Optimizing Cricket Performance: The Role of S&C

Cricket - The Ashes - Australia v England - First Test - Australia’s Cameron Green in action REUTERS/Asanka Brendon Ratnayake

Modern strength and conditioning (S&C) in cricket extends beyond gym-based training^(1,2). While the primary aims remain enhancing performance and reducing injury risk, S&C coaches now work more collaboratively with the athlete support team^(1–3). The role of S&C in cricket has evolved, and S&C coaches now have to develop individualized programs and may face challenges when implementing injury-reduction strategies. 

The Importance of S&C

Strength and conditioning develops key physical (strength, power, speed, mobility) and physiological (aerobic, anaerobic) qualities essential for cricket performance^(4–8). More robust cricketers are better equipped to withstand the demands of modern cricket, such as frequent matches and high-intensity actions (fast bowling, sprinting between the wickets)^(9–11). These cricketers are also less prone to non-contact injuries, thus improved fitness maximizes training and match availability⁽¹⁰⁾. However, when injuries do occur, S&C coaches apply their knowledge in sports science and medicine to collaboratively work with the athlete support team to manage rehabilitation and reduce the risk of re-injury through tailored S&C programs^(10,12). Accordingly, generic team training is no longer adequate, and individualized approaches based on positional, physiological, and contextual factors are now standard⁽²⁾.

“As the game evolves, so too must S&C practices…”

Factors Influencing Program Design

Match format
Cricket’s three main formats, T20 (20 overs per team), One Day (50 overs), and Multi-Day (up to five days), differ in intensity and duration. As match length shortens, intensity increases, particularly for fast bowlers^(13,14). Global positioning system (GPS) studies show T20 matches produce higher relative demands across movement variables compared to longer formats⁽¹⁵⁾. In contrast, longer formats result in a greater overall physical load⁽¹³⁾. Accordingly, training load, recovery, and energy-system emphasis must reflect format-specific demands^{(13,14,16–18)}. Movement variables and category distances vary greatly across formats (see tables 1, 2, and 3).

Position-specific demands

Cricket’s primary disciplines, bowling, batting, fielding, and wicketkeeping, require distinct movement patterns and conditioning priorities that S&C coaches should consider when developing S&C, prehabilitation, and rehabilitation programs⁽¹⁹⁾. S&C coaches must understand their different qualities and their importance, along with recommended exercises and prescriptions for each discipline (see tables 4a–4d). 

Table 1: Movement variables for the three main formats of cricket (mean ± SD) 

adapted from Petersen et al., 2010⁽¹³⁾

Table 2: Movement category distances for the three main formats of cricket (mean ± SD)

adapted from Petersen et al., 2010⁽¹³⁾

Sex
Male and female cricketers differ morphologically, physically, and physiologically^(23,24). Males generally exhibit greater muscle mass and strength, while females possess different force-velocity profiles and bowling kinematics^(25,26). For example, female fast bowlers display slower run-ups, lower ball release speeds, and distinct joint angles(27). Programs for female cricketers should therefore address these differences through tailored strength, power, and injury-prevention programs⁽²⁸⁾. 

Age
Adolescent cricketers experience higher injury rates than adults, often due to growth-related changes and immature movement control^(10,29,30). Therefore, programs must be age-appropriate, technique-focused, and individualized. For example, when developing bowlers, S&C coaches should emphasize eccentric strength (shoulder rotators, hamstrings), hip adduction, trunk endurance, neuromuscular control, and gradual load progression^(31,32). 

Table 3: Physical demands (mean ± SD) of fast bowlers for One Day vs. T20 cricket matches

adapted from Bliss et al., 2021(15)

Contemporary Practices

Evidence-based practice combines research with coaching expertise to guide training design and evaluation^(33–35). However, there are common criticisms concerning a gap between academic research and practical relevance^(35,36). To further investigate this, researchers have used surveys to identify which practices S&C coaches in professional and high school cricket use. These surveys have demonstrated consistent evidence-informed practices, especially regarding injury prevention, are applied^(1,2,37).

Physical testing
Across traditional and franchised cricket, S&C coaches regularly conduct physical testing, which is mainly performed during the pre-season, but often throughout the year(1,2). Common tests include strength, endurance, power, speed, and cardiovascular fitness(1,2). These qualities are key for bowlers, batters, and wicketkeepers, and fundamental to guiding program design and identifying development needs(1,2). They frequently use body composition and anthropometrics, such as fat percentage and muscle mass, to track physical targets and guide rehabilitation(1,2). While direct performance links are limited, such metrics help monitor progress and inform individualized programming.

“More robust cricketers are better equipped to withstand the demands of modern cricket…”

Periodization
Most S&C coaches in professional cricket use periodization strategies⁽²⁾. Pre-season emphasizes higher training volumes to develop physical qualities, while in-season training volume is reduced to accommodate increased sport-specific training and match demands⁽²⁾. Typically, S&C coaches schedule strength, power, and speed sessions around cricket practice while ensuring 36–48 hours of recovery before competition⁽²⁾. This approach balances adaptation with performance optimization. 

Types of training
Surveys in professional cricket show that all S&C programs include strength, speed, plyometrics, and flexibility^(1,2). Each with strong evidence for injury reduction and performance enhancement^{(10,12,38–41)}. For example, plyometrics improves speed and reduces injury risk by enhancing proprioception and muscular control^(2,42). Combined with strength and agility training, plyometric exercises may lower the incidence of knee injuries by improving landing mechanics and reducing joint stress, which is crucial for managing repetitive force attenuation, such as in fast bowling⁽⁴²⁾.

Workload monitoring
Excessive or abrupt increases in workload are linked to elevated injury risk in cricketers⁽¹⁰⁾. Therefore, S&C coaches should monitor internal load (physiological strain) and external load (total work) using subjective and objective measures⁽⁴³⁾. Surveys in professional cricket indicate widespread use of athlete wellbeing questionnaires (online 64%, written 24%) and technology such as GPS (49%), heart rate monitors (49%), and smart wearables (42%)⁽²⁾. Combining these tools supports S&C coaches to make data-informed adjustments to training intensity, recovery, and readiness.

Table 4a: Position-specific considerations for program design for fast bowlers 

adapted from Mukandi et al., 2014⁽²⁰⁾ 

Table 4b: Position-specific considerations for program design for batters

adapted from Mathankar et al., 2023⁽²¹⁾

Table 4c: Position-specific considerations for program design for fielders 

adapted from Lim et al., 2024⁽¹⁶⁾

Table 4d: Position-specific considerations for program design for wicketkeepers

adapted from Wong et al., 2024⁽²²⁾ 

Cricket-specific Injury Reduction

Injury surveillance among franchise-level teams identifies fast bowlers’ hamstrings and lower backs as the most common injury sites⁽¹⁾. To mitigate risk, S&C coaches implement targeted programs year-round, emphasizing exercises that focus on posterior-chain strength, core stability, and hip mobility⁽¹⁾. More broadly, for all players, prehabilitation sessions may be integrated into warm-ups or technical practice due to high workloads and limited time afforded to S&C during the in-season⁽²⁾.

Integration and collaboration 
Strength and conditioning coaches are integral members of the athlete support team, often collaborating with physiotherapists, sports scientists, and technical coaches. Forty percent of S&C coaches in professional cricket also hold cricket coaching qualifications, enhancing their understanding of skill demands and facilitating interdisciplinary coordination⁽²⁾. This integration enables S&C coaches to influence broader performance strategies by combining technical and physical elements through integrated conditioning drills. For instance, an S&C coach and a fielding coach might co-design repeated-sprint and acceleration drills for a fielder, tracked via GPS to monitor workload in real time.

Implementation challenges
Despite established best practices, implementing S&C programs in professional cricket presents various logistical and interpersonal challenges. Common difficulties are largely due to condensed playing schedules that limit opportunities for structured training and recovery⁽²⁾. Additional challenges include athlete adherence and maintaining effective relationships within multidisciplinary teams, which may be amplified when S&C coaches have intermittent contact with players at club, franchise, or international levels⁽²⁾. They can mitigate many challenges through mobile applications used for effective communication, movement analysis, physical testing, program design, and monitoring. However, the effective use of such technologies remains a skill in itself. 

Conclusion

Strength and conditioning is central to modern cricket, underpinning athletic development, injury prevention, and performance optimization across all formats and roles. Effective S&C requires individualized, evidence-informed programming that accounts for match format, position, sex, and age. Collaboration with the athlete support team ensures cohesive planning and informed rehabilitation processes.

While practical challenges persist, especially concerning planning, periodization, athlete adherence, and relationships, a sport-specific understanding of cricket’s demands and technology integration continues to advance the discipline. As the game evolves, so too must S&C practices, reinforcing their critical role in sustaining player performance and reducing injury rates.

References

1. S. Afr. J. Sports Med. (2020); 32, 1–5.
2. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. (2020); 16, 585–600.
3. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2022); 36, 1335–1344.
4. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2021); 35, 941–948.
5. PLOS ONE. (2024); 19, e0302647.
6. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2024); 38, 1095–1102.
7. J. Sports Sci. (2000); 18, 919–929.
8. Biol. Sport. (2020); 38, 507–515.
9. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. (2021); 7, e001168.
10. Strength Cond. J. (2018); 40, 34–43.
11. Strength Cond. J. (2014); 36, 65–72.
12. Strength Cond. J. (2017); 39, 14–19. 
13. J. Sports Sci. (2010); 28, 45–52.
14. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2011); 25, 1368–1373.
15. J. Sci. Med. Sport. (2021); 24, 505–510.
16. Strength Cond. J. (2023); 45, 509.
17. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport. (2008); 8, 63–69.
18. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2011); 25, 1306–1311.
19. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport. (2018); 18, 609–621.
20. Strength Cond. J. (2014); 36, 96–106.
21. Strength Cond. J. (2021); 43, 42–52.
22. Strength Cond. J. (2024); 47, 8–19.
23. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. (2018); 13, 708–712.
24. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. (2019); 9, 1–6.
25. South Afr. J. Sports Med. (2023); 35.
26. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. (2020); 13, 1305–1316.
27. J. Sports Sci. (2019); 37, 665–670.
28. J. Sports Sci. (2021); 39, 2393–2400.
29. S. Afr. J. Sports Med. (2014); 26, 123–127.
30. S. Afr. J. Sports Med. (2018); 14, 107–113.
31. J. Sci. Med. Sport. (2020); 23, 475–480.
32. Sports Med. (2018); 48, 2449–2461.
33. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2017); 31, 517.
34. Strength Cond. J. (2024); 46, 725–728.
35. Int. J. Strength Cond. (2020); 1.
36. Biol. Sport. (2021); 39, 715–726.
37. J. Strength Cond. Res. (2016); 30, 3464–3470.
38. Sports Med. (2017); 47, 907–916.
39. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. (2014); 11, 11986–12000.
40. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. (2021); 16, 456–461.
41. Phys. Sportsmed. (2010); 38, 147–157.
42. J. Physiother. (2022); 68, 255–261.
43. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. (2018); 14, 1–27.