Rotation Policy

Remove this Banner Ad

Underarm

Underarm

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts Zombie Lover A Star Wars Fan
Feb 13, 2011
10,897
13,739
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm surprised a new thread hadnt already Popped up yet, but....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2011/content/current/story/543971.html
The rotation Policy - what does people think?


I for one am with M. Hussey on this. it makes sense for bowlers as they each have differnt styles -Right/left, seam vs swing, ability to reverse or not. they also get tired and sometimes could do with a rest if there is someone good enough to replace them.

with batsmen it is entirely different. the openers need to build rapore with each other and being rested every 6 games isnt going to help that. and since haddin and Clarke are safe from rotation, Ponting, Hussey and Usman will bare the brunt and miss games, no matter what form they are in.

i could come up with plenty of reasons why it is a bad idea. Crowds might drop if punter/hussey don't play. It also gives an excuse much like the excuses Pies fans gave after losing to Geelong in R24.


Perhaps it should be 'trialed' in the ODI series, where it might have some success. India do it in their side quite well.
 
firstly, we haven't seen it done yet, so we should recognise that this is pure speculation

what it may do is put pressure on batsmen to perform. competition is a good thing. let them know they are not an automatic selection. give fringe players international experience. rotate top class players back into the shield, raising the domestic standard

so it has its advantages

it might also be partly about an acceptable way to prise some entrenched individuals out of the team temporarily so that their uber long careers don't prevent us having a look at what others can offer during quiet series. i doubt you will see much rotation during flagship series

have to see how they implement it but i don't mind it in principle. people often get a bit precious about batsmen
 
As Hussey says, the downside is when a player is in red hot form and they believe they need momentum to maintain that form. I think it's a good, pragmatic response to players playing three modes of cricket most months of the year in the modern era.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The rotation system has been in place with the ODI and T20 sides already so it's nothing new on that front. Test matches is where it is new. It's quite hard doing it for the batsmen, Khawaja is a good example of what happens when you are rotated in and out of the side. He is yet to settle into his role.
 
aussie1st said:
The rotation system has been in place with the ODI and T20 sides already so it's nothing new on that front. Test matches is where it is new. It's quite hard doing it for the batsmen, Khawaja is a good example of what happens when you are rotated in and out of the side. He is yet to settle into his role.
Click to expand...

You mean he hasn't quite taken the opportunities on offer? Khawaja has had three matches at 3 for one fifty. Sure it's hard when you are not sure of your place but what new batsman - or bowler for that matter - is?

He's got another chance at Hobart against the flaccid Kiwi attack.

I think rotating players - batsmen and bowlers - is a good idea. Remember the summer following Ashes 2009, we were stuck with the same players who had lost the Ashes in England? That would have been the perfect time to blood some newer players and almost everyone knew it at the time - apart from CA. Hussey is just worried that it's code for being dropped and that he's next on the list.
 
Not a terrible idea for our bowling attack since it is so young, but has no place being implemented in our batting lineup.

Do what you like in ODI's and T20's, but I will be extremely dissappointed the day a "rotation policy" is used in test cricket.
 
Matty, there's a difference between someone knocking on the door of the side to force you to perform better, and knowin that you will be rested for that player regardless of how well you do.

I agree that usman is a prime example of why it doesnt work. For 2 tests he has filled in for pointing, at 3 and then 6 before replacing marsh at 3 again. It's not so simple to just move players around an to expect them to instantly adapt their game play. There is a massive difference in the role no. 6 and no 3 have - that's been known for over a century. You can't just expect a player to come in to a side and play 3 one week, 4 the next, be dropped and the come in as an opener. That sounds fraught with danger.


I'm surprised so many people think its a good idea. If it was such a good idea, why has no one country implemented it successfully in over 100 years of international cricket?
 
yeah i know mate but its hard to comment cos we haven't seen it done yet so we don't know how or even if they're actually going to do it with batsmen

we've gone a bit far in the opposite direction in recent times with batsmen given very long runs despite form. hussey for example should never have been allowed to use the test team to overcome his year long form slump. i'm glad he came good in the end but in the end it was a bit of shield action and pressure on his spot that sorted him out. going back to the shield isn't a bad thing.

i do think some of the rotation talk is code for spots not being guaranteed for life anymore. you know, part of the new performance based culture they're on about. if a bit of a rotation experiment helps break that culture thats seen batsmen given way too many chances then it might be a good thing, especially if the coach could use his new powers over the states to see that batsmen are played in the same roles for both state and national teams, which i would've thought would be essential for rotation to work

i would definitely be against batsmen getting chopped around the order like with uzi but i don't thinkthats what they've got in mind. and again, they haven't done it at all yet so lets see if they even do it
 
Underarm said:
I'm surprised so many people think its a good idea. If it was such a good idea, why has no one country implemented it successfully in over 100 years of international cricket?
Click to expand...

Because the workload has become too great and multiple players are succumbing to injuries. It's not ideal but the alternatives appear to be fielding an exclusive team for each mode of cricket or disallowing players to play in the IPL/county etc.

Surely if it means using 7 batsmen for a series through rotation rather than 8 or 9 because of injuries then it can be seen as warranted.
 
speaking of county but otherwise completely off topic, i really hope we take advantage in winter and send some blokes over to do county stints in preparation for the ashes
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The rotation policy is almost as flawed as the concept of blooding young blokes in test cricket.

You're meant to earn your cap not get it because some bloke supposedly needs a rest.
 
Doodlesweaver said:
You mean he hasn't quite taken the opportunities on offer? Khawaja has had three matches at 3 for one fifty. Sure it's hard when you are not sure of your place but what new batsman - or bowler for that matter - is?

He's got another chance at Hobart against the flaccid Kiwi attack.

I think rotating players - batsmen and bowlers - is a good idea. Remember the summer following Ashes 2009, we were stuck with the same players who had lost the Ashes in England? That would have been the perfect time to blood some newer players and almost everyone knew it at the time - apart from CA. Hussey is just worried that it's code for being dropped and that he's next on the list.
Click to expand...

It's not so much to do with him not being sure of his place in the side. It is the fact he is constantly moving up and down the order and coming in for the odd test. Here is a summary of his career to date:
1st test against England in the Ashes batting at 3 he made 37 which was the 3rd highest score of our innings. (Shows the pathetic state our batting is in)
2nd test against SL now batting at 6 where he got starts in both innings. Obviously would have been disappointed not going on.
3rd test against SL still batting at 6 where he was 13 not out, not much more he could have done in this match.
4th test having missed the last 2 test Australia have played is now in SA and back to batting at 3. Disappointing first innings but made his only 50 in the 2nd innings which also was the highest score in that innings.
5th test now back in Australia still batting at 3, first time he has had the opportunity to play back to back test matches at 3. Got to 38 before being run out, so he was robbed of a chance to go on.

That is far from ideal for any player. At least if a bowler is doing that he isn't being moved around the order plus he has a whole innings to sort himself out, the batsmen only has one mistake. In saying all this he will definitely want some runs in Hobart else he won't have a case for staying in the side.
 
I believe that there is a justification in a horses for course mentality with selection of bowlers. For instance traditionally some wickets favour seasmers over swing bowlers and vice-versa. But for batsman continuity is essential especially in the same form of the game.

Saying that burnout is definitely an issue that needs to be kept in mind today with such a full schedule. Look at India and their best test batsmen barely play any ODI and even less T20. Being a good test cricketer is much different than ODI or T20 and that needs to be remembered, this is part of my problem with the ongoing selection of MJ when he wasn't injured. Somehow we think ODI form can translate to Tests and I don't believe that is the case.
 
Slax said:
I believe that there is a justification in a horses for course mentality with selection of bowlers. For instance traditionally some wickets favour seasmers over swing bowlers and vice-versa. But for batsman continuity is essential especially in the same form of the game.

Saying that burnout is definitely an issue that needs to be kept in mind today with such a full schedule. Look at India and their best test batsmen barely play any ODI and even less T20. Being a good test cricketer is much different than ODI or T20 and that needs to be remembered, this is part of my problem with the ongoing selection of MJ when he wasn't injured. Somehow we think ODI form can translate to Tests and I don't believe that is the case.
Click to expand...

It is because they still haven't properly separated the sides and this is partly due to CA central contract system.

CA are all about money these days and it made more sense for them to have Clarke as a T20 skipper then actually have someone who can play the format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top