How much is too much?

Workload management is all the rage in cricket these days. As it should be. Cricket never bothered about it for most of the history of the game. But, I sometimes wonder whether it hasn’t became a bit too important. It feels like the modern hierarchy of cricket is: 1. Club Cricket, 2. First-class level, 3. International, and 4. Rested. How far are we from having a ‘Best Workload Management’ as a category at Awards evenings? And, when we do get that as an award, will it inevitably be won one day by a player who did not play a single game all year despite being fully fit throughout? I jest, of course. There are currently threats of strike action by county players after it was decided to continue with a 14-match program for the County Championship next season rather than reduce it to 12 or 13. I can certainly understand a 35-year-old fast bowler with a family and sore knees/shoulders/hips/arms (tick all that are applicable) to worry about, finding 14 matches too onerous. But I suspect most 21-year-old carefree batters just want to bat all day every day. It strikes me that, in a world of workload management, the number of matches that the county team plays is not particularly relevant in the ‘too much cricket’ argument. We don’t need to reduce the number of matches simply to keep those players who think there is too much happy. Those players can simply manage their workloads and rest when necessary and optimal. Those who want more matches, like the younger batters for e.g. and those ‘stake-holders’ who simply spectate and aren’t fussy about ‘watch-load management’ can also be kept happy. This seems the more inclusive approach to me.

That said, this is a statistical column and you are here for the numbers (I presume). So, how about having a look at how much cricket the players actually play and do a bit of a comparison with the past.