Cricketers get burnout as well as bankers

The greatest batsman known to history, Don Bradman, ended his test career more than fifty years ago with an average only fractionally below 100.   The great batsmen of recent years, such as the West India Viv Richards, have had career averages nowhere near that.   If someone of Bradman’s genius were to appear, it seems almost certain that their average in test cricket would be relatively low, perhaps close to 70.  This is not because wickets have got worse – they have got better.  Nor is it because bowlers are more skilful – the average standard of bowling in test cricket may well be lower.  The problem – for batsmen and bowlers alike – is that far too much international cricket is being played.  Both batsmen and bowlers are suffering from burnout, usually in mid career.

Part of the trouble is the growth of limited overs cricket.  Test cricket itself has variations in the pressures on the individual player.  Limited overs cricket is designed to keep players under maximum pressure all the time.  Indeed that is its entertainment value for the television viewer.  It may lack subtlety but it maximises tension.

The problem is largely financial.  Cricket does not generate the financial rewards of football, but the income derived from cricket is huge compared to what it used to be.  This level of funding is only possible if a very great deal of international cricket is played.  The best English players no longer play more than one or two County matches – which can still be played for pleasure – in each summer.  County cricket is for beginners or those retired from test cricket.

In the City, the need to earn huge bonuses has the same consequence.  Marcus Trescothick is suffering from the illness which is known as burnout in the City – too much pressure for too long.  Burnout shortens the career and damages the talent.  Cricketers, when I was first watching, used to play for twenty years or more.  There are too few such veterans left in cricket – or indeed in the City of London.

Comments

[John Kidd]

I agree with much of this article. I would, however, beg to differ on the hypothesis that were the peerless Don Bradman to play today his test batting average would be around 70 rather the 99.94 he actually achieved. Of course we shall never know, but if one compares the Bradman average with his contemporaries one finds that it was close to twice that of the best of them such as Hammond, Hobbs, Ponsford, Compton, Morris to mention a few. It is that fact which makes the Don's record so far unique We might also note that most of his runs were scored against England; none against weak teams such as Zimbabwe or Bangladash. I would argue that a modern day Bradman, should he ever appear, should also be one who, over his Test career averages close to double that of other prolific contemporary batsmen. What might such average be? Answer : about 100!
Perhaps in this respect only has nothing in the cricket world really changed since the 30s.

[Lord Truth]

A few years ago, when the performance of the English side touring India collapsed, it was apparently due to "stomach problems" connected with "eating curry" the previous evening.Since then other near disasters have involved injuries often caused by dangerously inapropriate activities off the pitch.
All this calls into question the management and captaincy of these teams.There has developed a "tradition " that English sport is a bit of a joke characterised by a happy love of "amateurism"- something that can disguise all kinds of slapdash attitudes.One wonders how old this tradition is-if the teams touring Australia in the thirties had these attitudes-or whether they were set,ruthless and flinty eyed on nothing but victory.
The bankers etc mentioned now operate from what has become once again,the worlds leading financial centre
Perhaps it is time for British sport to take a deep breath and make at least some effort to acheive a similar position.