The controversy revolving Yo-Yo fitness test’s continues to grow with each passing day. After questions were raised over rejection of a couple of cricketers for the England tour even after they were selected in the team, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry has written a mail to Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administration (CoA), asking if a scientific evidence was considered before making the Yo-Yo test mandatory.
Here is the full text of BCCI Treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry’s letter to the CoA:
Dear Sir and Madam,
I write this email with regard to an earlier query of mine that had been addressed to Mr. K.V.P. Rao, Mr. Rahul Johri and the officials in the NCA on the 14th of November 2017. About a week thereafter, the Committee of Administrators was pleased to direct me to express my views only to the CoA with only a copy to the CEO. Some recent developments that have been covered in the media pertain to one such query of mine raised in my email of 14/11/2017 that has remained unanswered in addition to the other queries, for reasons unknown to me. I am accordingly writing this mail to you, the Committee of Administrators in accordance with your abovementioned directions issued to me, since in the absence of those directions, I would have raised the queries to the appropriate persons in the BCCI organizational structure and much earlier at that.
Firstly, I would like to reiterate my earlier queries on the subject:
The first query being reproduced from my earlier email is: “Another thing I wish to know more is about the reports that I keep reading about the ‘Yo-Yo Test’ being a criterion for selection into the Indian Team. Is this correct? If so, who took this decision and when and what is the rationale for the same?”
The other queries reproduced from the said earlier email that I would like to know are:
“a. The list of all physios and trainers along with their qualifications and their work experience details.
- The reporting structure in the NCA. Do the trainers report to the physios or do the physios report to the trainers? How exactly does this work? What is the plan going forward?
- Who decides on the course of treatment and the workload of the players? In the case of a difference of view between a physio and a trainer, whose view prevails?
- What is the exact nature of relation between the head physio at the NCA and the physio of the Indian cricket team?
- How are the workloads of the senior team managed?
- I would like a detailed note on the injuries to the contracted players in the last one year. Which doctor diagnosed the injury? What was prescribed? Did the rehabilitation happen as was projected initially? Were there any deviations? Were the injuries in-competition injuries or were the injuries picked up out of competition while following some exercise routine?
- Are the records mentioned in points e. and f. hereinabove recorded in the Smartabase software?
- A usage report of the Smartabase software for the last 6 months.”
There are also some supplementary queries that I wish to raise with regard to these queries:
Under query ‘d’ hereinabove:
Who is responsible and accountable between the two for injured players’ rehabilitation?
Are there any standardized clinical, strength and conditioning and skill based injury-specific protocols for declaring their fitness post injuries? If so, are they relevant to Indian cricket or extrapolated from other countries?
There have been incidences where players have got injured again in the very first game after clearance of their fitness from the NCA e.g. Kedar Jadhav during the IPL. Have these been assessed and is there any accountability with regard to such instances?
Under query ‘e’ hereinabove:
Who monitors and keeps a record of the player workload?
Under query ‘f’ hereinabove:
What are the recovery timeframes (from start date to declaration of fitness) for the players attending rehabilitation at NCA in each such case?
These queries may please be answered in two parts, first with reference to 14/11/2017 as the query date and the second with reference to the period post 14/11/2017 (as 7 months have passed since then without any response to my email.)
Secondly, I wish to express myself and to raise some specific queries with regard to the conduct of the fitness tests for selection to the Senior team in the backdrop of the Ambati Rayudu and Sanju Samson incidents. In the absence of any communication to me regarding any policy of a qualifying score in a yo-yo test being a prerequisite for selection to the Indian team, media reports have confused me somewhat and through this email, I only wish to seek some clarity so that I understand the subject correctly. I will therefore begin with the Media Release issued by the BCCI on the 16th of June 2018 which stated:
“The All-India Senior Selection Committee has named Suresh Raina as Ambati Rayudu’s replacement in India’s ODI squad for the series against England.
The announcement came after Rayudu failed to clear his fitness test that was held at NCA, Bengaluru on Friday, June 15, 2018.”
Now from the reading of this Media Release, it would ordinarily be presumed that Mr. Rayudu was fit and available for selection when the National Selectors met (the trainers and physios are required to submit the names of those who are fit for selection to the National Selectors prior to every meeting.) Thereafter, he picked up an injury that did not heal in time and there was an occasion for a fitness test which he failed and therefore a replacement was required.
As it turns out from media reports and information from other sources, Mr. Rayudu was selected (which should ordinarily mean that he was found fit for selection) and thereafter a fitness test was conducted on him which he failed. It is also reported that Mr. Rayudu was at the National Cricket Academy for training for a few days immediately prior to his yo-yo test.
This raises serious concerns about the functioning of the selection processes at the moment since a player who has done exceedingly well in the Indian Premier League against the best of international bowling and has thereafter attended the National Cricket Academy for a few days to work further on his strength and conditioning is selected and is then declared unfit and therefore replaced. I would therefore like to know more details about the fitness tests that are conducted and the weightage that is given to every component in the overall test. I would also like to know who has devised such weightage and who all were involved in the decision – making process of the same.
Thirdly, I wish to raise some specific queries with regard to the noise around the yo-yo test presenting that it indeed is considered as a litmus test for selection into the Senior team and the ‘A’ teams. In the absence of any communication to me regarding any such policy of a qualifying score in a yo-yo test being a prerequisite for selection to the Indian team, I will go with the assumption that somehow the reports of this being true are correct. If it is not so, this part of my communication may kindly be ignored:
At which forum was the decision taken to have a minimum score on the yo-yo test as a prerequisite for selection into a BCCI selected team?
Who all were present in the meeting that decided this?
Have Minutes been recorded of the said meeting?
Most importantly, once this decision was taken, to whom was the same communicated? Was it communicated to all First Class Players in India? Was it communicated to all List A Players in India? Was it communicated to all State Cricket Associations to communicate to their players?
It would not be too much to expect that the players in contention or those aiming to play for the country at least know that there are some criteria that they are required to meet other than skill, performance and hitherto expected levels of fitness. It is pretty much unfair to note when one hears that Mr. Rayudu took the yo-yo test for the first time only when the test was conducted for his selection. If the players have not even been informed about it officially then the imposition of this criteria is wrong, unjust and reeks of arbitrariness.
Test familiarity can impact results, meaning individuals that are unfamiliar with the test procedure may achieve less than optimal scores. Consequently, test familiarisation is necessary. Therefore, in the absence of test familiarity, the results of the yo-yo tests may not present the true picture of the fitness levels that this test seeks to ascertain.
What scientific evidence was relied upon to take this decision? The same may kindly be shared with us.
This is a decision that impacts careers and I trust that the same would not have been taken lightly and in an arbitrary manner. There must be some scientific evidence that would have been relied upon when the decision was taken. There must have been some research conducted across the states in India to ascertain the physiological data, the general levels of fitness etc. before taking a decision that may suddenly exclude a large section of the professional players if a statistical and scientific analysis of the same is not considered. The scientific evidence would have been analysed threadbare as well by professionals and the analysis thereof may also be made available to me for perusal.
Were the factors in a person’s physiology that impact the results of the test studied and considered? How much does it have to do with genetics and how much with training? Does the oxygen transport system in a person’s body and the capacity to contract a large number of muscle fibres simultaneously have an impact on the result?
Have the players been educated about the concepts and have the support staff at the NCA walked the players through these concepts? Have they been explained about the type of training that appears to be most effective in increasing VO2max?
If a communication was sent to all the players, then was a grace period decided upon and communicated to the players in order to enable them to attain the scores that were to be made prerequisite for selection?
What all components of fitness for cricket players were discussed in the meeting and why was it that only the yo-yo test score was considered to be a prerequisite for selection? Are the players required to give more attention to attaining a particular score on a yo-yo test rather than on skills, match temperament, performance and other components of fitness?
As per my understanding, there are various parameters for optimum fitness. i.e. speed, strength endurance, flexibility, agility, explosive strength, reaction tests, aerobic fitness. Is it the case that we are testing only for aerobic fitness and neglecting the rest of the parameters? Every player’s physiology will be different and they will have their own strong and weak fitness parameters e.g. someone might be stronger in speed and reaction who will score higher marks in running between wickets testing in comparison to the yo-yo testing which is a measure of a somewhat different fitness parameter.
Thus, there are many components that make up the fitness levels of an athlete but interestingly, it is only the score in a yo-yo test that has been made the prerequisite for selection. How did the forum that decided on this matter deal with the other components?
In the case of Mr. Sanju Samson, he was to be a part of the ‘A’ team and the whole idea of such teams is to give the players requisite exposure of different conditions to blood them for the senior team, it is essentially a development squad. Sanju was another player who did reasonably well in the IPL and possesses immense talent. He has now lost the opportunity of that tour and one doesn’t really know when would the ‘A’ team tour England next. Though I am not aware of the results of the fitness test in his case as well, it is my view that if he was dropped on the basis of the results of a yo-yo test, it is an extremely unfortunate situation when a player, despite being match fit and despite being selected, is missing out on an opportunity to expand his horizons and to further enhance his cricketing acumen by playing in different conditions. It must have been immensely demoralising for the boy to be left out at the last minute after having been selected on the basis of his performance and subsequently being disqualified for selection! A pertinent question is whether a decision such as this is consistent with the idea of a development squad that is essentially an ‘A’ team and is the organisation losing sight of the bigger picture in pursuing an idea of enforcing a supposedly fail-safe fitness test that itself may not be standing on a very firm foundation as the only fitness criteria to be considered.
Was any analysis done with regard to cricketing performance and yo-yo test scores? If so, could the result of such analysis as available on that date please be made available to me?
Was the aspect of mental fitness, mental toughness etc. discussed in quantifiable terms as criteria for selection?
Was it discussed that a certain score on maybe a Rorschach or some other test ought also be the prerequisite for selection?
Were actual case-scenarios discussed and recorded? E.g. yo-yo test scores of Mr. Laxman, Mr. Ganguly, Mr. Tendulkar, Mr. Sehwag etc. in the past or for that matter the yo-yo test scores of the players in the team presently and their correlation with their performance? If so, could copies of the same be made available for inspection?
Was it discussed that in the case of a tour where a player suffers an injury, the selectors may be required to select a replacement in a hurry and it may not be possible to conduct yo-yo tests of all players available for selection and who are also match fit? Was there a scope for exemptions to be made in extraneous circumstances? What happens if the best player of the team has a mild niggle in the knee but can play the Test match that starts in two days but because of the knee niggle, he is not in a position to or is not advised to take a yo-yo test at all?
Was a similar prerequisite also set for the Women’s Team?
Further, as a follow up of my question regarding the workload management, I would like to know how does a higher degree of workload and the corresponding fatigue impact the test results. If the player is not getting adequate recovery during a competition, how would that impact the results? Did the support staff at the NCA monitor the workloads of the players during the IPL? Was there a correlation between the results of the tests and the workload? Was there a difference in the scores of the yo-yo test conducted prior to the IPL and post the IPL? Would the results have been different if the yo-yo test was done closer to the departure of the team to England rather than three weeks earlier?
The yo-yo test is an intermittent recovery test to measure an athlete’s recovery status. If the player has had an increased workload in the past few weeks and is somewhat fatigued, would he not be scoring less on the recovery tests?
Is the player required to wait for a period of six weeks before he is allowed to take another yo-yo test by the organisation? If so, is there any rationale for this?
Does every player undergo the yo-yo test or there are other variants that are available like the 1 mile run test? How is the differentiation made between those players who take the variant tests?
Are there any medical check-ups conducted before conducting a fitness test of such intensity? There might be players having different cardiovascular medical status which might need to be factored in, especially in the interest of the player’s health.
Is every yo-yo test conducted in a fair, transparent and objective manner? Is there any evidence that is maintained to demonstrate that in the case of each test, the distance between each cone was indeed 20m and there has been no deviation therefrom? How is this ensured?
Environmental conditions may significantly affect the results of the testing e.g. indoor vs outdoor, hotter days vs cooler days, test timings of the day, etc. Are there any specific protocols around these and have they been recorded?
Why are the fitness parameters not checked prior to the selection committee meetings?
I would also take this opportunity to refer to a statement of Mr. Saba Karim published in the Indian Express today on the subject and I do not know if what he has said is the official BCCI position or is it his personal view but ordinarily, the official BCCI position is made known by way of a Media Release under the signature of the Honorary Secretary but in this case, he appears to have spoken in his capacity as a General Manager of the BCCI. Therefore, I do wish to express that his statement does appears to be somewhat running down the players that he has mentioned therein. The same is being reproduced as under:
“Shami had been sitting on the bench for almost the entire IPL. He didn’t work on his fitness. Rayudu also knew he needed to score 16.1 and he had five weeks to prepare for his fitness. Samson too, wasn’t training during the IPL. He was just batting in the nets. Everybody knows 16.1 is the bare minimum, which is non-negotiable. It’s not hidden either.”
Now I do know that I have not been kept in the loop and I may not be aware of certain events that may have transpired but this statement also raises certain questions which beg that light be shed on them to clear any doubts and they are as under:
Do the workloads and potential workloads of the players have any relevance? If a player is benched, would it mean that he is to assume that he would not play in the subsequent games? Or is he required to be game-ready for every game for his franchise and should work on his strength and conditioning accordingly rather than go all out like one would in the off season to greatly improve parameters?
What is the role of the support staff at the NCA during the IPL? Ought they not monitor the contracted players and the probables on their strength and conditioning programs and targets? What are their deliverables? How much of the responsibility lies with the said support staff to ensure requisite fitness levels of the players?
In what manner were the players communicated the requirements of the 16.1 score as a prerequisite for selection as mentioned by Saba? Saba mentions that this was not hidden and I would be grateful if I am told about the manner of dissemination of this information since I have not seen any communication to that effect but I may not have been copied on such a communication as well to be honest.
Lastly, Sanju was not ‘just batting in the nets’ but has played about 14 – 15 high intensity T-20 games, scored a decent amount of runs to be selected for the India ‘A’ team, has covered the outfield in all of those games, has criss-crossed the country travelling and playing the IPL, gone through strength and conditioning sessions, fielding sessions and has also batted in the nets. I write this only to put the things in the correct perspective since I felt that the perspective expressed by Saba did not appear to be a well-rounded one.
The idea of increased scores in yo-yo tests for all players is an interesting one and it would definitely have its positive benefits. However, the moment it is made a compulsory prerequisite for selection all of a sudden and in the manner that it has been, it smacks of a diktat of a totalitarian regime rather than one of an organisation that encourages intellectual liberty and self-motivation that are essentials of the principles of freedom.
Since my communications have been misconstrued in the past, I do wish to stress upon the fact that I am not advocating a case for low levels of fitness in any manner. Other teams strive for higher minimum levels on yo-yo tests and it obviously helps in recovery which is extremely crucial in competitive sports. As a team, India has to strive to improve the fitness levels but they comprise of many components and not recovery times alone. However, this increase in fitness levels does not happen overnight. For an organisation like the BCCI to bring this about, there has to be a just and proper process where all considerations are deliberated upon and all voices are heard, where appropriate weightage is given to skills, where decisions are communicated to at least those who would be directly affected by the decision. Where every player is afforded the opportunity to attain the levels required over a reasonable period of time and where this entire exercise is woven together with a thread of fairness and equality. This cannot be achieved by the sudden and compulsory implementation of parameters that are the antitheses of these principles and processes.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that my queries are not addressed to the CoA but to the officials responsible in the BCCI hierarchy and those who have taken the decisions. The only reason that I am writing this to the Committee is because of the directions issued to me in this regard that have had the effect of restricting my expression and require me to address my views only to the Committee.
Kind regards,
Anirudh Chaudhry