These findings demonstrate that large increases in acute workload are associated with increased injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers.

As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.

Of all the major lower limb muscle groups, the hip extensor and knee flexor muscles during terminal swing demonstrated the most dramatic increase in biomechanical load when running speed progressed toward maximal sprinting.

The return to sport from injury is a difficult multifactorial decision, and risk of reinjury is an important component. Most protocols for ascertaining the return to play status involve assessment of the healing status of the original injury and functional tests which have little proven predictive ability. Little attention has been paid to ascertaining whether an athlete has completed sufficient training to be prepared for competition. Recently, we have completed a series of studies in cricket, rugby league and Australian rules football that have shown that when an athlete's training and playing load for a given week (acute load) spikes above what they have been doing on average over the past 4 weeks (chronic load), they are more likely to be injured. This spike in the acute:chronic workload ratio may be from an unusual week or an ebbing of the athlete's training load over a period of time as in recuperation from injury. Our findings demonstrate a strong predictive (R(2)=0.53) polynomial relationship between acute:chronic workload ratio and injury likelihood. In the elite team setting, it is possible to quantify the loads we are expecting athletes to endure when returning to sport, so assessment of the acute:chronic workload ratio should be included in the return to play decision-making process.

These findings demonstrate that large spikes in workload are associated with an increased injury risk using both models, although the EWMA model is more sensitive to detect increases in injury risk with higher ACWR.

Aims (1) To investigate whether a daily acute:chronic workload ratio informs injury risk in Australian football players; (2) to identify which combination of workload variable, acute and chronic time window best explains injury likelihood. Methods Workload and injury data were collected from 53 athletes over 2 seasons in a professional Australian football club. Acute:chronic workload ratios were calculated daily for each athlete, and modelled against non-contact injury likelihood using a quadratic relationship. 6 workload variables, 8 acute time windows (2-9 days) and 7 chronic time windows (14-35 days) were considered (336 combinations). Each parameter combination was compared for injury likelihood fit (using R 2 ).Results The ratio of moderate speed running workload (18-24 km/h) in the previous 3 days (acute time window) compared with the previous 21 days (chronic time window) best explained the injury likelihood in matches (R 2 =0.79) and in the immediate 2 or 5 days following matches (R 2 =0.76-0.82). The 3:21 acute: chronic workload ratio discriminated between high-risk and low-risk athletes (relative risk=1.98-2.43). Using the previous 6 days to calculate the acute workload time window yielded similar results. The choice of acute time window significantly influenced model performance and appeared to reflect the competition and training schedule. Conclusions Daily workload ratios can inform injury risk in Australian football. Clinicians and conditioning coaches should consider the sport-specific schedule of competition and training when choosing acute and chronic time windows. For Australian football, the ratio of moderate speed running in a 3-day or 6-day acute time window and a 21-day chronic time window best explained injury risk.

No abstract

No abstract