Strength and conditioning practices for the optimisation of speed and accuracy in cricket fast bowlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The most important determinants of a cricket fast bowler's performance are bowling speed and accuracy. Even though various strength and conditioning practices (resistance, plyometric and modified-implement training) have been employed to improve these parameters, there is still ambiguity as to the effectiveness of such training programmes. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the influence of various training interventions on fast bowling speed and accuracy. Searches were conducted across PubMed, Web of science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria were studies that: were original research or conference presentations; recruited fast bowlers as participants; involved a physical training intervention; written in English; and included bowling speed or accuracy as outcome measures. Ten articles met our inclusion criteria for qualitative and eight for quantitative analysis. The quality of the studies assessed using Downs and Black checklist ranged from low to moderate with a mean ± SD of 64.5 ± 8.14%. There was a moderate and significant effect of plyometric training intervention on bowling speed (SMD = 0.75; Z = 2.98; p = 0.003). Further, a small and non-significant effect of resistance training on bowling speed was observed in our study (SMD = 0.40; Z = 1.39; p = 0.164). A small but non-significant difference was found in the ball speed post modified ball weight training intervention (SMD = 0.30; Z = 1.14; p = 0.252). The findings from our study are useful for strength and conditioning coaches in helping to design and implement fast-bowling specific training programmes for improved bowling speed.

Keywords

Accuracy ball speed plyometric training resistance training

Introduction

Cricket is a global sport followed by millions of people around the world.¹ The game is a contest between the batter and the bowler, with the batter aiming to score as many runs as possible while the bowler aims to restrict the number of runs and take wickets.² The duration and intensity of the matches make it a very physically demanding sport.³ Further, the current body of literature indicates that fast bowlers are required to perform at the highest intensity (i.e. relative distance covered whilst performing low- and high-speed activity) compared to other playing positions.

The fast-bowling action has been considered to be an explosive activity involving complex inter- and intramuscular coordination.⁴ Researchers have looked at the important determinants of ball release speed and reported positive correlations with upper-body strength (shoulder strength, one-repetition max pull-ups), upper-body muscle girth, upper-body power (bench throw), lower body power (static jump), lower-body strength and speed (0–20 metres).^1,5,6 Fast bowling involves proximal-to-distal muscle activation pattern which share some similarities to other activities such as javelin or baseball throwing.⁷ Such movements recruit proximal joint muscles to generate power to increase the speed of the ball on release in bowling.^5,8 The smaller distal muscles are then used to enhance this speed of the ball as well as improving accuracy.⁸ The findings from the aforementioned studies indicate that evidence based and specific strength and conditioning (S&C) training programmes (e.g. resistance training, plyometric training involving explosive and quick movements) should be incorporated in order to help fast bowlers perform at the highest level. For instance, it has been recommended that multi-joint exercises that have an activation pattern (proximal-to-distal) similar to fast bowling action should be incorporated into the training regimen of a fast bowler.⁷ Further, the training programmes should also have the potential to induce adaptive responses in nervous system functioning. These include alterations in motoneuron recruitment, increased firing frequency and increased muscular activation, which lead to an improved rate of force development. These responses ultimately help with the proximal-to-distal activation pattern, and thus improvement in both bowling speed and accuracy.^5,6 Even though various S&C practices have shown to help fast bowlers by taking into consideration their physical demands,^3,9–14 there is still a paucity in the literature regarding the effectiveness and influence of training practices on bowling speed and accuracy, warranting further research.

Several studies^4,15–20 in cricket have tried to understand the influence of biomechanical characteristics on fast bowling speed, accuracy and injury surveillance. However, there have been even fewer studies^21–23 that have investigated the use of various training interventions aimed at improving the performance (i.e. bowling speed and accuracy) of fast bowlers by enhancing their physical fitness. As an example, a combined resistance training programme involving 20 m sprints with weighted resistance demonstrated a clear improvement in bowling speed.²⁴ However, Callaghan et al.²⁵ reported no significant improvement in bowling speed after eight-weeks of strength training. Further, modified-implement training programmes involving the use of underweight and overweight cricket balls have been administered in fast bowling training, with the results providing conflicting evidence. For instance, a significant increase in bowling speed of 0.9 ms⁻¹ and beneficial improvement in accuracy when using overweight balls in training was observed by Wickington and Linthorne²² while a 7% decrease in bowling accuracy was reported by Petersen et al.²¹ The differences in results were attributed to the different methods adopted in each study for measuring bowling accuracy. Therefore, the contrasting findings reported in various studies complemented by a lack of research in the S&C domain necessitates further exploration to get a better understanding on this topic.

The game of cricket has become physically demanding with the addition of newer formats, increasing competition and increasing length of the season.²⁶ With regards to variation in game demands, fast bowlers have been reported to cover an additional 340 m and 400 m total distance per hour in Twenty-20 format compared to fifty over and multiday cricket respectively.³ Fast bowlers have been reported to have 35% less recovery time in-between high intensity activities compared to other playing positions. Also, a fast bowler has been reported to cover a distance of 5.5 ± 0.4 km, 13.4 ± 0.7 km, and 22.6 ± 2.1 km during twenty over, fifty over and multiday matches.^3,12,14 Therefore, providing evidence-based training recommendations would be useful for S&C coaches in implementing training programmes aimed at improving fast bowling speed and accuracy. Even though a previous narrative review⁷ summarised the importance of S&C practices, a systematic review and meta-analysis combining the findings from previous work has not yet been performed. Such an analysis will not only be useful in providing a comprehensive summary of the available findings, but also help to highlight the methodological concerns that exist. Moreover, a meta-analysis will be useful in synthesising information from several independent studies to provide a better estimate of the relationship that exists between different training practices and bowling speed and accuracy. Therefore, the primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to identify whether:

S&C based interventions are associated with faster bowling speed;

S&C based interventions are associated with improved bowling accuracy.

We hypothesised that various S&C training interventions i.e., resistance training, plyometric training and modified-implement training are effective in improving bowling speed and accuracy.

Methods

Experimental approach to the problem

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).²⁷ The study was registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), an international database for systematic reviews prospectively registered by the Center for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; CRD42021242204).

Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus between December 2020 and August 2021. The following keywords were used in different combinations using Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ in order to identify the training practices being administered in cricket for improving fast bowling speed and accuracy across various databases: cricket, fast bowling, strength and conditioning, resistance training, plyometric training, fitness, ball speed, accuracy, exercises. A grey literature search²⁸ was conducted across Google Scholar as well as the standard Google search engine. Further, the reference lists of each study identified using the comprehensive literature search were scanned to identify any further potential articles for inclusion.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Studies were deemed eligible to be included in our review if the following criteria were met:

the studies recruited cricket fast bowlers as participants with no restrictions on age, sex or fitness and playing level;

the studies involved a training intervention;

the outcome measure was related to fast bowling speed or accuracy;

the articles were original research or conference presentations, providing the same data was not used for both;

the articles were published in English.

Studies were excluded according to the following criteria:

they were posters or case studies;

were secondary research (e.g. reviews);

the outcome measure was not related to fast bowling speed or accuracy;

papers not related to cricket;

not in English.

Selection process

Two authors (AR and US) conducted an independent search across all the databases to reduce the risk of selection bias. All the results were extracted to Endnote Library X8 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, US). Both the authors then screened the titles of the extracted articles according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and identified the potential articles that could be included for the study eligibility phase of the systematic review. As reported in a previous review, the articles were classified as satisfying the inclusion criteria (yes), doubtful (maybe) or not satisfying the inclusion criteria (no).² The articles that met the “yes” or “maybe” criteria were further screened for abstract followed by full-text reviews. All disagreements were discussed with the third author (TL) in a consensus meeting and then a final decision was made. The flow diagram of the search process in given in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart for search strategy.

Quality appraisal of studies

The Downs and Black checklist²⁹ was used to evaluate the methodological quality of both randomised and nonrandomized experimental studies. The checklist consists of 27 items that address the following methodological components: reporting, external validity, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power. All the items were rated either as yes ( = 1) or no/unable to determine ( = 0). The quality index of the checklist has high criterion validity (r = 0.90), high internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.89), test-retest (r = 0.88) and inter-rater (r = 0.75) reliability.²⁹ The question on power was modified from a scale of 0–5 to a scale of 0 (no) to 1 (yes) where a score of 1 was given if a power or sample size calculation was present, or based on how narrow the confidence intervals were.^30–32 A score of 0 was given if there was no power or sample size calculation, or no explanation on whether the number of subjects was appropriate or based on how wide the confidence intervals were. If sufficient information was available and bias was considered unlikely, the item was rated as a ‘yes’, whereas ratings of ‘no’ were confirmed where bias was likely. Criteria that were coded as a ‘yes’ were given one point, whereas ‘no’ responses did not receive any points. The sum of each of the ‘yes’ responses contributed to the overall quality score, with a higher score indicating higher methodological quality. High quality studies were categorised as 85–100%, moderate quality studies as 60–84% and low quality as less than 59%.²⁹ Studies considered to be of low quality were excluded from the meta-analysis. The two authors (AR and US) rated each article independently using the quality assessment criteria checklist with any disagreements settled by the third author (TL).

Data extraction

The following data were extracted in a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) sheet from each study: author's name, study design, participant information (age, sex, height, body weight, bowling experience), sample size, training interventions (e.g. resistance training, plyometric training) and outcome measures (bowling speed and accuracy). The pre- and post- test intervention mean and standard deviation data were extracted for the outcome measure for all the studies. The data extraction was carried out by two authors (AR and US) independently. The final sheet was cross verified in consultation with the third author (TL) to ensure that the required data was extracted.

Statistical analysis

All data for the meta-analysis were conducted using JBI SUMARI.³³ A meta-analysis was conducted when there were two or more studies available for each training intervention.³⁴ The inverse-variance method and random effect model was used for conducting the meta-analysis.^35,36 Effect sizes (ES) were expressed as weighted (or standardised) final post-intervention mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The ES of the primary studies were presented in a forest plot with values of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 corresponding to small, moderate and large ES, respectively.³⁷ Heterogeneity was examined with the I² statistic.³⁸ The I² statistic calculates the degree to which there is heterogeneity, with 25% suggesting low heterogeneity, 50% indicating moderate, and 75% indicating the threshold for high heterogeneity. The Q statistic was also calculated and provides the statistical significance of heterogeneity. All statistical analysis were maintained at a significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05).

Results

Systematic literature search

A total of 2388 articles were extracted and screened based on our inclusion criteria from PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and Web of Science. The grey searches²⁸ conducted using Google resulted in three more papers being added. Further to the abstract screening process, 15 full-text articles were reviewed, with 10 articles being included for qualitative assessment while 8 articles were considered eligible for quantitative analysis. One study³⁹ was not considered for meta-analysis due to poor quality of the study (48%), as measured using Downs and Black checklist

Participant information

A total of 187 fast bowlers from 10 studies were analysed in our qualitative and quantitative assessment. The age, stature and mass of the bowlers in these studies were 22.7 ± 4.6 y, 1.78 ± 0.07 m and 78.37 ± 9.78 kg. The bowlers recruited in nine studies played at the community- or club-level and one study recruited national-level bowlers. The study characteristics and outcome measures of all the included studies have been summarised in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Summary of the key characteristics of each study.

Name	Study Design	Training Programme	Playing Level	Sample Size	Participant Details in the training group
Andhare³⁹	Randomised control	Resistance training (Throwers ten programme)	Club-standard	30	Age: 18–30 years
Callaghan et al.²⁵	Experimental	Resistance training (Strength programme)	Elite-academy level	10	Age: 21.2 ± 4.6 years Height: 185 ± 5 cms Body mass: 83.2 ± 7.4 kg
Feros et al.⁴⁰	Randomised, within-subject	Modified implement training	Community level	17	Age: 22.4 ± 6.1 years Body mass: 79.6 ± 13.8 kgs Bowling Experience: 5 years
Feros et al.²⁴	Quasi- Experimental	Resistance training (strength exercises + heavy cricket ball)	Club-standard	12	Age: 23.7 ± 7.5 years Body mass: 83 ± 13.0 kg Bowling experience: 7.1 ± 4.7 years
Hayath and Spargoli²³	Randomised, Crossover	Plyometric training (BSP)	Club-standard	7	Age: 25.6 ± 3.2 years
Maker and Taliep⁴¹	Quasi-Experimental	Resistance training (strength exercises + heavy cricket ball)	Club-standard	18	Age: 22.6 ± 5.1 years Height: 178 ± 10 cms Body mass: 73 ± 8.3 cms Bowling experience: 10.3 ± 5.5 years
Petersen et al.²¹	Randomised control	Modified implement training	Senior Club level	20	Age: 22 ± 3 years
Singh et al.⁴³	Experimental	Plyometric training (BSP)	National level	30	Age: 19.70 ± 2.14 years Height: 172.12 ± 8.79 cms Body mass: 61.44 ± 8.15 kg
Wallis et al.⁴²	Experimental	Bowling harness	School-level	33	Age: 13 years
Wickington and Linthorne²²	Experimental	Modified-implement training	Club/county level	10	Age: 24 ± 5 years Height: 180 ± 6 cms Body mass: 90 ± 8 kg

Abbreviations: BSP– ballistic six programme; Cms– centimetres.

Table 2.

Outcome measures and results of the included studies.

Study	Outcome Measures	Results
Andhare³⁹	Ball Speed and Accuracy	Training group showed significant (p < 0.05) improvement in speed and accuracy calculated from Tacho metre and coin test was 200.8 rpm to 219.8 rpm and 16.8cm to 8.6 cm respectively.
Callaghan et al.²⁵	Ball release Speed	No significant improvement in ball release speed post training session (31.55 ± 1.44 m/s versus 31.79 ± 1.33 m/s)
Feros et al.⁴⁰	Ball Release Speed and Accuracy	Significant difference observed between conditions was in mean bowling accuracy, where the HB was 10.9% worse than the RB.
Feros et al.²⁴	Ball Release Speed and Accuracy	Training group improved the ball release speed in (32.6 ± 1.7 m/sec vs 33.8 ± 1.8 m/sec). Negative impact of heavier ball on bowling accuracy (42.6 ± 6.3 cm vs 49.7 ± 7.4 cm)
Hayath and Spargoli²³	Ball Release Speed	Bowl speed in No BSP was 114 ± 2.943 km/hr Bowl speed in 50% BSP was 117.14 ± 2.794 km/hr
Maker and Taliep⁴¹	Ball Speed and Accuracy	The training group showed 6% improvement in bowling speed. No effect of resistance training was reported on bowling accuracy.
Petersen et al.²¹	Ball Release Speed and Accuracy	Trivial/small changes in ball speed and accuracy.
Singh et al.⁴³	Bowling velocity	Significant improvement in medium pace bowling velocities.
Wallis et al.⁴²	Ball Release Speed and Accuracy	There were no significant differences in ball release velocity before (harness group: 20.2 m/s; non-harness group: 21.4 m/s) and after the intervention (19.9 and 21.1 m/s).
Wickington and Linthorne²²	Ball Release Speed and Accuracy	Ball speed decreased at a rate of about 1.1 m/s per 100 g increase in ball weight. Accuracy was not diversely affected by changes in ball weight.

Abbreviations: BSP– ballistic six programme; CRT– combine resistance training; HB– heavy ball; RB– regular ball.

Methodological descriptions

Of the ten studies, seven studies^{21,22,24,39–42} reported outcome measures as bowling speed and accuracy whereas three studies^23,25,43 reported bowling speed only. These studies utilised different interventions to examine the effect on bowling speed and accuracy. Three studies^21,22,40 used modified ball weight training intervention where the ball weight ranged from 46% to 192% of the standard ball weight (156 g). One study⁴² incorporated the use of a bowling harness to restrict the movement of the shoulders during the delivery stride. Two studies^25,39 incorporated only resistance training whereas two studies^24,41 administered a resistance training intervention along with a weighted cricket ball. Some examples of the exercises that were included in the three studies incorporating resistance training are 20 m resistance sprints, pull-ups, push-ups, press-ups, bench press, prone row, back squat, internal and external shoulder rotation, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation shoulder flexion and extension. Two studies^23,43 incorporated “Ballistic Six” programme, which incorporates plyometric training principles. The exercises used were elastic external rotation, overhead soccer throw, deceleration baseball throw and baseball throw. The training intervention in all the included studies was performed for 7 ± 2.4 weeks. The characteristics of the training interventions of the included studies have been summarised in Table 3.

Table 3.

Characteristics of training intervention of included studies.

Name	Training Frequency (sessions/week)	Training Duration (weeks)	No. of sets range	No. of rep's range (repetitions/exercise)	Intensity	Load Range
Andhare³⁹	2 times/day	3	NR	10	NR	Thera band of varied resistance
Callaghan et al.²⁵	2	8	3–5	12–40	NR	Bodyweight, 10–80% of 1 RM
Feros et al.⁴⁰	NA	NA	NA	9 each	60–95% effort	300 g, 250 g cricket balls
Feros et al.²⁴	2	8	ST- 3 BT- NA AST- NR	ST- 5 BT- 15 AST- NR	ST-Maximal BT- Maximal AST- Maximal	ST- BW AST- 20%, 15% of BW, UW BT- 300 g, 250 g, 156 g
Hayath and Spargoli²³	NA	NA	3	5	NR	2–6 lb
Maker and Taliep⁴¹	2	4	2	6–10	NR	133–179 g cricket balls
Petersen et al.²¹	3	10	1	18–36	Maximal	131–176 g cricket balls
Singh et al.⁴³	2	8	3	10–20	NR	Red tube and 2–6 lb medicine balls
Wallis et al.⁴²	NR	8	NA	6	Maximal	BW
Wickington and Linthorne²²	3	8	1	36–42	Maximal	46–137% of standard cricket ball (156 g)

Abbreviations: AST– acceleration sprint training; BSP– ballistic six programme; BT– bowling training; BW– bodyweight; g– gram; Lb– pounds; NA– not applicable; NR– not reported; ST– strength training.

Methodological quality

Table 4 represents the quality score for the eight studies included for meta-analysis. The methodological quality according to Downs and Black had a mean score of 64.5 ± 8.14%. A total of nine studies were rated as of moderate quality with a mean score of 65.11 ± 8.39% and one study was of low quality with a score of 48%. The individual scores of each have study have also been provided in the Table 4. The least reported Downs and Black items included the following: allocation of concealment, adjustment for confounders, subject's follow-up consideration and sample size calculation.

Table 4.

Quality assessment of the studies using downs and black checklist.

Author Name	Scoring criteria for quality assessment
Author Name	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	Score
Andhare³⁹	N	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	48%
Callaghan et al.²⁵	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	63%
Feros et al.⁴⁰	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	63%
Feros et al.²⁴	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	74%
Hayath and Spargoli²³	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	67%
Maker and Taliep⁴¹	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	63%
Petersen et al.²¹	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	67%
Singh et al.⁴³	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	63%
Wallis et al.⁴²	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	59%
Wickington and Linthorne²²	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	78%

Abbreviations: N– No; Y– yes.

Quantitative analysis

A total of eight studies were included for quantitative analysis. Two studies were included for meta-analysis to determine the effects of plyometric training on bowling speed. Three further studies were included to investigate the influence of weighted ball training on bowling speed. Three studies were included to examine the effects of general resistance training on bowling speed. A moderate and significant difference in bowling speed was observed due to plyometric training (SMD = 0.75; Z = 2.98; p = 0.003) with a low inter-study heterogeneity (I² = 0%; p = 0.588) (Figure 2). A small and non-significant effect of resistance training on bowling speed was observed (SMD = 0.40; Z = 1.39; p = 0.164) with a low inter-study heterogeneity (I² = 0%; p = 0.666) (Figure 3). A small and non-significant effect of modified ball training was observed on bowling speed (SMD = 0.30; Z = 1.14; p = 0.252) with a low inter-study heterogeneity (I² = 0%; p = 0.541) (Figure 4). We could not conduct analysis for measuring the accuracy due to limited availability of data points and the variation in methods used to measure accuracy in the included studies.

Figure 2.

Standard mean difference and 95% CI for the influence of plyometric training on bowling speed.

Figure 3.

Standard mean difference and 95% CI for the influence of resistance training on bowling speed.

Figure 4.

Standard mean difference and 95% CI for the influence of modified-implement training on bowling speed.

Discussion and implications

This review provides novel findings summarising the influence of various S&C interventions on bowling speed and accuracy. Consequently, a total of ten studies were included for the systematic review and the overall quality of the studies were assessed by Down and Black checklist with scores ranging from low to moderate quality. We examined the effects of modified ball weight training, general resistance training and upper body plyometric training interventions on bowling speed and accuracy. Of the ten studies, eight were included for quantitative analysis. One study³⁹ was removed from quantitative analysis due to poor quality. The main findings were; 1) a moderate and significant improvement in bowling speed due to the upper body plyometric intervention; 2) a small but non-significant effect of resistance training on bowling speed and 3) a small but non-significant improvement in bowling speed due to the modified ball weight training group. These findings highlight the influence of various training practices on fast bowling speed. Further, only plyometric training intervention supported our hypothesis that S&C training can help improve fast bowling speed. Our hypothesis that S&C training interventions improve accuracy could not be verified quantitatively via meta-analysis due to limitations and contradictions within the literature.

The upper body plyometric training intervention showed a moderate effect on bowling speed in our meta-analysis. The improvement in bowling speed is likely due to the nature of the plyometric exercise incorporated in the training programmes of these studies. During cricket fast bowling, the internal shoulder rotators are involved during the acceleration phase of the bowling arm while the external shoulder rotators are involved during the deceleration phase.⁴⁴ Fast bowling further requires the bowling arm to be rotated at around 6000°/sec, placing high demand on the shoulder joint.⁴⁴ Therefore, training programmes need to be developed and implemented that improve the dynamic stability of the shoulder joint by strengthening the rotator cuff muscles. The “Ballistic Six” programme consists of functional exercises performed at high intensity and volume in order to simulate the movements, positions and forces involved with the overhead throwing action.⁴³ These exercises require pre-stretching of the shoulder musculature; thus, activating the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). The musculotendinous unit is first eccentrically loaded for storing elastic energy and then contracted concentrically.^45,46 As a result, the reactive and elastic properties of the muscle and tendon produce maximal force with the help of the SSC.^47,48 Further, the “Ballistic Six” programme also adheres to various S&C training principles i.e., 1) specificity as the exercises target improvements in overhead throwing motion;⁴⁸ 2) progression as the programme requires the athletes to progressively increase the volume and intensity of the exercises;⁴⁸ 3) overload as the programme aims to develop shoulder power and muscular endurance along with strength adaptations.⁴⁸ Although the baseball and cricket throws involve different technical requirements, there is some evidence that incorporating exercises such as deceleration baseball and baseball throws as part of the training regimen can be translated to cricket fast bowling as both of the activities rely on shoulder internal and external rotators strength.⁴³ Consistent with prior knowledge on this subject, the results of the two included studies^23,43 showed a significant increase in bowling speed after the plyometric training intervention. The study by Hayath and Spargoli²³ reported a large improvement in bowling speed immediately after the plyometric training session during three different training sessions whereas a moderate improvement in bowling speed was reported after 8 weeks of plyometric training in the study by Singh and colleagues.⁴³ The minor disparity in results could be attributed to the duration of the plyometric programme, skill level of the participants and the heterogeneity of the included studies. However, further investigation is needed regarding the specific neural or physiological adaptations of fast bowlers to plyometric training in order to provide further evidence-based recommendations.

A small and non-significant effect of resistance training on bowling speed was found based on the inclusion of three studies.^24,25,41 One reason for improvement in the speed can be attributed to the neural adaptations, i.e., training-induced changes within the nervous system due to resistance training. These adaptations can influence the activation of prime movers in specific movements and lead to better coordination of all relevant muscles, thereby effecting a greater net force in the intended direction of movement.⁴⁰ Further, increased motor unit recruitment, rate coding, synchronisation and intermuscular coordination in response to resistance training^1,49,50 could have contributed to improvement in bowling speed. Of note, two studies incorporated weighted ball training^24,41 as part of their training intervention. Since it is a cricket-specific movement, the increase in bowling speed could be attributed to the specificity of the training intervention with fast bowling action and improved power of the throwing arm and shoulder complex.⁴¹ However, there are several reasons which might explain the non-significance of resistance training interventions on bowling speed. Firstly, there is a delay or “lag time” between the increased strength and ability to utilise it into improved performance.⁵¹ It might be possible that the time between the training intervention and performance testing did not allow for the transference of the increased muscular strength/power post resistance training on bowling speed. This could be due to the nature of exercises incorporated during the resistance training intervention. While the resistance training exercises involves slow and controlled movement throughout the entire range of motion, plyometric training usually involves rapid eccentric contraction followed immediately by concentric contraction.⁵² Therefore, rapid improvement in power characteristics post-plyometric training intervention⁵³ could have led to improvements in bowling speed compared to resistance training intervention. Secondly, two studies conducted the testing during the off-season phase in which bowlers were not undertaking pace bowling practice. Since bowling action involves complex sequencing of movements, there is a possibility that bowlers may require longer time duration to translate the increased strength into fast bowling speed or accuracy.²⁵ Thirdly, these studies were conducted on amateur and club-level fast bowlers. There is a possibility that the results might have been different if bowlers with greater bowling and resistance training experience were recruited as time involved in sport-specific skills can discriminate between the performance of expert and non-expert athletes as observed in other sports.⁵⁴ Also, highly skilled bowlers would be expected to demonstrate superior strength, power and bowling qualities compared to amateur or community level bowlers, which might influence the results.²⁴ Therefore, the effect of resistance training on bowling speed needs to be further researched in order to get a better understanding on this topic.

According to our meta-analysis, modified ball weight training had a small but non-significant effect on bowling speed. The small change could be attributed to the improvement in arm muscle strength due to the use of heavy cricket balls.²¹ The participants in the study conducted by Feros et al.⁴⁰ bowled using 300 g and 250 g balls, which are heavier than the regular cricket ball (156 g). These bowlers reported that it was difficult to control the heavier balls and were also reported to release the heavier ball earlier during their action. Further, the participants were found to release the ball later during their action when they used the regular cricket balls. These findings highlight the negative transfer between heavy and regular ball training. Even though the movement pattern is similar between the different weighted balls, there might be differences in the force requirements while bowling with cricket balls of different weight.⁴⁰ While the underweight balls might teach fast bowlers on how to move body segments at higher speeds, the heavier balls might assist in developing the strength to produce higher bowling speeds.²¹ In doing so, the intermuscular coordination could have negatively affected the transference of speed after bowling with the heavier cricket balls.⁴⁰ Therefore, it might be beneficial to examine the appropriate ball weight for eliciting improving bowling speed. However, it is to be noted that the bowlers recruited in these two studies were playing at community- or club-level. Therefore, there is a possibility that the findings might be different when conducted in a group of fast bowlers with greater experience in resistance training as time involved in sport-specific skills can discriminate between the performance of expert and non-expert athletes.⁵⁴ Further, the training intervention was implemented for a period of 10-weeks. A possible learning effect might occur with longer training duration which can help the athletes readjust to the regular weight cricket ball. Therefore, further research in terms of the playing level, ball weight,²² length of the training duration and recovery periods between the repetitions should be conducted for safe and effective application of modified-implement training.

Bowling accuracy is considered to be an important trait for taking wickets and reducing the runs scored by the opposition batters. It is one of the crucial indicators of fast bowling performance. However, a quantitative analysis could not be performed because there were not enough studies (<2 for each condition) for the meta-analysis and there was substantial methodological variation in determining bowling accuracy. For instance, the studies included for determining the influence of resistance training had measured bowling accuracy either through the vertical grid system⁴¹ or video analysis.²⁴ While the study by Feros et al.²⁴ showed decrement in bowling accuracy, Maker and Taliep⁴¹ did not report any significant effect of resistance training on bowling accuracy. This could be in part be attributed to differences in measurement techniques in determining in bowling accuracy. With regards to the modified implement training, Petersen et al.²¹ reported a 7% decline in bowling accuracy post 10 weeks of modified implement training with balls of 84–116% of standard mass. Likewise, Feros et al.²⁴ reported a “clear moderate” decrease in bowling accuracy post 8 weeks of resistance training combined with modified implement training with 300g, 250g, and standard cricket balls. However, Wickington and Linthrone²² reported substantial improvement in bowling accuracy post 8 weeks of modified implement training with a ball weight 46–137% of standard mass. It is to be noted that Petersen et al.²¹ measured bowling accuracy by scoring the delivery “successful” if the ball is pitched between 6 and 7 m from the stumps and “unsuccessful” if pitched outside the aforementioned range, whereas, Wickington and Linthorne²² incorporated a points-based scoring system with a vertical target sheet positioned at the batting end in line with the stumps. Feros et al.²⁴ measured bowling accuracy by estimating radial error from digitised footage. Interestingly, Wickington and Linthorne²² showed “unclear changes” in bowling accuracy; however, the substantial improvement in bowling accuracy was likely biased by two participants who showed greater improvements in bowling accuracy. Therefore, these findings from the included studies suggest that further research is required to determine the effects of various training modalities on bowling accuracy.

Methodological appraisal

The studies included in our review were of low to moderate quality. There are few potential reasons that we would like to highlight for future research. None of the studies had considered the confounding factors such as the bowling action. The technique of the bowler is an important confounding factor due to differences in body alignment and orientation depending on the type of bowling action (i.e. front-on, side-on and mixed).⁵⁵ Therefore, it might be possible that the exercises implemented in the studies might not have been suitable for a particular bowling action. Also, the studies did not report any information regarding the adverse effects (injury) of the training intervention. Such information could be useful for establishing the safety of various training practices and also in recommending exercises based on the age, skill level, gender and physical training experience of the fast bowler. Even though the included studies in our meta-analysis generally reported a clear description of the training interventions, a number of programming parameters such as resistance training experience, rest between training sessions, frequency, set range, intensity and duration were not clearly reported in a few studies. In order to improve overall quality, future studies should try to provide a better description of all the parameters that were considered while designing the training programme to improve the overall methodological quality.

Limitations

There are a few limitations in this study that need to be addressed. Firstly, our meta-analysis included only eight studies. Further research is required in this domain to identify the importance of various S&C practices on fast bowling speed and accuracy to further validate the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Secondly, our systematic review involved bowlers from various levels of play (i.e. amateur, semi-professional and professional), which may have influenced the overall correlations reported due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. Also, we could not perform meta-regression analysis due to the low sample size. However, in order to reduce the variation across cohorts, we made every effort to ensure that similarities between cohorts of fast bowlers were included as part of our analysis by analysing the characteristics of participants included in the selected studies.

Directions for future research

The demanding nature of fast bowling requires confirmation of evidence related to performance at the highest level. Future research should focus on comparing fast bowlers of different playing levels (amateur, semi-professional or professional/elite). Such studies will help in the development of S&C training programmes that are specific to the physical demands at each level. This may also help with the development of junior athletes who are aiming to transition to a more advanced (i.e., Tier 3: national/state) level.⁵⁶ Furthermore, the majority of studies have been conducted on male fast bowlers and there are very few studies that have been conducted on female fast bowlers. This will help in identifying the differences in physical demands that exist between males and females and will help practitioners in designing and implementing S&C programmes that are either male or female specific. Also, further research in this area is required to identify the optimal training strategies and dosages (number of sets, repetitions and rest periods in between each exercise) in order to maximise the advantages induced by these training programmes. Further, our meta-analysis demonstrates that training interventions (resistance training, plyometric training and modified-implement training) between 3–10 weeks with a frequency of 2–3 sessions/week performed between 60%-maximal intensity can lead to small to moderate improvements in bowling speed. This information could be used by strength and conditioning coaches while designing and implementing training programmes. However, there is a possibility that interventions performed over longer durations and at a greater frequency might be beneficial for fast bowlers in improving their speed and accuracy. Lastly, there might be a delay in the transfer of strength gains following training interventions to bowling speed or accuracy. Therefore, S&C coaches and practitioners should implement training programmes in such a way that sufficient time is available for adaptations in physical capabilities, which can then transfer to increased bowling speed.

Conclusion

In summary, plyometric training intervention was associated with a moderate improvement in bowling speed. A small and non-significant improvement in bowling speed was found after resistance training programme. A non-significant and small effect in bowling speed was found for the modified ball weight training group. Coaches should consider the use of these training practices for helping fast bowlers improve their speed or accuracy. Our meta-analysis evaluated the effect of various S&C programmes on cricket fast bowling speed and accuracy. However, further research is required in this domain in order to get a better understanding on this topic. The findings from our study will be useful in informing the S&C coaches about the different training practices in cricket fast bowling. These results will help with further development of fast-bowling specific guidelines for effective S&C practices and in designing further evidence-based warm-up strategies specific to fast bowlers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

There are no acknowledgements for this manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Akhilesh Kumar Ramachandran

Utkarsh Singh

References

Johnstone JA, Mitchell AC, Hughes G, Watson T, Ford PA, Garrett AT. The athletic profile of fast bowling in cricket: a review. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28:1465–1473.

Ramachandran

Singh

Connor

, et al. Biomechanical and physical determinants of bowling speed in cricket: a novel approach to systematic review and meta-analysis of correlational data. Sport Biomech 2021; 00: 1–23.

Petersen

Pyne

Dawson

, et al. Movement patterns in cricket vary by both position and game format. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 45–52.

Worthington

King

Ranson

. Relationships between fast bowling technique and ball release speed in cricket. J Appl Biomech 2013; 29: 78–84.

Beachle

Earle

. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.

Bompa

Haff

. Periodization theory and methodology of training. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.

Mukandi

Turner

Scott

, et al. Strength and conditioning for cricket fast bowlers. Strength Cond J (Lippincott Williams Wilkins) 2014; 36: 96–106.

Gambetta

. Athletic development; the art and science of functional sports conditioning. In South Australia: Human Kinetics; 2007.

McNamara

Gabbett

Naughton

, et al. Training and competition workloads and fatigue responses of elite junior cricket players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2013; 8: 517–526.

10.

Vickery

Duffield

Crowther

, et al. Comparison of the physical and technical demands of cricket players during training and match-play. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 821–829.

11.

Petersen

Pyne

Portus

, et al. Quantifying positional movement patterns in Twenty20 cricket. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2009; 9: 165–170.

12.

Petersen

Pyne

Portus

, et al. Variability in movement patterns during One Day Internationals by a cricket fast bowler. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2009; 4: 278–281.

13.

Petersen

Pyne

Portus

, et al. Comparison of player movement patterns between 1-day and test cricket. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25(5): 1368–1373.

14.

Petersen

Pyne

Dawson

, et al. Comparison of training and game demands of national level cricketers. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 1306–1311.

15.

Senington

Lee

Williams

. Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2020; 6: 1–11.

16.

Stronach

Cronin

Portus

. Part 1: biomechanics, injury surveillance, and predictors of injury for cricket fast bowlers. Strength Cond J 2014; 36: 65–72.

17.

Loram

Mckinon

Wormgoor

, et al. Determinants of ball release speed in schoolboy fast-medium bowlers in cricket. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2005; 45: 483–490.

18.

Middleton

Mills

Elliott

, et al. The association between lower limb biomechanics and ball release speed in cricket fast bowlers: a comparison of high-performance and amateur competitors. Sport Biomech 2016; 15: 357–369.

19.

Stuelcken

Pyne

Sinclair

. Anthropometric characteristics of elite cricket fast bowlers. J Sports Sci 2007; 25: 1587–1597.

20.

Wormgoor

Harden

Mckinon

. Anthropometric, biomechanical, and isokinetic strength predictors of ball release speed in high-performance cricket fast bowlers. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 957–965.

21.

Petersen

Wilson

Hopkins

. Effects of modified-implement training on fast bowling in cricket. J Sports Sci 2004; 22: 1035–1039.

22.

Wickington

Linthorne

. Effect of ball weight on speed, accuracy, and mechanics in cricket fast bowling. Sports 2017; 5: 18.

23.

Hayath

Spargoli

. The immediate effects of different intensities of upper limb plyometric warm-up on bowling speed in cricketers. Preliminary results. Sci Riabil 2016; 18: 16–22.

24.

Feros

Young

O'Brien

. Efficacy of combined general, special, and specific resistance training on pace bowling skill in club-standard cricketers. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 2596–2607.

25.

Callaghan

Lockie

Tallent

, et al. The effects of strength training upon front foot contact ground reaction forces and ball release speed among high-level cricket pace bowlers. Sport Biomech 2021; 00: 1–17.

26.

Herridge

Turner

Bishop

. Monitoring changes in power, speed, agility, and endurance in elite cricketers during the off-season period. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 2285–2293.

27.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009.

28.

Paez

. Grey literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2017; 10(3): 1–8.

29.

Downs

Black

. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52: 377–384.

30.

Morton

Barton

Rice

, et al. Risk factors and successful interventions for cricket-related low back pain: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48: 685–691.

31.

Richmond

Fukuchi

Ezzat

, et al. Are joint injury, sport activity, physical activity, obesity, or occupational activities predictors for osteoarthritis? A systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013; 43: 515–524.

32.

Simic

Hinman

Wrigley

, et al. Gait modification strategies for altering medial knee joint load: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63: 405–426.

33.

Munn

. Software to support the systematic review process: the Joanna briggs institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of information (JBI-SUMARI). JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports 2016; 14: 1.

34.

Deeks

Higgins

Altman

. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. 2021.

35.

Deeks

Higgins

. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv Cochrane Collab. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2008, pp.243–296.

36.

Kontopantelis

Springate

Reeves

. A re-analysis of the cochrane library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PLoS One 2013; 8: e69930.

37.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

38.

Higgins

Thompson

. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–1558.

39.

Andhare

. Effect of throwers ten program on performance in fast bowlers “randomized control trial”. J Med Sci Clin Res 2018; 6.

40.

Feros

Young

O’Brien

. The acute effects of heavy-ball bowling on fast bowling performance in cricket. J Aust Strength Cond 2013; 18: 921–923.

41.

Maker

Taliep

. The effects of a four weeks combined resistance training programme on cricket bowling velocity. South African J Sport Med 2021; 33: 1–6.

42.

Wallis

Elliott

Koh

. The effect of a fast bowling harness in cricket: an intervention study. J Sports Sci 2002; 20: 495–506.

43.

Singh

Gopal

Sandhu

. The effect of ′Ballistic Six′ plyometric training on performance of medium pace Asian Indian cricket bowlers. Saudi J Sport Med 2014; 14: 94.

44.

Aginsky

Lategan

Stretch

. Shoulder injuries in provincial male fast bowlers - predisposing factors. South African J Sport Med 2004; 16: 25.

45.

Komi

Gollhofer

. Stretch reflexes can have an important role in force enhancement during SSC exercise. J Appl Biomech 1997; 13: 451–460.

46.

Taube

Leukel

Gollhofer

. How neurons make us jump: the neural control of stretch-shortening cycle movements. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2012; 40: 106–115.

47.

Komi

. Stretch-shortening cycle: a powerful model to study normal and fatigued muscle. J Biomech 2000; 33: 1197–1206.

48.

Pretz

. “Ballistic Six ” plyometric throwing athlete. Strength Cond J 2004; 26: 62–66.

49.

Behrens

Mau-Moeller

Bruhn

. Effect of plyometric training on neural and mechanical properties of the knee extensor muscles. Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 101–109.

50.

Cormie

McCuigan

Newton

. Developing maximal neuromuscular power. Sport Med 2011; 41: 17–38.

51.

Suchomel

Nimphius

Stone

. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sport Med 2016; 46: 1419–1449.

52.

Vissing

Brink

Lønbro

, et al. Muscle adaptations to plyometric vs. Resistance training in untrained young men. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 1799–1810.

53.

Monti

Franchi

Badiali

, et al. The time-course of changes in muscle mass, architecture and power during 6 weeks of plyometric training. Front Physiol 2020; 11: 1–14.

54.

Baker

Côté

Deakin

. Expertise in ultra-endurance triathletes early sport involvement, training structure, and the theory of deliberate practice. J Appl Sport Psychol 2005; 17: 64–78.

55.

Portus

Sinclair

Burke

, et al. Cricket fast bowling performance and technique and the influence of selected physical factors during an 8-over spell. J Sports Sci 2000; 18: 999–1011.

56.

McKay

AKA

Stellingwerff

Smith

Martin

Mujika

Goosey-Tolfrey

Sheppard

Burke

. Defining Training and Performance Caliber: A Participant Classification Framework. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2022; 29: 1–15.