Australian rotation (resting) policy

[Top_Cat]

Did they win those tournaments because of, or despite, the rotation policy? You see, I think 'fringe players' get sufficient opportunities through injuries, poor form etc. If players are 'rested' it should be purposeful. Not like when they 'rested' McGrath this summer, despite the fact that he wanted to play, and was still at the ground running drinks anyway. If players who play both forms of the game are genuinely in need of a rest, then fair enough - let them get right away from the cricket scene though, and be careful of 'resting' guys against their will, and those whose cricket often suffers because of a rest (eg McGrath).

As I've said before, the criticism of the rotation policy is nothing new because the policy is nothing new. It's more than just co-incidence that on both occasions before the 1999 and 2003 WC, players were rested and rotated in. The selectors were roundly bagged for it at the time yet when Australia came back from a woeful start in 1999 to win it, the journalists couldn't write fast enough how 'fresh' the Aussies looked, and that the rotation policy was a stroke of genius because inexperienced players were given experience before the big tournament, etc. Repeat the same before 2003. Now it's happening again. Nothing new to see here.

No they didn't win the tournaments *because* of the rotation. But quite a few players who wouldn't have been given a go in Australia's 'best' side were picked before the last two WC's and when injuries/poor form did happen (1999 for example; changing Shane Lee for Tom Moody = brilliant), the inexperienced players were able to do the job. Another example; Andy Bichel in 2003. Wouldn't have been in an Australian side with McGrath, Gillespie and Lee in it but was rotated in the 02/03 summer. When given a shot, demolished England and was one of Australia's best bowlers of the tournament.

I don't want to be watching experiments for that long I want to be watching the best Australian (and international) teams possible playing in each match. Personally I think there is enough injuries in the natural course of the game to blood some of these younger players. There shouldn't be forced rotations.

It's just not possible. Ever cross your mind that the volume of cricket *causes* those injuries? Why not avoid the situation by rotating in players? And no there just aren't enough injuries to avoid the need for rotation and nor should any team be relying upon it.

 

[peterboy]

I doubt that giving a player a go in the Aussie squad is what makes them such an overnight success. Years of hard work in domestic crickt does that. You earn your spot when you are ready not before. And as for not enough injuries to introduce new players well how did it happen in the past pre rotation policy, and how do other teams manage without it. As for to many games well maybe it would be better if they had less games, quality instead of quantity.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It's a function of the selectors realising that McGrath, Gilchrist etc aren't going to be around forever - and they're desperately trying to find someone who isn't crap to replace them. This requires trying every bowler in Australia.

Sounds like you (and I) are enjoying the failure of their new bowlers.

 

[Langeveldt]

They can rotate all they want!

 

[Richard]

Sure the world cup is important. It's great to be known as the world champions. But there is a hell of a lot of cricket in between cups. I don't want to be watching experiments for that long I want to be watching the best Australian (and international) teams possible playing in each match. Personally I think there is enough injuries in the natural course of the game to blood some of these younger players. There shouldn't be forced rotations.

If you try to play your best team in every ODI you risk injuries and mental burn-out unneccesarily.

 

[Richard]

Sounds like you (and I) are enjoying the failure of their new bowlers.

Well - me too.
Hugely enjoyable seeing Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, Clark, White, Hopes, Watson, etc. being hammered.
Especially because I was so, so confident it'd happen.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well - me too.
Hugely enjoyable seeing Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, Clark, White, Hopes, Watson, etc. being hammered.
Especially because I was so, so confident it'd happen.

Lee's had a couple of bad games in this series too. Is the pressure of a McGrath-less attack too much for Brett?

 

[peterboy]

How many players get rotated out of the English team in a home series?

 

[luckyeddie]

Sounds like you (and I) are enjoying the failure of their new bowlers.

Not me - I think it's a terrible situation.

It Australia don't watch their step, they're going to start losing to Bangladesh or getting bowled out for less than 100.

 

[luckyeddie]

How many players get rotated out of the English team in a home series?

When it comes to ODI's, we're lucky to find 11 decent players - period. This <how you say> "rotation" is known in the trade as "panic".

 

[Neil Pickup]

How many players get rotated out of the English team in a home series?

We don't have an exorbitantly long VB Series.

 

[howardj]

As I've said before, the criticism of the rotation policy is nothing new because the policy is nothing new. It's more than just co-incidence that on both occasions before the 1999 and 2003 WC, players were rested and rotated in. The selectors were roundly bagged for it at the time yet when Australia came back from a woeful start in 1999 to win it, the journalists couldn't write fast enough how 'fresh' the Aussies looked, and that the rotation policy was a stroke of genius because inexperienced players were given experience before the big tournament, etc. Repeat the same before 2003. Now it's happening again. Nothing new to see here.

No they didn't win the tournaments *because* of the rotation. But quite a few players who wouldn't have been given a go in Australia's 'best' side were picked before the last two WC's and when injuries/poor form did happen (1999 for example; changing Shane Lee for Tom Moody = brilliant), the inexperienced players were able to do the job. Another example; Andy Bichel in 2003. Wouldn't have been in an Australian side with McGrath, Gillespie and Lee in it but was rotated in the 02/03 summer. When given a shot, demolished England and was one of Australia's best bowlers of the tournament.
.

Aw, come on. The two examples you used - Bichel and Moody - they were inexperienced? Moody was at the 1987 WC, and Bichel started his ODI career seven years before the 2003 WC. I just don't subscribe to the view that because we won the WC in 1999 and 2003, that vindicates the 'rotation' policy. What about when we won it in 1987 by presumably picking our best XI at all times?

As I say, I don't have a problem with guys like Ponting, McGrath, Lee and Gilchrist, having a week at the beach (if they need it). Twelve months out from a WC though - even if you rest nobody - form and injury alone, usually dictate that there will be plenty of guys who get a crack at ODI cricket. That's not even allowing for when Ponting, Gilly, McGrath take their deserved scheduled, annual sabbatical.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aw, come on. The two examples you used - Bichel and Moody - they were inexperienced? Moody was at the 1987 WC, and Bichel started his ODI career seven years before the 2003 WC.

Moody was primarily picked as a batsman before his resurgence as an all-rounder many years after he was dropped initially. As a player, he had experience but as an international all-rounder picked specificially in that role, that only happened right before the WC and I have a sneaking suspicion he was groomed for exactly that. Bichel was generally in and out of the side before that tournament, never a permanent fixture. Both of them wouldn't have even been given a game if Australia persisted with just putting their best team on the park no matter what. The primary point wasn't just that inexperienced players were given a go (and you know it) but that players who ordinarily wouldn't have been in the 'best' side were given international matches before the tournaments so that, in the event of injuries and/or poor form (which happened), they would have experience and match fitness under their belts.

I just don't subscribe to the view that because we won the WC in 1999 and 2003, that vindicates the 'rotation' policy. What about when we won it in 1987 by presumably picking our best XI at all times?

Totally different situations. The 'best' XI back then was the only XI because Australia were in the midst of a rebuilding phase. Plus, they played far less ODI cricket so the need for a rotation system just wan't there. As Neil said;

We don't have an exorbitantly long VB Series.

Precisely.

 

[howardj]

Both of them wouldn't have even been given a game if Australia persisted with just putting their best team on the park no matter what

I think I addressed that in the second part of my post. Twelve months out from a WC - even if you rest nobody - form and injury alone, usually dictate that there will be plenty of guys who get a crack at ODI cricket. That's not even allowing for when Ponting, Gilly, McGrath take their deserved scheduled, annual sabbatical.

Getting into specifics...Moody was not in the side because of the 'rotation' policy. In fact, he was not selected at all in the VB Series of 1998/99, just before the World Cup, when the 'rotation' policy was in full swing. He didn't play a game. When he was picked in the West Indies in 1999, he was not rotated. He played five games in a row. They weren't rotating him in and out for experience, rather they thought he was in their best XI, and would play a huge role in the World Cup.

Regarding Bichel, as I repeat, he already had vast experience, some of which pre-dated the rotation policy. Furthermore, he played in both of the finals matches in the VB Series in 2002/03, therefore he was obviously part of Australia's first choice team. McGrath and Gillespie were both injured at that point, giving credence to my view that injuries/poor form will always ensure that there's a pool of players who are match-ready. Therefore, in the absence of any other players people can name, I stand by my view that there is not necessarily a connection between the 'rotation policy' and our winning of the 1999 and 2003 World Cups.

The primary point wasn't just that inexperienced players were given a go (and you know it) but that players who ordinarily wouldn't have been in the 'best' side were given international matches before the tournaments so that, in the event of injuries and/or poor form (which happened), they would have experience and match fitness under their belts.

Yes, I agree. In theory, this is the case. In terms of actual players who benefitted from this in our WC victories in 1999 and 2003, the benefits of the 'rotation' policy were negligible (see above para). However, my argument is that the same XI rarely takes the park anyway, because of injuries/poor form/a deserved week's break for players who play both forms of the game.

I mean, have a look at this summer. Katich was injured - Jacques came in and scored 94; Ponting and Symonds have both been injured for two matches; McGrath has been unavailable; Bracken had family issues; Gilchrist had a week off. And there will be plenty more of the above 'natural' turn-over in the 25-odd ODI's between now and WC 2007.

Finally, the VB Series is not 'exhorbitantly' long, as compared to other years. It was eight games each, and two finals back in 1995/96 too.

 

[howardj]

However, I think we're both arguing largely the same thing anyway. Rotation, in the sense of Ponting, Gilly, McGrath, Lee getting a week off, is good. I just object to the randomness of some of the other selections though. It's like, almost regardless of performance, you can never predict what our team is going to be.

 

[peterboy]

I am arguing more from the point of view of an Australian fan going to watch the cricket live. It's that very randomness that makes it hard to decide when to go to a game or not. When you pay to see the team play you aren't really thinking about wining the world cup in four years, you are thinking about watching the best team possible compete on that day. It seams a bit harsh that other countries generally get to see our best eleven, but when they return to their fans in Australia we dont always get that option.

 

[marc71178]

Well isn't it a simple solution then?

Cut the number of games in the VB series.

 

[Richard]

Lee's had a couple of bad games in this series too. Is the pressure of a McGrath-less attack too much for Brett?

Indeed it's been encouraging.
Still - the Sri Lankans have rarely had many problems with him, unlike everyone else.
The South Africans still managed to get themselves into a tangle again last Sunday.

 

[Richard]

Well isn't it a simple solution then?

Cut the number of games in the VB series.

Australia don't play enough ODI cricket elsewhere to do that.
The home 8 ODIs (usually rising to 10, and 11 this year) is a neccessary part of Australian cricket and has been for any number of years (it was even longer in 1998\99).

 

[Autobahn]

Australia don't play enough ODI cricket elsewhere to do that.
The home 8 ODIs (usually rising to 10, and 11 this year) is a neccessary part of Australian cricket and has been for any number of years (it was even longer in 1998\99).

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?