Remove this Banner Ad

Rotation policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan26
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Dan26

Dan26

Premium Platinum
EPL Tipping Winner Veteran 10k Posts
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
25,835
Reaction score
21,770
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
I don't know what Australia hope to achieve with this. Surely the best way to win cricket matches is to select your best team. If they think they can just chop and change whenever they feel like it because they are SOOOOOOO good, then it is poetic justice that they are losing.

Players who are NOT in the best 12, should earn their way into the team . They should not just be given a free match.

Apparently this policy is supposed to help prepare for the World Cup. How is selecting players that don't deserve to be there (i.e deliberately dropping better players) going to help prepare for a World Cup? The World Cup will inevitably come down to a knockout quarter-final,or semi-final anyway, so it useless preparing for a one-off knockout match more than a year away, when you don't know the circumstances, or who that knockout match is going to be against!

The BEST prepartion for the World Cup is to ignore it, and select your best team every match. Let players who show good form earn a place in the team on merit, and try to win as many matches as possible, using your best players. After all, those are the players that will be playing in the World Cup anyway, right?

It seems to me that some selector has come up with this theory, with no proof that it works but it "sounds" good, so he thinks: "Hey, I'll use a rotation policy. Sounds good in theory, so we'll deliberatley not pick our best team" :rolleyes:

I also think it is ludicrous that bowlers need to be "rested" from a one day match. They bowl 10 overs. Ten! How is bowling 10 measley overs going to wear you out? I used to bowl 30 overs in a day, and only then did I start to feel tired! These same players often bowled 25 overs in a day in Test Match cricket. I'm not convinced that Glenn McGrath, (for instance) will get any benefit from sitting out one-dayer due to a "rotation policy", just to rest His arm from the MASSIVE :rolleyes: 10 overs of wear and tear.
 
This policy certainly has come underfire. Perhaps a certain 12 should have been selected although with the players we have it would be such a hard decision to make and that also would have been critisized.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

It isn't exactly promoting confidence in the players who get rotated (It is only a few who do get rotated). They go out knowing that the next game they will be dropped/rested/rotated, whatever you want to call it. They aren't getting the regular matches to gain form or confidence. How it is meant to be preparing them for the World Cup is a mystery to me.
 
Personally I think they should keep the rotation policy.

The 'best 11' they used on the weekend apparently means using M waugh instead of Hayden, Bevan at 4, S Waugh.MArtyn at 5 and 6, Harvey in the team at all, Brett Lee in the team at all.

Rotate the fukin lot of them and we might win something.

My best 11:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Bevan
Lehmann
Symonds
Warne
someone who is not Brett Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

Martyn is terrible with the tail, the Waughs simply cant score, Bevan is terrible when the opposition is still attacking.
Lehmann and Symonds are probably the two best late over batsmen in Australia currently, something we suck at currently.
If Martyn gets a bat it has to be higher, and Bevan cant be higher because he sets himself to bat 40 overs so blocks the first 5 he faces unless he comes in late.

Gilchrist, Warne and Lehmann can share the captaincy, vice captaincy duties. At least Lehmann has beaten NZ and SA as captain this year.
 
Originally posted by Dan26


I used to bowl 30 overs in a day, and only then did I start to feel tired!
Click to expand...

What grade of cricket and what type of bowling? I'm betting it was spin, and my giddy Aunt could bowl 30 overs of spin in a day.
 
I think rotation is a must.

With the World Cup approaching in the intermediate future, it's silly to have the same 12-13 playing each game until then, because of the generation gap in Australia's playing reserves. Not just age-wise, but also in terms of experience.

Admittedly, the one-day squad has a few more mid 20s players than the ageing Test squad, but that's as a result of rotation at first.

The problem is that if you use the same players every game, you go into the World Cup with 11-12 experienced, match-hardened players, and three or four rookies who you have no idea if they are up to it or not. So what happens if our old farts like the Waughs, or a injury-prone player like B.Lee or Gillespie gets injured?

We know what would happen - the same thing that happened on Sunday. Three or four necessary changes, and the team on the field is carrying a few blokes who are unproven.

It's like at my workplace... it's casual conditions so there is no 5-day a week obligation from either party. Rather than employ the same 14-15 guys every day, every day somebody is rested. It means from an individual's point of view, you only miss work once every 3 weeks or so, from the company's point of view they always have 14 of their preferred 15 on the day.

What choice would you rather have - to pick a squad from this* :

S.Waugh 350 matches
M.Waugh 270
S.Warne 200
M.Bevan 200
G.McGrath 170
R.Ponting 155
A.Gilchrist 150
A.Symonds 55
D.Martyn 110
J.Gillespie 50
B.Lee 60
I.Harvey 60
A.Bichel 25
M.Hayden 30
A.Noffke <5
N.Bracken 10
B.Williams <5
S.Clark 0
S.MacGill <10
S.Katich 1
R.Campbell <5
B.Haddin <5
J.Langer <10
D.Lehmann 70

*Assuming that :
- there are approx. 30 games before the World Cup (haven't researched any fixtures, that is just a guess)
- top 6 batsmen are not rotated, injury aside
- four preferred bowlers are not rotated, injury aside
- Harvey is the preferred all rounder, probably playing 20-22 games to Symonds 8-10
- keepers not rotated, injury aside
- projected figures rounded off to the nearest 5

Or to pick a squad from this**:

S.Waugh 340 matches
M.Waugh 260
S.Warne 190
M.Bevan 190
G.McGrath 160
R.Ponting 145
A.Gilchrist 140
A.Symonds 60
D.Martyn 100
J.Gillespie 45
B.Lee 50
I.Harvey 55
A.Bichel 25
M.Hayden 40
A.Noffke 10
N.Bracken 15
B.Williams 10
S.Clark 10
S.MacGill 20
S.Katich 10
R.Campbell 15
B.Haddin 15
J.Langer 20
D.Lehmann 80

**Assuming that :
- batsmen and bowlers rotated so that the incumbents play, say, 70% of the games while the fringe players play about 30%
- Gilchrist's 10 "rotated out" games shared between reserve keepers (5 each)
- one other top 6 batsman's "rotated out" games shared between reserve keepers
- other rotations done on a player for player basis

A rotated squad may field these three teams over three matches :
Match 1 -------- Match 2 -------- Match 3
M.Waugh -------- M.Waugh -------- M.Hayden
Gilchrist ------ Campbell ------ Gilchrist (bat only)
Ponting -------- Ponting -------- Bevan
Lehmann -------- Bevan -------- Martyn
S.Waugh -------- Martyn --------- S.Waugh
Katich --------- Langer --------- Haddin (wk)
Symonds -------- Harvey --------- Harvey or Symonds
Warne ---------- Warne ---------- Noffke
B.Lee ---------- B.Lee ---------- Gillespie
Bichel --------- Williams --------- MacGill
Gillespie ------ McGrath -------- McGrath

In different cycles (different tournaments) replace one fringe player's name with another (eg - Bracken for Noffke) and work the rotations the same way, because obviously with only three games as an example it limits how many players I can use to demonstrate my point.

Does this make sense to anyone? :confused:
 
Originally posted by Dan26
My point is that 10 overs shouldn't adversely affect an elite athlete. It is not as if 10 overs is over-working.
Click to expand...

i suggest you take that theory to the likes of any fast bowler dan. yes its only 10 overs but over a period of time your body begins to feel every pounding of you running in and ripping one through.
needless to mention why not put a fast bowler thru hell for such an important series like these one day matches are:D
cheers!
 
Re: Re: Rotation policy

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


What grade of cricket and what type of bowling? I'm betting it was spin, and my giddy Aunt could bowl 30 overs of spin in a day.
Click to expand...

Nah, I don't bowl spin. I played outdoor cricket until I was 20, then I stopped because I couldn't be f*cked fielding in 40 degree heat every bloody weekend. I still play indoor cricket, and have done since I was 8. Never been much of a batter, but am a pretty good quick.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by tiger of old


i suggest you take that theory to the likes of any fast bowler dan. yes its only 10 overs but over a period of time your body begins to feel every pounding of you running in and ripping one through.
needless to mention why not put a fast bowler thru hell for such an important series like these one day matches are:D
cheers!
Click to expand...

That might be true fo an extended spell, but 8 or 9 overs is hardly going to destroy a bowler. They've never had any problems bowling back-to-back games in years past, but over the last couple of years the selectors have magically found the need to rest them! :rolleyes:

A bowler may roll his arm over 50 times in the practice nets to warm up! Richard Hadlee used to bowl about 35 overs a day in test cricket (being their main strike bowler) and did he ever get rested? No. One day cricket is hardly going to tire out someone like Glenn McGrath!
 
Originally posted by Dan26


That might be true fo an extended spell, but 8 or 9 overs is hardly going to destroy a bowler. They've never had any problems bowling back-to-back games in years past, but over the last couple of years the selectors have magically found the need to rest them! :rolleyes:

A bowler may roll his arm over 50 times in the practice nets to warm up! Richard Hadlee used to bowl about 35 overs a day in test cricket (being their main strike bowler) and did he ever get rested? No. One day cricket is hardly going to tire out someone like Glenn McGrath!
Click to expand...

Dan, I agree that the rotation policy is strange when quicks only have to bowl 10 overs, but as your a stats guru, I'd like some evidence of Hadlee bowling 35 overs a day (and you insinuate, regularly) in test cricket.
Also, as a former quick bowler who played at a pretty good level, I can tell you that rolling your arm over for about 20 balls (not 50) takes nothing out of you, as you just amble in and bowl at about half pace.
 
Originally posted by Dan26

Richard Hadlee used to bowl about 35 overs a day in test cricket (being their main strike bowler) and did he ever get rested? No. One day cricket is hardly going to tire out someone like Glenn McGrath!
Click to expand...

Richard Hadlee might not be the best example, Dan.

Hadlee played international cricket for 18 years (1972-90), playing 86 Tests and 115 ODIs.

In comparison, here are the careers of some more recent Test stalwarts :
Mark Waugh 13 years, 122 Tests, 239 ODIs
Steve Waugh 16 years, 145 Tests, 320 ODIs
Courtney Walsh 16 years, 132 Tests, 205 ODIs
Sanath Jayasuriya 11 years, 69 Tests, 252 ODIs
Glenn McGrath 8 years, 81 Tests, 142 ODIs

My point is that Hadlee, even if he did sometimes bowl 35 overs in a day (which I seriously doubt), wouldn't be able to do so in today's cricket, simply because there's about twice as much cricket played at top level.

McGrath, for instance, has played more international cricket than Hadlee did, despite having a shorter career by 10 years.
Hadlee averaged 255 balls per Test, McGrath averages 241 balls per test, both playing a similar number of Tests. McGrath's cricket is more densely concentrated into a much shorter time frame (less than half!), hence less time for rest and recovery.
 
255 balls per match is about 42.5 overs.

Not every match spans both innings. I'm sure there were plenty of tests, where NZ only bowled for one innings, and even if a second innings were required, it might only last half a day (if it were small run chase, for example)

It is not unreasonable to assume that 25 of those 42.5 overs on average were in the first innings. Given that a minimum of 90 overs need to be bowled in a day, and sometimes as many as 100, it is not unreasonable to expect the worlds greatest bowler to bowl 35% of his teams overs, which on some occasions may mean 35 per day.

I have vivid memories of Hadlee bowling extremely long spells, then been givin a short rest, before coming onto to bowl another long spell. I think he may have exceeded 35 overs on several occasions.

You say McGrath has time for rest and recovery. That's true, yet he plays nearly every match, and is not adversely affected. He continually take wickets for every 20 runs he conceded. Why rest him?

Now, concerning your other post:

You said you were "for" the rotation policy. I conversely think the Australians should just pick their best side for each match, and look at it "one match at a time" . You also said this:

"...The problem is that if you use the same players every game, you go into the World Cup with 11-12 experienced, match-hardened players, and three or four rookies who you have no idea if they are up to it or not...."

I don't think that is true. Look at an AFL side. Every team picks their best side (barring injury) for each game. Rookies have to earn a spot through conssitent performances in the reserves. You seem to think that the Aussies will go into the World Cup with only 11 or 12 hardered players. That's not true. Just because they pick their best side every match (as I think they should) doesn't mean they will only have 11 or 12 hardened players. Form, and injuries dictate the line-up will inevitably change. North Melbourne's best line up, like all teams, changed every week, as form varies, and injuries occur.

The Australians are no different. Over the next year, players will run out of form, and deserve to be dropped Others will be injured. The selectors should pick the best possible side for each individual match.

The World Cup should be treated no differently to this current triangualr siereis, with regards to team selection. Just select your best possible team, as you would any one-day side. Forget that it's the World Cup - that's irrelevant! Just treat it as the next match you have to play, pick your best side, and go out and play.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Dan26

The World Cup should be treated no differently to this current triangualr siereis, with regards to team selection. Just select your best possible team, as you would any one-day side. Forget that it's the World Cup - that's irrelevant! Just treat it as the next match you have to play, pick your best side, and go out and play.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? The World Cup is the ONLY single tournament worth bloody anything in cricket.

The rest of the triangular ODI series and head-to-head ODIs that follow Tests are just money spinners that take advantage of the public thirst for any cricket at all, especially around the Indian subcontinent.

More games to televise, more sponsorship dollars = better player payments = topline cricketers don't need day jobs.

In 5-10 years after Test and one-day series are played, people remember who won the Test series and who won the World Cups played. People will probably have watched the meaningless ODIs along the way, and maybe remembered a classy knock here and there, but I doubt too many people would remember or care who won the Safeway Frog's Bollocks Triangular cup between Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

The World Cup is THE goal in terms of one-day cricket. The four year spans between each World Cup are merely competitive practice matches for a bit of prize money to keep the contracted cricketers adequately paid.

It's like saying "forget the Grand Final - it's irrelevant" (and don't you open that bloody Pandora's Box again! :p)

I fully support a rotational system whereby the selected team remains strong enough to be expected to win, yet there is room for some experimentation with selections and batting orders.

I don't agree with your opinion that the natural course of injuries and form deciding selection, will be sufficient rotation, largely because at the moment there is little Test or ODI experience outside of the preferred first 11 or 12.

Of course the best 11 or 12 should be taken into each World Cup game too - but I believe the quality and experience gap between the preferred squad and the stand-bys would be less of an concern if there was a rotation system in place.
 
I half believe in a rotation policy.........that is 180 degrees for Steve Waugh,,,,,,,out of the door for good as a one day captain...too old, too slow, too grumpy, no passion.


And Brett Lee too until he can bowl with some accuracy.
 
Originally posted by Darky
Are you kidding? The World Cup is the ONLY single tournament worth bloody anything in cricket.

The rest of the triangular ODI series and head-to-head ODIs that follow Tests are just money spinners that take advantage of the public thirst for any cricket at all, especially around the Indian subcontinent.
Click to expand...

You're being a bit harsh there. There are many one-day competitons around the world, and they all mean something. They are not practice matches - they are internationals. Of course they aren't as big as the World Cup, but that doesn't mean they are practice material. They are international fixtures, which should be set upon with the best possible side.

Originally posted by Darky
In 5-10 years after Test and one-day series are played, people remember who won the Test series and who won the World Cups played. People will probably have watched the meaningless ODIs along the way, and maybe remembered a classy knock here and there, but I doubt too many people would remember or care who won the Safeway Frog's Bollocks Triangular cup between Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Click to expand...

People might not remember it because there are so many of them. People don't remember Home and Away games because there are 176 of them! But they remember the Grand Final. Why? Becuase there is only one (as opposed to 176.)

Originally posted by Darky
The World Cup is THE goal in terms of one-day cricket. The four year spans between each World Cup are merely competitive practice matches for a bit of prize money to keep the contracted cricketers adequately paid.
Click to expand...

Yes it's the big goal, but it is not relevant to the other one-day tournaments which are separate. This current one-day triangular series is NOT a set of practice matches :rolleyes: and I can't see how dropping Bevan is going to help us win the World Cup NEXT year.

Originally posted by Darky
I fully support a rotational system whereby the selected team remains strong enough to be expected to win, yet there is room for some experimentation with selections and batting orders.
Click to expand...

And what if this rotational system costs you a win in a one-day tournament? I don't think you can prepare for something like the World Cup, and here's why: The World Cup will inevitably come down to a knockout quarter-final, or semi-final, right? No matter how much you prepare, your performance in the tournament will depend on how you go in ONE match.

Now, if the World Cup was a set of 40 matches over 6 months (like a whole season for example), then you could prepare for it. You could build a team. But it's uselss building a team, for the sake of winning one match. What if your best 4 batters get a freak deleivery and are bowled in that one match? Over the long haul they will make runs, but in ONE little match anything can happen.

How is it even possible for the current Austraai team to prepare for ONE knockout quarter-final or semi-final in the World Cup, when they don't even know who it will be against? Answer: It's not possible.

Darky, it is impossible to make a long term plan, to plan for ONE match. What's the point planning for the World Cup two years out, when you are basically pinning all your hopes on winning a couple of knockout matches? The best way to plan, is to build a team to be competitive over several years, and to hope that you can get it right during the World Cup. The best side often doesn't always win the World Cup anyway? Sri-Lanka in '96? Gimme a break! Australia in '87 when we were *******s? Yeah right! There will always be a lot of luck in a short tournament, hence it is impossible to plan for. Looking at the long term results and building a side that will win more than they lose is the way to go. That might mean the inevitable loss here and there (which could be in a World Cup semi-final: Them's the breaks), but over the long haul, if you build a side, you will win more than you lose.

Look at South Africa? They have EASILY been the best one-day team over the last 6 years, or so. They have won about 75% of their matches. But that 75% record won't help them in a knockout World Cup semi-final, if the 25% just happens to rear it's ugly head.

As you can see, it is stupid to prepare for the World Cup, when you are basically preparing for ONE knockout match, which you could lose, even if you ave the best team in the World!! You might as well take it one match at a time, which is the way to achieve success. You are only as good as your last match.

Australia should pick the best team they can for every match they play. If they feel like introducing a young player, then do it, but DON'T do it, for the sake of rotation. Do it because you feel the need to bring a young player into the side, to build a team. Dropping players who shouldn't be dropped (like Bevan) is a recipe for trouble and cannot be condoned under any circumstances.
 
Originally posted by Frodo
I half believe in a rotation policy.........that is 180 degrees for Steve Waugh,,,,,,,out of the door for good as a one day captain...too old, too slow, too grumpy, no passion.


And Brett Lee too until he can bowl with some accuracy.
Click to expand...

*cough.....splutter* Jesus, I agree with Frodo.:eek:
 
The Rotation policy has made this Aussie side one of the strongest in World cricket. 19 straight wins before these three losses and NO ONE was complaining. This policy works because it gives fringe players, who would no normally be getting a game at all, a chance to taste international cricket and learn what areas of their games they need to improve on to be a consistent performer at that level.

When we get a injury/suspension these days it is almost like water off a ducks back, which is why the team has been able to keep winning.

The point everyone keeps making is that players are fearing their spots under this policy, thinking "I'm going to be out next match". That's rubbish. Every player in the squad knows that the selectors have full faith in them and are not going to be dropped for more than one match. Everyone will get plenty of chances to perform, not just 1 or maybe 2 games and then dropped as per the old system, so if anything the rotation policy provides more security for players....
 
I would like to see blokes like Matt Hayden play in three consecutive games before being rotated. Then I would agree with the policy. It can't be doing anything for his form or confidence only going out there every third game. He's not the only one, but probably a case in point.

It's a sound system in preparation for the World Cup, and we won a lot of games before this summer using it. But now we're losing, and you'd imagine some of our top players must be becoming unsettled.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom