Time-motion analysis of Test and One-Day International cricket centuries

Rob Duffield, Eric Drinkwater

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify movement patterns of batsmen scoring 100 runs (century), including analysis at 50, 80, and 100 runs, in Test and One-Day international (one-day) matches and between the first and second 50 within a Test century. Test centuries (n = 13) and one-day scores above 80 (n = 12) filmed during the 2005 - 2006 Australian international season were analysed for movement patterns of standing, walking, jogging, striding, sprinting, shot playing, and turning. At each run target, differences in total time, duration of individual movement pattern, movement pattern frequency, and number of balls faced were determined between Test and one-day matches (analysis of variance). Differences within Test centuries were assessed using paired t-tests. A similar fractional predominance of time spent in low-intensity activity (standing and walking) between Test and one-day matches at each run target (94 and 96% respectively) was observed, with no differences in duration of striding or sprinting (Test: 1.1 min, s = 0.5; one-day: 0.9 min, s = 0.5 for sprinting: P = 0.28). A 37% longer total duration occurred in Tests, resulting in longer recovery bouts between high-intensity efforts. There were no differences between the first and second 50 runs of a Test century for any measure (P at best = 0.34). In summary, Test and one-day centuries are characterized by much low-intensity activity and patterns of high-intensity activity similar to many repeat-sprint team sports and greater recovery breaks in longer matches.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)457-464
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
Volume26
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Time-motion analysis of Test and One-Day International cricket centuries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this