I agree with that, but it does depend on how generous the fitness criteria are. If she could reasonably be expected to run it in say 7.5 minutes then being more than two minutes over that after having come back from a broken ankle could mean that she hasn't fully recovered. But if she's run her personal best then she's just as fit as she's ever been.
You have to ask where the minimum criteria are coming from, which I don't think are extreme... but I think they are being implemented stringently, without having a true reason for saying 9:30 over 10:00 minutes. I think the purpose is to ensure that even in a T20 game you able to consistently run throughout the entire innings chasing down balls, but I would like to see the research showing than 9:30 provides that criteria rather than it being an arbitrary choice. Then the additional question is the importance of those requirements versus the other skills the player provides. I get the feeling that these have been adopted as a minimum with no other considerations for broader issues on the skills of the player. It becomes a tick box with no understanding or thought once again...
It used to be 10 minutes was changed to 9:30.
It does seem that way. It's not unreasonable to have standards for fitness, but it needs to be a sliding scale not simply a pass/fail. If she's meeting all the other criteria and slightly off the pace on just one then that really shouldn't be a problem.
That's utterly ridiculous (although CSA specialise in the utterly ridiculous). Never having been able able to run that fast hasn't prevented her from having a very successful 14-year international career. It's almost like they've deliberately taken steps not to pick her.
Its almost becoming a tautology at this stage when speaking about the CSA… you can just assume an abysmally stupid decision was made because it’s the CSA decision.
Wishhh as the point goes right over the head…
Not if it's unreasonable. And since she ran a personal best, questions need to be asked as to how reasonable it is.
different standards in cricket today and it is unfair to compare cricketers of the past to today when most of them would have toed the line to make a career
You dont have to imagine. We can always have Rohit Sharma and Ashwin run the race.
Possibly, but a player's natural physique shouldn't necessarily define the quality of cricket they play. Van Niekerk also offered plenty as a skipper, one of the best in World Cricket, I remember being very impressed by her in the inaugural Hundred. I'm pretty certain her team wouldn't have won it without her leading, astonishing that S Africa think they have a better cricketer than her out there based on the ability to run 2km.
They are going to force her to retire like Lee. If she retires Kapp will also retire.
OK, so evidently this has nothing to do with her fitness test anymore. CSA just hates her for some reason?
