Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 15, 2025
Biomechanical Changes Related to Low Back Pain: An Innovative Tool for Movement Pattern Assessment and Treatment Evaluation in Rehabilitation
Published on: December 13, 2024
Modifying bowling kinematics in cricket pace bowlers with exercise-based injury prevention: A cluster-randomised
Mitchell R L Forrest1, Jeffrey J Hebert2, Brendan R Scott1
1College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia; Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Objectives:
Undesirable bowling kinematics can increase the risk of low back injury. This study investigated if an exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) could modify bowling kinematics in community-level adolescent pace bowlers.
Design:
Cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Methods:
Pace bowlers from eight cricket organisations were cluster-randomised into an intervention or control group. At baseline and follow-up sessions biomechanical bowling data were collected. Between sessions, the intervention group completed an eight-week IPP while the control continued their normal cricket activity. Treatment effects (95% CI) were estimated with linear mixed models.
Results:
There were significant treatment effects favouring the intervention group for shoulder counter-rotation (-3.8°; -7.2° to -0.3°) and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis (-2.2°; -4.0° to -0.5°). Shoulder counter-rotation also increased in the control group by 2.2° (Cohen's d=0.22). There were no effects of the intervention on: lateral trunk flexion at front foot contact (FFC) (1.2°; -2.5° to 4.8°), lateral trunk flexion at ball release (BR) (-0.5°; -3.0° to 2.0°), pelvis rotation at FFC (0.9°; -4.0° to 2.2°), pelvis rotation at BR (-1.1°; -5.7° to 3.6°), front hip angle at FFC (1.6°; -3.6° to 6.7°), front hip angle at BR (-1.6°; -5.0° to 1.9°), front knee angle at FFC (-1.1°; -4.5° to 2.3°), front knee angle at BR (1.7°; -5.6° to 9.1°), or ball velocity (1.1kmh-1; -7.5kmh-1 to 9.7kmh-1).
Conclusions:
The IPP maintained shoulder counter-rotation and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis in the intervention group and this could attenuate injury risk. No treatment effects were observed for lower-limb kinematics.
