isoinertial
assessment within a sample of bowlers to identify a threshold at which strength gains no longer
improve the release speed of the ball and knee actions possibly do.

42

REFERENCES
Abernethy, B. (1981). Mechanics of skill in cricket batting. Australian Journal of Sports
Medicine, 13(1), 3-10.
Adair, R.K. (1995). The physics of baseball. New York: Harper Collins.
Baker, D. & Nance, S. (1999). The relation between strength and power in professional rugby
league players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(1), 224229.
Baechle, T., & Earle, R. (2008). Essentials of strength training and conditioning. (3rd edition.).
Leeds: Human Kinetics.
Bompa, T., & Haff, G. (2009). Periodization: Theory and methodology of training. (5th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bosco C., Belli, A., Astrua, M., Tihanyi, J., Pozzo, R., & Kellis, S (1995). A dynamometer for
evaluation of dynamic muscle work. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology; 70, 379386
Brenkley, S. (2012). 100mph and rising: The science of fast bowling. Retrieved 23 May, 2015,
from http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/100mph-and-rising-the-science-of-fastbowling-7917880.html
Bartlett, M. (2003). The science and medicine of cricket: an overview and update. Journal of
Sports Science, 21(9), 733-752.
Bartlett, R.M., Stockill, N.P., Elliot, B.C., & Burnett, AF. (1996). The biomechanics of fast
bowling in mens cricket: a review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 403-424.
Burden, A., and Bartlett, R. (1990). A kinematic investigation of elite fast and fast medium
cricket bowlers. Proceedings of the Vlllth International Symposium of the Society of
Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 41-46).
Cronin, J.B. & Hansen, K.T. (2005). Strength and power predictors of sports speed. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 349-357.
Dennis, R. (2007). Evidence-based injury prevention for repetitive micro trauma injuries: the
cricket example. School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat.
Dennis, R., Farhart, P., Goumas, C., & Orhard, J. (2002). Fast bowling workload and injury
study: ACB national project 2000. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36, 270-274.
Dennis, R., Finch, C.F., Farhart, P. (2005). Is bowling workload a risk factor for injury to
Australian junior cricket fast bowlers?, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 843-846.

43

Davis, K. & Blanksby, B. (1976). A cinematographical analysis of fast bowling in cricket.

Australian Journal for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 71 (1), 9-15.
Elliott, B., Foster, D., & Gray, S. (1986). Biomechanical and physical factors influencing fast
bowling. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 16-21.
Elliott, B. & Foster, D. (1986). Fast bowling technique. In Send the Stumps Flying: The Science
of Fast Bowling, (pp 26-36). Netherlands, WA: University of Western Australia Press.
Elliott, B.C. (2000). Back injuries and the fast bowler in cricket. Journal of Sport Science. 18,
983991.
Elliott, B. C., & Khangure, M. (2002). Disk degeneration and fast bowling in cricket: An
intervention study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 17141718.
Ferdinands, R., Marshall, R.N., & Kersting, U. (2010). Centre of mass kinematics of fast
bowling in cricket. Sports Biomechanics, 9, 13952.
Foster, D., John, D., Elliott, B., Ackland, T., & Fitch, K. (1989). Back injuries to fast bowlers in
cricket: a prospective study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 23 (3).
Funato, K., Matsuo, A., & Fukunaga, T. (1996). Specific movement power related to athletic
performance in weight lifting. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12, 44-57.
Foster, D., John, D., Elliott, B., Ackland, T., & Fitch, K. (1989). Back injuries to fast bowlers in
cricket: a prospective study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 23 (3).
Flanagan, E.P. & Harrison, A.J. (2007). Muscle dynamics differences between legs, in healthy
adults. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21, 6772.
Flanagan, E.P., Ebben, W.P., & Jensen, R.L. (2008). Reliability of the reactive strength index and
time to stabilization during depth jumps. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
22(5), 16771682.
Garcia-Pallares, J., Sanchez-Medina, L., Perez, C.E., Izquierdo-Gabarren, M. & Izquierdo, M.
(2010). Physiological effects of tapering and detraining in world-class kayakers.
Medicine and Science in Sports and exercise, 42 (6), 1209-1214.
Gregory, P.L., Batt, M.E., & Wallace, W.A. (2004). Is risk of fast bowling injury in cricketers
greatest in those who bowl most?: A cohort of young English fast bowlers. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 125-128
Guadagnoli, M.A., & Kohl, R.M. (2001). Knowledge of results for motor learning: relationship
between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. Journal of Motor
Behaviour, 33 (1), 217-224.

44

Glazier, P.S., Paradisis, G.P. & Cooper, S.M. (2000). Anthropometric and kinematic influences
on release speed in mens fast-medium bowling. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 10131021.
Glazier, P.S. & Wheat, J.S. (2014). An integrated approach to the biomechanics and motor
control of cricket fast bowling techniques. Sports Medicine, 44(1), 25-36.
Hurrion, P.D., Dyson, R., Taylor, M., & Hale, T. (1997). Ground reaction forces of 67 fastmedium bowlers in cricket. In: J. Bangsbo, B. Saltin, H. Bonde, Y. Hellsten, B. Ibsen, M.
Kjaer and G. Sjogaard (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Congress of the
European College of Sport Science, 776-777.
Hurrion, P.D., Dyson, R., & Hale, T. (2000). Simultaneous measurement of back and front foot
ground reaction forces during the same delivery stride of the fast-medium bowler.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 993-997.
Heidt, R.S., Sweetnam, L.M., Carlonas, R.L., Traub, J.A., & Tekulve, F.X. (2000). Avoidance of
soccer injuries with preseason conditioning. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 28,
659-662.
Hurrion, P.D., Dyson, R., & Hale, T. (2000). Simultaneous measurement of back and front foot
ground reaction forces during the same delivery stride of the fast-medium bowler.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 993-997.
Jeffreys, I. (2007). Warm-up revisited the ramp method of optimising performance
preparation. Professional Strength and Conditioning, 6, 15-19.
Kaur, B. & Kaur, A. (2013). Review on technology to measure speed of cricket ball and bat.
International Journal Of Engineering and Computer Science, 2 (5), 1626-1629.
Kenny, I.C., Caireallin, A, & Comyns, T.M. (2012). Validation of an electronic jump mat to
assess stretch-shortening cycle function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
26(6), 1601-1608.
Kibler, W.B., Press, J., and Sciascia, A. (2006). The role of core stability in athletic function.
Sports Medicine, 36(3), 189198.
Komi, P.V. & Mero, A. (1985). Biomechanical analysis of olympic javelin throwers.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 139-150.
Kraemer, W.J., & Szivak, T.K. (2012). Strength training for the warfighter. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 26 (7), 107-118.
Lees, A. (2002). Technique analysis in sports: a critical review. Journal of Sports Science. 20,
813828.

45

Liu, J., & Wrisberg, C.A. (1997). The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective
estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 68(2), 145-151.
Liebenberg, J.N (2007). Kinetics at front foot contact of cricket bowling during a 10-over spell.
Las Vegas: University of Nevada.
Loram, L.C., McKinon, W., Wormgoor, S., Rogers, G.G., Nowak, I. & Harden, L.M. (2005).
Determinants of ball release speed in schoolboy fast-medium bowlers in cricket. Journal
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 45(4), 483-490.
Mayhew, J.L., Ball, T. & Arnold, M (1989). Prediction of 1-RM bench press from submaximal
bench press performance in college males and females. Journal of Applied Sport Science
and Research, 3 (73).
Markovic, G, Dizdar, D, Jukic, I, & Cardinale, M. (2004). Reliability and factorial validity of
squat and countermovement jump tests. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
18, 551555.
Meylan, C.M.A., Cronin, J., & Nosaka, K. (2008). Isoinertial assessment of eccentric muscular
strength. National Strength and Conditioning Association, 30 (2).
Murphy, A.J., & Wilson, G.J. (1997). The ability of tests to of muscular function to reflect
training induced changes in performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15(2), 191-200.
Newton, R. U., Cormie, P., & Cardinale, M. (2011). Principles of athlete testing. In M. Cardinale,
R. Newton, & K. Nosaka (Eds.), Strength and conditioning: Biological principles and
practical applications (pp.255-267). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell
Noakes, T.D. & Durandt, J.J. (2000). Physiological requirements of cricket. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 18, 919-929.
Orchard, J., James, T., & Portus, M. (2006). Cricket Australia injury report 2006. Sports
Medicine Australia, 24 (4).
Orchard, J. & James, T. (2002). ACB Injury Report (2001-02) .
Portus, M.R., Bruce, R.M., Bruce, C.E., Pfitzner, M.C., & Done, R.P. (2004). Technique factors
related to ball release speed and trunk injuries in high performance cricket fast bowlers.
Sports Biomechanics, 3 (2).
Portus, M.R., Sinclair, P.J., Burke, S.T., Moore D.J., & Farhart, P.J. (2000). Cricket fast bowling
performance and technique and the influence of selected physical factors during and 8over spell. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 999-1011

46

Pyne, D.B., Duthie, G.M., Saunders, P.U., Petersen, C.A. & Portus, M.R. (2006). Anthropometric
and strength correlates of fast bowling speed in junior and senior cricketers. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 620626.
Paavolainen, L., Hakkinen, K, Hamalainen, I., Nummela, A., & Rusko, H. (1999). Explosive
strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and
muscle power. Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 1527-1533.
Ranson, C., King, M., Burnett, A., Worthington, P., & Shine, K. (2009). The effect of coaching
intervention on elite fast bowling technique over a two year period. Sport Biomechanics;
8(4), 261-274.
Ranson, C.A., Burnett, A.F., King, M., Patel, N., & OSullivan, P.B. (2008). The relationship
between bowling action classification and three-dimensional lower trunk motion in fast
bowlers in cricket. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(3), 267 276.
Read, M. M., & Cisar, C. (2001). The influence of varied rest interval lengths on depth jump
performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 15, 279283.
Reynolds, J.M, Gordon, T.J. and Robergs, R.A. (2006). Prediction of one repetition maximum
strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and anthropometry. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 584592.
Robinson, W. (2013). That's the fastest bowling there is: Scientists say baseball pitchers have
reached the speed limit for throwing a ball at 105.1mph. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428891/Thats-fastest-bowling-Scientists-saybaseball-pitchers-reached-speed-limit-throwing-ball-105-1mph.html
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1992). Training for power events. In: Strength and Power in Sport. Komi
PV (pp. 169179). (Ed.) Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Science.
Schmidt, R.A., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2000). Motor learning and performance. (2nd Edition).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schoenfeld, B.J. (2010). Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol 24, number 12.
Segal, N., Nevitt, M., Gross, K., Hietpas, J., Glass, N., Lewis, C., & Torner, J. (2013). The
Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study: Opportunities for Rehabilitation Research. American
Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 5, 647-654.
Smith, L., Broker, J., & Nathan, A. (2003). A study of softball player swing speed. In: SubicA,
TrivailoP, AlamF, eds. Sports Dynamics: Discovery and Application. Melbourne: RMIT
University.

47

Smith, E. (2008). Records All cricket records (including minor cricket) | Miscellaneous records
Bowling speeds (1). ESPN Cricinf.. Retrieved 23 May, 2015, from
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html
Stockill, N.P., & Bartlett, R.M. (1992). A three-dimensional cinematographically analysis of the
techniques of International and English county cricket fast bowlers.. Proceedings of the
Xth Symposium of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, .Milan: Edi
Ermes.
Stockill, N.P. and Bartlett, R.M. (1992). A three-dimensional cinematographical analysis of the
techniques of International and English county cricket fast bowlers (pp. 52-55). In
Proceedings of the Xth Symposium of the International Society of Biomechanics in
Sports.
Stone, M.H., Sanborn, K., OBryant, H.S., Hartman, M., Stone, M.E., Proulx, C., Ward, B., &
Hruby, J. (2003). Maximum strength-power performance relationships in collegiate
throwers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17, 140-147.
Stone, M.H., O'Bryant, H.S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., & Schilling, B. (2003)
Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static
weighted jumps. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research, Feb; 17(1), 140-7.
Stretch, R.A. (1993). The incidence and nature of injuries in first league and provincial
cricketers. South African Medical Journal, 83, 33942.
Stretch, R.A. & Venter, D.J.L. (2003). Cricket injuries- a longitudinal study of the nature of
injuries in South African cricketers. Sports Medicine, 37(3): 250253.
Tanner, R. and Gore, C. (2013). Physiological tests for elite athletes. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Theobalt, C., Albrecht, I., Haber, J., Magnor, M., & Seidel, H.P. (2004). Pitching a Baseball Tracking High-Speed Motion with Multi-Exposure Images. ACM Transactions on
Graphics, 23(3), 540-547.
Turner, A.N., & Jeffreys, I. (2010). The stretch-shortening cycle: Proposed mechanisms and
methods for enhancement. National strength and conditioning association, 32, 87-99.
Verkhoshansky, Y., & Siff, M. (2009). Supertraining. (6th Edition - Expanded Version ed.).
Rome: Verkoshansky
Wallis, R., Elliott, B., and Koh, M. (2002). The effect of a fast bowling harness in cricket: An
intervention study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 495506.

48

Whiteley, R. (2010). Throwing mechanics, load monitoring and injury: perspectives from
physiotherapy and baseball as they relate to cricket. Conference of Science, Medicine &
Coaching in Cricket.
Whiting, W.C., Gregor, R.J., & Haluska, M. (1991). Body segment and release parameter
contributions to new-rules javelin throwing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 7(2), 111124.
Wilson, G.J., & Pryor, J.F. (1994). Musculotendinous stiffness: its relationship to eccentric,
isometric, and concentric performance. Journal of applied physiology, 76, 2714-2719.
Wisloff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R.. & Hoff, J. (2004). Strong correlation of
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer
players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 285288.
Woolmer, B. & Noakes, TD. (2008). Art and Science of Cricket. ISBN:978-1-77007-658-7,
Cape Town, South Africa: Struik Publishers.
Wormgoor, S., Harden, L. & McKinon, W (2008). The determinants of ball release speed in
cricket fast bowlers. ISBC Conference, July, 14-18.
Wormgoor, S., Harden, L. & McKinon, W (2010). Anthropometric, biomechanical, and
isokinetic strength predictors of ball release speed in high-performance cricket fast
bowlers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(9): 957965
Worthington, P.J., King, M.A., & Ranson, C.A. (2013a). Relationships between fast bowling
technique and ball release speed in cricket. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29, 78-84
Worthington, P.J., King, M.A., & Ranson, C.A. (2013b). The influence of cricket fast bowlers
front leg technique on peak ground reaction forces. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31 (4),
434441.
Worthington, P.J., King, M.A., & Ranson, C.A. (2009). The effect of selected kinematics on ball
speed and ground reaction forces in fast bowling. International conference on
biomechanics in sports, 27.
Wu, Y., Li, R.C., Maffulli, N., Chan, K.M., & Chan, J.L. (1997). Relationship between isokinetic
concentric and eccentric contraction modes in the knee flexor and extensor muscle
groups. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, Sep; 26(3), 143-149.

49

APPENDIX A: DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL PLAYER WORKLOAD AND INJURY

RATE

ACB report on player matches available from 1996 to 2002

Team
1996 1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Australia
414 1218
1020
1327
1108
1153
New South Wales
416
464
468
510
504
566
Queensland
357
396
396
350
399
494
South Australia
306
330
459
465
387
413
Tasmania
255
270
306
303
308
475
Victoria
405
432
416
455
363
523
Western Australia
342
396
414
367
449
570
Total
2495 3506
3479
3777
3518
4194
% YoY
41%
-1%
9%
-7%
19%
Report taken from the ACB (Australian Cricket Board) Injury Report 2001-02

2002
748
664
566
530
566
556
587
4217
1%

Sport Health Report on designated player hours of exposure in matches each season
Competition 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Domestic
1819
1732
2685
2685
2685
2685
2598
2598
One-day
First Class
8658
9048
8892
8892
8580
9438
9126
8892
Domestic
One Day
996
1472
953
909
1386
1386
1039
1559
International
Test Cricket
2067
2067
1287
2379
1248
2691
2262
3042
Total
15539 16319
15818
16867
15902
18204
17030
18097
% YoY
5%
-3%
7%
-6%
14%
-6%
6%
Report taken from Sports Medicine Australia(SMA)
ACB and Sports Medicine Australia report on injuries/10000 player hours
Report
ACB
%
YoY
SMA
%
YoY

1996
18.4

1997
14.4

1998
20.8

1999
26.2

2000
23.6

2001
21.4

2002
24.2

-22%

44%

26%

-10%

-9%

13%

37.7

34.9

29.7

-7%

-15%

50

2003

2004

2005

2006

37.7

31.7

37

27.3

25.1

27%

-16%

17%

-26%

-8%

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

Participant Information Sheet

Project Title
Varying knee actions and strength predictors of ball release speed amongst fast bowlers in cricket
Summary of Testing
For this project you shall be asked to participate in 2 sessions as below:
1. Bowling session
2. Gym session for familiarisation
3. Gym session
For both sessions the following till take place:
1. 15minute warm up
2. 10 minute potentiation
3. 20minute testing session
4. 15minute cool down
During the bowling session your bowling action shall be recorded via the use of high speed cameras and
two 50Hz cameras. You will be required to bowl no more than 12 deliveries excluding warm up deliveries
which is at your discretion on how many deliveries you would like.
During the gym session you will be required to perform the following test:
1. Back squats to measure eccentric ability of knee musculature
2. 2 types of jump tests (Squat jump, Counter Movement Jump)
3. Depth jump (Using a drop box and then jumping immediately after ground contact)
The gym session should take place within 2 weeks of the bowling session
Session 1: Bowling Session
You will be required to bowl in an indoor pitch at the stumps. You will aim to pitch the ball at good length
on the pitch. This session will record your bowling action via the use of high speed cameras for the below
purpose:

Measure your bowling speed

Measure your knee angle

The following protocol will take place:

1. 15minute warm up (Led by an S&C Coach-running & stretching)

51

2. 10 minute potentiation (You will be able to ball on the pitch till you feel comfortable for the
testing phase)
3. 20minute testing session (You will bowl 6 deliverys at the stumps by pitching the ball at good
length)
4. 15minute cool down (Led by an S&C Coach- lowering heart rate & stretching)
Equipment used for this session:

High Speed Cameras

5.5 ounce cricket ball
Stumps

Any specific requirements for the participant:

You will be required to wear shorts
Session 2 & 3: Gym Session
You will be required to attend a strength assessment session at the gym. The assessment will be focused
around measuring the strength of the knee musculature. The following tests will be performed:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Back squats to measure eccentric ability of knee musculature

Jump tests 1 : Squat Jump
Jump tests 1 : Counter Movement Jump
Depth jump (Using a drop box and then jumping immediately after ground contact)

The following protocol will take place:

1.
2.
3.
4.

15minute warm up (Led by an S&C Coach-use of free weights & stretching)

10 minute potentiation (Familiarisation with testing)
20minute testing session
15minute cool down (Led by an S&C Coach- lowering heart rate & stretching)

The strength measurement will be conducted as below:

1. Back squats to measure eccentric ability of knee musculature: A smith machine shall be used for
this test. You will be required to do a back squat on the smith machine with load of 200% of your
body weight loaded on the barbell. You will then be asked to lower yourself with a 3 second
tempo till the stops on the rack. Weight will be added/removed every 4mins as required to
measure your strength
2. Jump Test 1: A jump mat will be used for this test. You will be required to get into squat position
on the jump mat and then jump as high as possible and explosively as possible. You will be given
4 attempts
3. Jump Test 2: A jump mat will be used for this test. You will be required to a countermovement on
the jump mat and then jump as high as possible and explosively as possible. You will be given 4
attempts
4. Depth jump: A drop box and a jump mat will be used for this test. You will be required to free fall
off the drop box with hips, knees and ankle aligned and then jump off immediately at ground
contact as explosively as possible with little bending of the knees, hips and ankles. You will be
given 4 attempts

52

Note: Session 2 must take place within 2 weeks of Session 1

APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Sajeel Chaudhry
School of Sport, Health and Applied
Science
St Marys University
Waldegrave Road
Twickenham
London
TW1 4SX

Informed Consent Form

Name of participant: _________________________________
Project title
Varying knee actions and strength predictors of ball release speed amongst fast bowlers in cricket
Main investigator & contact details: Sajeel Chaudhry, School of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Marys University,
Waldegrave Road, Twickenham, London, TW1 4SX, Email:125243@live.smuc.ac.uk
Members of Research Team: Sajeel Chaudhry (Main researcher), Dr. Neil Bezodis (Project Supervisor)
Declaration
By signing below, you are agreeing that:
1.
You have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet
2.
Questions about your participation in this study have been answered satisfactorily
3.
You are aware of the potential risks (if any)
4.
You are taking part in this research study voluntarily
5.
I understand that I am free to withdraw from the research at any time without prejudice
6.
I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded
7.
I am free to ask any questions at any time before and during the study
8.
I have been provided with a copy of this form and the Participant Information Sheet
Data Protection: I agree to the University College processing personal data which I have supplied. I agree to the processing
of such data for any purposes connected with the Research Project as outlined to me.
Name of Participant
________________
Signed ________________ Date ________
Name of Witness ________________
Signed ________________ Date ________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you wish to withdraw from the research, please complete the form below and return to the main investigator named above.
Project Title
Varying knee actions and strength predictors of ball release speed amongst fast bowlers in cricket

I WISH TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS STUDY

Name of Participant

________________

Signed ________________ Date ________

53

APPENDIX D: PAR-Q
Sajeel Chaudhry
School of Sport, Health and Applied
Science
St Marys University
Waldegrave Road
Twickenham
London
TW1 4SX

Physical Activities Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q)

Male ___
Name

__________________________________

Address __________________________________
Postcode__________________________________
D.O.B

__________________________________ Age:

Tel

__________________________________

Email

__________________________________

Height (cm)____________________

Weight (kg)__________________

1. Do you have a heart condition? Yes

No

2. Do you feel pain in your chest when you exercise? Yes

3. Do you have high blood pressure?

Yes

No

No

4. Have you had a heart attack or bypass operation? Yes

No

5. Are you diabetic?

Type 1: Yes No
Type II: Yes No
6. Do you suffer from asthma or any respiratory conditions? Yes

No

7. Do you have any bone or joint problems that could be made worse by a change in your physical activity?
Yes
No
8. Do you suffer from dizzy spells or fainting? Yes No
9. Do you smoke? Yes

No

(If Yes how many per day ________)

10. Have you had any operations in the last year? Yes

No

11. Have you had any musculoskeletal injuries in the 6 months? Yes
No
(If Yes please provide details)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

54

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Do you drink? Yes

No

(If Yes how many units per week ________)

13. Have you suffered from any of the below:

Stroke
Yes
No

Cancer
Yes
No

High Cholesterol Yes

No

Epilepsy
Yes
No

Allergies
Yes
No

Details
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________

14. Do you suffer from any blood borne disease? Yes

No

15. Are you taking any medications or supplements?

Yes
No
(If Yes please provide details)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________
16. Are there any other reasons that not prompted by the above that would prevent you from participating
within the relevant activity?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________
17. How many times a week do you exercise? ______________________________
Assessment Notes:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________
_________________________________
Participants Name (Printed)
_________________________________

_________________________________

Participants signature

Date

_________________________________
Test Co-ordinators Name (Printed)
_________________________________

_________________________________

Test Co-ordinators signature

Date

55

APPENDIX E: BOWLERS MEASUREMENTS FROM STUDY

Bowler
ID

Knee
Group

001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020

A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C

Average
Bowling
Speed
(m/s)
28.50
30.01
29.11
28.70
32.49
26.67
28.54
28.70
30.46
30.62
26.82
30.59
27.15
28.92
29.97
29.04
28.99
28.90
29.37
30.88

Average
Knee
Angle()
151.5
171.9
156.8
119.5
128.3
126.8
131.0
118.5
121.9
124.3
135.8
125.5
130.0
131.8
124.9
162.3
157.0
166.9
172.9
159.6

Max RSI

Max
CMJ

Max SJ

1 RM (%
Body
Weight)

1.242
1.238
1.168
0.975
1.060
1.162
1.040
1.209
1.091
1.216
0.796
0.919
0.974
0.900
1.324
1.210
1.312
1.223
1.060
1.514

266
283
345
283
320
360
240
257
247
366
258
360
289
253
343
283
301
260
249
291

235
262
297
225
277
329
232
255
229
340
263
325
289
218
328
241
270
240
229
290

1.73
1.65
1.94
1.52
1.90
1.75
1.76
1.87
1.76
2.04
1.57
2.09
1.69
1.40
2.48
2.09
1.75
1.79
1.60
2.26

56