BEFORE the latter part of the 1990s, most professional cricketers probably could not even spell the word "fitness".

"Thorough preparation" for the all-conquering Middlesex county side of the 1980s meant sticking to three beers the night before a game rather than five while the county captain Mike Gatting's interpretation of a warm-up was to scratch his nether regions with one hand and pile into another bacon sandwich with the other.

How times have changed. These days, particularly with the growing importance of limited overs cricket, all first-class and international cricketers are required to go through a rigorous regime of aerobic and strength training exercises and are expected to hurl themselves across the turf to intercept the ball, regardless of whether you are a batsman or an opening bowler.

One man who has played an intimate part in the evolution of this side of the game is Dr. Sam Headley, chief fitness consultant to the senior West Indies squad. The Barbadian accepted an invitation from the Bermuda Cricket Board to come to Bermuda last week to assess the fitness levels of our own national squad.

Dr. Headley, who is a Professor of Sports Science at Springfield College, Massachussets, is determined to revolutionise the way in which cricketers physically prepare themselves in the West Indies, not just at national level but throughout the first-class game in the Caribbean.

"Since 1998 we began implementing a fitness testing programme for the West Indies team in an attempt to completely restructure the approach to cricket," he said.

"We had been left behind by the more modern and professional approach of other countries and the West Indies cricket board quite rightly decided that it was time for serious change. It is still very much work in progress.

"At the moment my work is concentrated on the Test squad and I would like to start implememting strategies which will be endorsed throughout the first-class game."

Not everybody agrees that this increased emphasis on physical fitness is necessarily a good thing for the game however. There is a school of thought, widespread in many parts of the global cricketing fraternity, who believe that in the quest to turn cricketers into athletes, skill development is often neglected at an early age and is the fundamental reason why so many young fast bowlers are breaking down with back injuries and other long-term complaints.

As you might expect, Headley vehmently rejects this.

"This is the year 2003 and it is not the same game that it was in the 1960s. I have a great respect for the players of the past and their opinions ? but the game has changed," he said.

"With more money being pumped into the game and crowds expecting to see an exciting spectacle, the game needs to adapt to the times and produce individuals capable of pulling off unbelievable diving catches are who are quick enough to pull off an unlikely run-out opportunity. This is where the game is headed and it is too late to pull back.

"I don't believe that the extra training is the cause of the injuries. There has been some research done in Australia that says that injuries have a lot to do with the increase in the number of mixed actions (where the bowler is neither side on nor chest on in delivery and therefore is forced to rotate violently around the lower spine upon release of the ball) while the more sedentary lifestyle of modern up and coming generations has provoked structural weaknesses in bodies which supervised weight training would go some way to alleviating."

Is Dr. Headley honestly trying to claim that somebody has managed to collect sufficient data to prove that there are more "mixed" actions around now than say, 30 years ago? The theory of "a more sedentary lifestyle" has been bandied about before but in truth, there is no hard evidence to support this claim. Both of Dr. Headley's arguments are well rehearsed but unfortunetly are also unadulturated rubbish.

The reality is (as I found out to my cost) is that young, up and coming cricketers are too often placed into the hands of personal trainers who are not cricketers themselves and have little concept of what is required. Instead of emphasising extensive stretching, sprinting and light weights, they often work them to the bone with training which is more often than not not cricket specific.

I recall an incident at the Durham University Cricket Center of Excellence in England three years ago, of which I was a member (and from which three of us emerged with stress fractures of the lower back in the first year) where a promising left arm spinner contracted at county side Hampshire, was placed on an intensive weight training programme. After four months of this, the new bulkier version of this formerly sleight spinner was able to lift heavy weights and throw the ball with a flat trajectory over much larger distances.

The only problem was that he could no longer bowl. Boasting thicker arms and broader shoulders, his usually lithe, smooth action was thrown completely off kilter and within a year he had lost his county contract and his confidence. He has since given up the game.

I am not saying that physical development should not play a part in the modern game. For some players, particularly fast bowlers, supervised resistance and aerobic training does have value while the work that almost all international cricketers have done has certainly contributed towards making the game a faster, more exciting sport. There can be little doubt also that Dr. Headley's work with the Bermuda national squad is necessary as his research conclusively proved that the fitness levels of the national squad are significantly behind those of other cricketing nations.

It is very easy however, whilst pumping iron three times a week and sprinting relentlessly back and forward between cones, to become obsessed with fitness and to lose sight of the fact that although training of this nature will help, cricket is above all a game of coordination and speedy reactions-attributes which are developed in the nets and on the field, not in the gym.