Australian rotation (resting) policy

[Richard]

Well surely it would be a better idea to work out maybe a few more ODIs on overseas tours and cut back on the VB series a tiny bit?

Not really - most people find the best place to play ODIs is at home.
Not only do you get the choice of venue but you also have to do less travelling.
I think most Australian players would prefer an 8-game VB Series to a 6-game VB Series and then some tournament in Sharjah or wherever.

 

[open365]

Persoanly i really hate the Aussies resting the amount of players that they do and i love to see them get beat because of it, unfortunately, they showed that they are capable of winning tournaments while resting players, so i feel slightly stupid.

Call me old fashioned, but i don't care how much cricket Poniting has to play in a year, i'd have his job anyday so make use of it.

 

[Richard]

I think people like Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath etc. deserve a rest. If the replacement players are good enough, which in a few cases they were.
However, when rubbish like Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, White, Hopes, Watson, Hauritz, Campbell, Williams, Haddin, Young, Maher, Harvey, Di Venuto, Bichel, Hogg, Lee (S), Law, Julian, the like, are picked, they generally do poorly and deserve to.
Still - the fact remains that in Hussey, Clarke, Bracken, Symonds (eventually, after a long time when he was rubbish too), Gilchrist, Lehmann, Dale, Gillespie, Ponting, Bevan, Fleming, McGrath, Warne, Martyn (eventually), Reiffel, Mark Waugh and Moody, Australia have over a long period of time had quite a few outstanding ODI cricketers, and in Stephen Waugh, Taylor, Hayden, Kasprowicz (eventually), Lee (B), Clark and Hodge some pretty decent ones. It says a lot that Matthew Elliott, with a List-A-OD average in the 40s, has played just 1 ODI, though it's often struck me as inexplicable.
Quite simply - if the players are good enough, they're good enough - if they're not, the team will pay for playing them.

 

[marc71178]

Amazing how Australia manage to win more than they lose even with so many so-called rubbish players in isn't it?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Um, Lee hasn't actually been affected by this rotation policy at all, but has played every home ODI since 2004, when he was dropped for being poor.

Evidently you didn't look hard enough for him

Well, to be fair, he is harder to spot now he's out of the waiter's uniform.

 

[Richard]

Amazing how Australia manage to win more than they lose even with so many so-called rubbish players in isn't it?

Not really, as has been proven many times, have a side containing good players, rubbish players can temporarily look better than they are.
Fortunately, that hasn't (yet) happened with Dorey, Hopes, Johnson, Lewis and White.

 

[marc71178]

And yet it happens so often - must all be coincidence because you've decided these players are rubbish.

 

[Richard]

What does it happening often have to do with anything?
Most people would realise that the players I dubbed "rubbish" are such.

 

[marc71178]

If they truly are as rubbish as you make out, how come Australia regularly field these players and win with them in the side?

 

[Richard]

Because the other players are still good (sometimes very, very good), and sometimes the feats of good players can not merely paper over cracks from rubbish players but allow rubbish players to get figures better than their performances.

 

[peterboy]

This post originally had a topic but some of us are wandering away from it (Richard)

 

[Laurrz]

Resting Ponting and Gilly for CH and Rotation policy

is it ****

i think it is.. ok some matches are "worthless" like after we solidified our finals place already for this series.. but surely we hav learnt that momentum is just SO HUGE in cricket... u cant afford to lose matches

 

[howardj]

Be interested to know people's thoughts on what effect it's having on our bowlers, and the team in general.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it has merit, personally. Even leaving aside the fact that Gilchrist & Ponting have played throughout the Aussie summer (the odd ODI 'cos of Punter's hip excepted) they're both absolutely nailed-on for the WC starting XI so it gives other players a chance to hold their hands up for squad places.

I don't even know if Sky are carrying the series over here, but if they are I am intrigued to see how Haddin goes, especially seeing the talking-up he's had in some quarters.

Plus, obviously, yer kiwis always lose gallantly to Oz anyway. ()

 

[howardj]

It's just being applied in a silly fashion. For example, with McGrath, he is someone who needs a lot of bowling and needs regualar game time. Yet he is served up a dis-jointed schedule.

I can understand the policy if it is to give players who play both forms of the game, some time away from cricket. However, take McGrath for example this Summer, he was being 'rested' and yet he was still at the ground carrying drinks and sitting on the boundary rope! He's getting no mental rest from cricket by doing that.

If you're going to rest someone like that, give them a complete break from the game. If they're at the game, they may as well be playing. Particularly the guys who need overs under their belt, rather than random rests.

 

[Laurrz]

yea i guess Lanka are doing the same thing with Murali and Vaas and so far are getting away with it

 

[pasag]

Gilchrist hasn't had a break throughout the summer iirc and desrves one now as does Ponting who has had a few niggling injuries recently and needs a rest before the WC imo. That said, to miss all three games might be abit too much.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, some of Richard's posts here are hilarious in hindsight, particularly writing off Johnson, Watson and Haddin as hopeless ODI players. Plus Hogg, but that's expected.

Anyway, I've got no issue with the rotation policy at all, particularly the way it was used this series. It was imperitive that Australia gave the likes of Johnson, Clark, Hilfenhaus and Tait some game time and searched out the best options for the WC squad, and it'll likely pay off in the long run. One could argue that the central Lee/Bracken/McGrath/Hogg unit didn't get enough game time together, but in reality it was the batting that failed in the finals, not the bowling. England were restricted to a very chasable sub-250 score in the second game, and should have been chasing 300 instead of 250 in the first. Ideally Hogg will get some decent gametime in the C-H series so his role in the side can be determined, but otherwise I'm pretty happy with the way the bowling options are shaping up. Australia have at least five or six seam bowlers who would do quite well in the WC, IMO.

When the World Cup rolls around the first team should be sorted and we'll have had a decent look at the guys who will be playing supporting roles. In the long run, any losses between now and then will be rendered insignificant if the World Cup side is successful, and any sort of fatigue related injuries for the likes of McGrath or Gilchrist would be a major setback.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Perhaps it'd be worthwhile merging the two threads on this subject? I just posted my thoughts in the other one. No issues with the rotation policy.

 

[Matt79]

And did so very nicely I thought.