Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Injury surveillance in cricket
  1. John W Orchard
  1. Correspondence to Dr John W Orchard, Sports Medicine at Sydney University, Cnr Western Ave and Physics Rd, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; johnworchard{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

This issue of the BJSM contains three cricket injury surveillance studies, including the first published multicountry surveillance project. Cricket1 narrowly preceded football2 and rugby union3 to the publication of the sport's first consensus statement of injury definitions in 2005. A major distinction between the statements was that the authors of the cricket statement chose to focus on match time-loss injuries only4 rather than ‘all reported’ injuries5 ,6 (which was the perspective chosen by football and rugby union). One of the reasons for cricket statement focusing on the match time-loss injuries was that owing to limited resources being devoted to injury surveillance in cricket, compliance would presumably be easier if there were fewer reporting requirements. Despite this, it has taken 8 years for the first multicountry study7 (and ironically both time-loss and non-time-loss injuries have been reported). During these years, T20 cricket has become far more prominent than it was and consequently many players have multiple contracts with different teams in a given year, so the original definitions probably …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests JO provides paid injury surveillance consultancy services to Cricket Australia.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles