Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Short report: Recovery of jump performance after

a simulated cricket batting innings

Laurence Houghton & Brian Dawson

To cite this article: Laurence Houghton & Brian Dawson (2012) Short report: Recovery of
jump performance after a simulated cricket batting innings, Journal of Sports Sciences, 30:10,
1069-1072, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.687113

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.687113

Published online: 11 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 276

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Journal of Sports Sciences, June 2012; 30(10): 1069–1072

Short report: Recovery of jump performance after a simulated cricket

batting innings

LAURENCE HOUGHTON & BRIAN DAWSON

School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

(Accepted 18 April 2012)

Abstract
The time-course of physical recovery was determined after a 2-h 20-min, simulated cricket batting innings. Several vertical
jump measures were assessed before (baseline), immediately after, 24 h after and 48 h after simulated batting. Six, male,
academy cricketers (20 + 2 years) completed a previously developed simulated batting innings (BATEX) at an outdoor net
facility. At each assessment point, participants completed countermovement-jumps, squat-jumps and 5-repeated reactive-
jumps on a contact mat. Compared with baseline, countermovement flight time was similar immediately after, but decreased
24 h after batting (73.0 + 1.8%, p 5 0.05, effect size [ES] + 90% confidence interval [CI]: 71.38 + 0.52). At 48 h post,
countermovement-jump flight time was similar to baseline. A similar pattern occurred in the squat-jump and the decrease in
squat-jump flight time 24 h after simulated batting approached significance (p ¼ 0.053, ES + CI 70.80 + 0.51). The 5-
repeated reactive-jump measures (flight time, contact time and reactive-strength-index) did not decrease after simulated
batting (p 4 0.05), but there were moderate effect sizes calculated (0.64–0.96). These findings support the continued use of
countermovement flight time to assess recovery in cricket, since full recovery of jump performance occurred 48 h after a
simulated, prolonged and high intensity-batting century.

Keywords: countermovement-jump, intermittent exercise, reactive-strength-index, squat-jump

best indicator of recovery at 48 h post match. Although

Introduction
The concentrated playing schedule of professional
cricket (particularly at international standard) means
strength and conditioning coaches have limited op-
portunity to apply periods of training. Consequently,
there has been a focus on the tracking of player
recovery to assist injury risk management and optimal
prescription of training intensity (Karppinen, 2010).
Countermovement-jump measures have been used
to track recovery in cricket and other team sports
(Cormack, Newton, & McGuigan, 2008; Karppinen,
2010; Magalhães, Rebelo, Oliveira, Silva, & Marques,
2010; Young, Cormack, & Crichton, 2011). For
example, Magalhães et al. (2010) demonstrated that
countermovement-jump height remained lower
(*4 cm) up to 72 h after a soccer match. Of particular
interest, Cormack et al. (2008), documented the time
course of countermovement-jump and repeated coun-
termovement-jump performance recovery after an
Australian rules football match. Cormack et al.
(2008) found that the ratio of countermovement-jump
flight time to concentric muscle action time was the
these findings provide some useful insight, an Aus-
tralian rules football match has different physical
demands from cricket batting, not least the require-
ment of tackling and jumping. Also, batting innings
are often longer (e.g. up to 3.5 h in One-day cricket),
and require intermittent sprinting and change of
direction separated by a higher proportion of time
spent standing and walking (*95% in cricket vs.
*65% in Australian rules football) (Dawson, Hop-
kinson, Appleby, Stewart, & Roberts, 2004; Duffield
& Drinkwater, 2008). Therefore, the time-course of
recovery from a prolonged, intense batting innings
probably differs from that in other team-game sports.
Recently, a batting exercise simulation (BATEX)
was developed to replicate the physical demands of a
prolonged, high-intensity One-day batting century
(Houghton, Dawson, Rubenson, & Tobin, 2011).
The simulated batting protocol could be used for
scientific investigation since the running-between-
the-wicket demands are standardised. Therefore, the
aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of
squat-jumps, countermovement-jumps and repeated

Correspondence: Laurence Houghton, School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley,
Perth, WA 6009 Australia. E-mail: laurencehoughton@hotmail.com
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.687113
1070 L. Houghton & B. Dawson
reactive-jumps as indicators of recovery after a
standardised, prolonged simulated batting innings.
Method
Six academy cricketers (stature: 1.80 + 0.12 m; body
mass: 75.2 + 11.9 kg; age: 20 + 2 years; batting
position: 4 + 3) acted as participants. Study proto-
cols were approved by the University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee, with all participants
providing written informed consent.
On arrival at the outdoor net facility (0900 h)
participants first performed a jump-test battery (515
min duration), completed the simulated batting
innings and then repeated the jump test battery
immediately, 24 h and 48 h after. Participants rested
on the day before and after the simulated batting
innings, but light intensity sessions (e.g. traditional
net batting) occurred on the second morning after
the batting innings. Participants were accustomed to
the jump techniques and the simulated batting
innings during the academy program.
The jump-test battery included:
a) Assessment of body mass (shorts only:
+ 0.05 kg, UC-321 Precision Personal Health
Scale, A&D Weighing)
b) 3 6 Countermovement-jumps separated by 60 s
c) 3 6 Squat-jumps separated by 60 s
d) 2 6 5-repeated reactive-jumps separated by 60 s
For all jumps, participants kept their hands akimbo,
torso upright, and did not flex knees or hips while in
flight. In the countermovement-jump, participants
squatted to a self-selected depth (*908), then
jumped for maximum height. In the squat-jump,
participants squatted to a self-selected depth (*908),
held this position for 3 s, then jumped for maximum
height. The 5-repeated reactive-jumps had partici-
pants perform five repeated jumps ‘as high as
possible, with minimum foot contact between each
jump’. Consequently, minimum knee flexion oc-
curred because emphasis was on the lower-leg
muscle-tendon units to generate jump height.
A standardised warm-up was not used before the
jump-tests because of the applied nature of the study.
This approach was taken since cricket strength and
conditioning coaches might assess 10–20 players and
have limited time to supervise a standard warm-up for
each player. Jump performance was assessed using a
contact mat (Innervations, Kinematic Measurement
System, v 2009.1.0) on a hard surface. Previous
studies used a position transducer and force platform
to determine jump measures (Young et al., 2011).
However, in this study a contact mat was used
because it is cheaper, can be used in the field and
provides simple data output for a typical coach/player.
Full details of the simulated batting protocol
(BATEX) are available in Houghton et al. (2011).
Briefly, the simulated batting protocol lasted 2-h-20
min and included six, 21-min stages. During each
stage participants batted in a net with balls delivered
by a bowling machine every 35 s (30 balls in each
stage). In the current study, the simulated batting
innings was adapted to allow completion in pairs. As
a result, each batsman played half the number of
balls but still completed the same running demands
as in previous studies. Movement patterns during the
simulated batting were recorded using a global
positioning system (GPS, 1 Hz, SPI 10, GPSports,
Australia). Water was freely available during testing
and 300 ml of sports drink was provided halfway
through the batting protocol.
In the countermovement- and squat-jumps, max-
imum flight time for each test was analysed. In the 5-
repeated reactive-jumps, both mean flight time and
contact time were determined from two perfor-
mances. Similarly, reactive-strength-index (ratio of
flight time : contact time) was calculated over these
two performances of 5-repeated reactive-jumps (Fla-
nagan, Ebben, & Jensen, 2008). The co-efficients of
variation for countermovement-jump flight time
(1.1%), squat-jump flight time (1.5%) and 5-
repeated reactive-jump measures (flight time, 1.8%;
contact time, 3.6%; reactive-strength-index, 6.4%)
all demonstrated good reliability. A One-way re-
peated-measures ANOVA compared jump measures
and body mass from baseline to 48-h after simulated
batting (using PASWTM statistics v18.0.0). All
underlying assumptions for the One-way ANOVAs
were met. Where appropriate, post-hoc t-tests and
effect sizes compared post-batting jump measures
with baseline values (using Microsoft ExcelTM,
2003). Effect sizes (ES) were considered meaningful
if moderate (0.6–1.19), or large (1.2–1.99) and are
reported with + 90% confidence intervals (Hopkins,
2004; Hopkins, Marshall, Batterham, & Hanin,
2009). All other values are mean + standard devia-
tion. Statistical significance was accepted at p 5 0.05.
Results
Participants covered 4803 + 384 m during the
simulated batting innings (2 h 20 min) with a
recovery ratio of 32 + 6 s of low intensity activity
(4.00 m  s71) for every 1 s of high intensity activity
(44.00 m  s71).
Both countermovement and squat-jump flight
times significantly changed with time (ANOVA
statistic: p ¼ 0.014 and 0.012, respectively; Figure
1). After simulated batting, countermovement flight
time was similar to baseline (545 + 18 vs. 542 + 25
ms, respectively; p ¼ 0.628, ES ¼ 0.08 + 1.05); 24 h
later countermovement flight time had significantly
 Recovery after simulated batting 1071

decreased (526 + 25 ms, p ¼ 0.009, ES ¼ 71.38 +
0.52), but at 48 h, was again comparable to baseline
(536 + 26 ms, p ¼ 0.084, ES ¼ 70.56 + 0.51). The
decrease in countermovement flight time 24 h after
simulated batting was equivalent to a loss of
2 + 1 cm in jump height. There was a moderate
trend for squat-jump flight time to increase after
simulated batting (baseline vs. after: 542 + 29 vs.
550 + 25 ms, p ¼ 0.078, ES ¼ 0.80 + 0.54). Similar
to countermovement flight time, 24 h after simulated
batting, there was a moderate trend (near statistical
significance) for squat-jump flight time to decrease
(533 + 23 ms, p ¼ 0.053, ES ¼ 70.80 + 0.51) and
48-h after, return to a time similar to baseline
(534 + 20 ms, p ¼ 0.287, ES ¼ 70.54 + 1.17).
There were no statistically significant changes in
the 5-repeated reactive-jumps measures (flight time,
contact time and reactive-strength-index) at all time
points (p ¼ 0.352–0.921, Table 1). However, after
simulated batting, there were moderate trends for
both decreased reactive-strength-index (immediately
and 24 h after, Table 1) and flight time (48 h after;
Table 1).
Body mass decreased (p 5 0.05) after simulated
batting but had returned to baseline values 24 h and
Figure 1. Flight times for the squat-jump (closed squares) and
countermovement-jump (open triangles), at baseline, after 24 h
and 48 h after the batting simulation (BATEX). Note that the y-
axis does not start at zero. Error bars represent standard deviation.
*Significantly different from baseline, p 5 0.05.
48 h later (Table 1). All jump measures were
normalised to body mass but conclusions from the
statistical analyses were similar to the absolute values
and so have not been reported.
Discussion
In the 48 h after simulated batting, both counter-
movement and squat-jumps demonstrated moderate
to large effect sizes (40.60) for decreased 24-h jump
height but a return to near baseline at 48 h. However,
at 24 h the decrease in jump height was statistically
significant only in the countermovement-jump. In
contrast, none of the 5-repeated reactive-jump
measures significantly changed in the 48-h after
simulated batting. However, there were moderate
trends (ES 4 0.60) for decreased reactive-strength-
index immediately and 24 h after simulated batting,
and decreased flight time 48-h after simulated
batting.
The GPS data confirmed that total distance
covered (4803 + 384 m) and recovery ratios
(32 + 6 : 1) were similar to when the simulated
batting was previously completed by a single batsmen
(*5000 m and *31 : 1, respectively) (Houghton
et al., 2011). Likewise, body mass loss after the
simulated innings was similar to Houghton et al.
(2011) (1–1.5%). However, in contrast to previous
research, changes in countermovement or squat-
jump did not occur immediately after the simulated
batting innings. Previous research (Houghton et al.,
2011) demonstrated decreased squat-jump height
(75.2%, p 5 0.05, ES ¼ 70.53) after simulated
batting, yet current results show a moderate trend
for squat-jump flight time to increase (þ1.6%,
p 4 0.05, ES ¼ 0.80). This difference might be
explained by the use of different warm-ups.
Previous research (Houghton et al., 2011) used a
standardised dynamic warm-up, but in the current
study, unsupervised, static-stretching was used (as
often occurs in practice). The static warm-up
might have been insufficient to optimise squat-
jump performance at baseline (Hough, Ross, &

Table I. Flight time, contact time and reactive-strength-index (RSI) for 5-repeated reactive jumps test before and after the batting exercise
test (BATEX). Also, body mass changes over the 48 h after BATEX.

Baseline After 24 h After 48 h After

Flight time, ms 459 + 33 456 + 23 459 + 28 454 + 18

(70.49 + 0.75) (70.25 + 0.87) (70.65 + 0.90)
Contact time, ms 202 + 8 208 + 18 206 + 16 200 + 9
(0.42 + 0.93) (0.27 + 0.85) (70.21 + 0.53)
RSI 2.30 + 0.16 2.19 + 0.23 2.22 + 0.14 2.26 + 0.10
(70.64 + 0.92) (70.60 + 0.60) (70.37 + 0.70)
Body mass, kg 75.2 + 11.9 74.3 + 11.8 75.3 + 12.3 75.2 + 11.8
(71.39 + 0.60)* (0.07 + 1.01) (70.15 + 0.94)

*p 5 0.05 compared with baseline value. Values are: mean + standard deviation (effect size + 90% confidence interval).
1072 L. Houghton & B. Dawson
Howatson, 2009) and so explain the apparent trend
for an increase after the batting innings. Therefore,
even if there is limited time and personnel,
strength and conditioning coaches must ensure a
standardised, dynamic warm-up occurs prior to
jump-testing.
After simulated batting, only the countermove-
ment-jump recorded a statistically significant de-
crease in performance 24 h after a standardised,
prolonged batting innings (although the squat-jump
was very near significance and had a moderate effect
size). This finding provides support for the contin-
ued use of the countermovement-jump to track
recovery in cricketers, particularly batsmen (Karppi-
nen, 2010). At 48 h after simulated batting, counter-
movement-jump flight time had recovered to near
baseline values (p 4 0.05). Previously, countermove-
ment-jump flight time also decreased a similar extent
(*3.5%) 24 h after an Australian rules football
match (Cormack et al., 2008). However, Cormack
et al. (2008) did not assess jump performance 48 h
after the match and so it is possible that, as in the
current study, recovery from the Australian rules
football match might have occurred at 24 h. Never-
theless, Magalhães et al. (2010) reported decreased
countermovement-jump height at 24 h, 48 h and 72
h after both simulated and real soccer matches,
implying that the time-course of recovery from a
soccer match is longer than after a prolonged cricket
batting innings.
In contrast, during the 48-h after simulated batting
the changes in 5-repeated reactive jump measures
did not approach significance (p 4 0.350). The 5-
repeated reactive jump uses less muscle mass (i.e.
plantar flexors) when compared with the counter-
movement-jump (plantar flexors and knee flexors),
which might explain why this jump-test is not as
sensitive as the countermovement jump when track-
ing recovery.
In conclusion, current findings support the use of
countermovement-jump flight time to track recovery
after a prolonged, cricket batting innings. The
recovery of countermovement-jump flight time is
apparent 48 h after a simulated, standardised, high
intensity-batting century. This finding is helpful for
cricket strength and conditioning coaches when
tracking recovery and planning training overload in
a busy professional circuit. Moreover, findings
demonstrate the feasibility of using a contact mat to
assess jump performance. A contact mat has the
advantage of being cheap and portable (for example,
compared with the combination of power transducer
and force platform), particularly when playing away
from home-ground facilities.
References
Cormack, S.J., Newton, R.U., & McGuigan, M.R. (2008).
Neuromuscular and endocrine responses of elite players to an
Australian rules football match. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 3, 359–374.
Dawson, B., Hopkinson, R., Appleby, B., Stewart, G., & Roberts,
C. (2004). Player movement patterns and game activities in the
Australian Football League. Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 7, 278–291.
Duffield, R., & Drinkwater, E. (2008). Time-motion analysis of
Test and One-day international cricket centuries. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 26, 457–464.
Flanagan, E.P., Ebben, W.P., & Jensen, R.L. (2008). Reliability of
the reactive strength index and time to stabilization during
depth jumps. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22,
1677–1682.
Hopkins, W.G. (2004). How to interpret changes in an athletic
performance test. Sportscience 8, 1–7. Retrieved from
www.sportsci.org.
Hopkins, W.G., Marshall, S.W., Batterham, A.M., & Hanin, J.
(2009). Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and
exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 41,
3–12.
Hough, P.A., Ross, E.Z., & Howatson, G. (2009). Effects of
dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance and electro-
myographic activity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 23, 507–512.
Houghton, L., Dawson, B., Rubenson, J., & Tobin, M. (2011).
Movement patterns and physical strain during a novel,
simulated cricket batting innings (BATEX). Journal of Sports
Sciences, 29, 801–809.
Karppinen, S. (2010). Planning and monitoring workloads:
Identifying performance limiting factors and developing solu-
tions. In M. Portus (Ed.), Conference Proceedings: Science,
Medicine and Coaching in Cricket, Gold Coast, Australia, June
1–3, 56–57.
Magalhães, J., Rebelo, A., Oliveira, E., Silva, J.R., & Marques, F.
(2010). Impact of Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test
versus soccer match on physiological, biochemical and neuro-
muscular parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
108, 39–48.
Young, W., Cormack, S., & Crichton, M. (2011). Which jump
variables should be used to assess explosive leg muscle
function? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Perfor-
mance, 6, 51–57.