Time for cricket to embrace the ‘Billy Birmingham’
Sports commentator and comedian extraordinaire Billy Birmingham referred to his alter ego as “the 12th man”.
Australian cricket has been ridiculed of late by commentators, former players and fans alike for its rotation policy.
Those prominent ex-players who have criticised the rotation policy cover a wide generation gap, from the likes of Ian Chappell and Dennis Lillee to the more recent Shane Warne and Brett Lee.
Convener of selectors John Inverarity attempted to put yet another spin on the rotation policy by referring to it as “informed player management.”
You know an organisation is in trouble when they begin changing the original name of their policy. As if a different name will somehow make a difference. If it’s a dud concept, no amount of name changes will save it.
I should say here Inverarity and his fellow national selectors Rod Marsh and Andy Bichel are not dills. But whoever is driving this policy has ensured their compliance for whatever reason.
I can understand the need for the rotation policy up to a point. Players have been rested from matches since the game first began. I recall Lillee missing Shield matches in order to ensure he was right for the next Test.
Resting players from minor games makes sense. Resting Test players from Tests when not injured doesn’t make sense. Nor does resting players from any games when they haven’t been extended in recent matches.
Both these situations have occurred recently only exacerbating the derision of cricket fans.
Although today’s cricketers aren’t necessarily playing more matches than 40 or 80 years ago, what is evident is that they are playing more high intensity matches. This is one reason given for the rotation policy.
Another is the fact that cricket is still made up of only 11 players for the whole duration of a match.
Players can be subbed during a match, but the substitute can only field, he can’t bat or bowl. So consequently, any on-field injury impacts negatively on a team (as we saw recently with Sri Lanka).
For all practical purposes, there are two primary causes for the rotation policy being in place.
The first is poor scheduling/structuring of the season. Potential Test players have no opportunity to build form and rhythm, or regain form since the Sheffield Shield is suspended mid-season.
Secondly, cricket is still only played by 11 players with no opportunity for subs or replacements. Consequently, the NSP and advisors are ‘spooked’ into resting players on fear of breakdown, rather than proof they will actually break down.
The first problem is the fault of CA and can easily be fixed by CA before the next season starts. The BBL should either start or end the season, my preference being the end.
The key December to mid-January window should be exclusively held over for Tests and Sheffield Shield, which must be played in tandem with each other for obvious reasons.
As for increasing the number of cricket players in a match from 11 to 12, this requires the input of the ICC and approval by a majority of member countries.
Australian football is no longer an 18-man game. It is now a 22-man game.
Rugby union is no longer a 15-man game. Each team has a 22-man squad, which is soon to be 23.
Rugby league is no longer a 13 man game. Each team has a 17-man squad which will probably end up at 18.
Soccer is no longer an 11-man game. Each team has 14-15 spots in the squad.
Cricket should no longer be an 11 man game. It should be a 12 man squad. Select six batsmen, a keeper-batsman and five bowlers.
When batting the ‘bunny’ can sit out. If you have two ‘bunnies’ then they can each sit out an innings, assuming all 11 batsmen are required.
When bowling one of the batsman can put his feet up, or the fielders can rotate with time off in the sheds. The 13th man now becomes the new 12th man and is injected into the game when two players are incapacitated for any reason.
It’s so ridiculously simple, it will work a treat. And it would remove this insidious practice of the rotation policy.
I used to think I was a pretty good rugby lock, but now realise I was deluded. My nickname is a truncation of my surname, so I'm not Arabic - phew! However, sometimes I imagine myself as a Beau Geste in the French Foreign Legion, fighting evil, righting wrongs, promoting good and rescuing damsels in distress.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (127)
- Australia needs to bench Nathan Lyon for Ashes success (84)
- DIZZY: Australian bowlers look the goods for the Ashes (76)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- Clarke take note: England has some weak points for Ashes (48)
- Who will Sam Robson represent: Australia or England? (47)
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (46)
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (127)
- Warner in cricket hearing on Wednesday (2)
- IPL has skeletons, whatever Warner tweets (26)
- David Warner and Australian cricket’s ‘Siege Mentality’ (29)
- Could Bird be the difference in the Ashes? (30)
- Warner targets media in Twitter rant (10)
- Strauss wants Pietersen fit for Ashes
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (127)
- David Warner and Australian cricket’s ‘Siege Mentality’ (29)
- Could Bird be the difference in the Ashes? (30)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- Cricket’s all-time alphabetical F team (35)
- Have we been too harsh on Warner? (38)
- Russell Domingo to coach Proteas (17)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Cricket, rotation policy, Test cricket

January 21st 2013 @ 8:20am
Andy_Roo said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Hi Sheek,
Firstly I’m not sure i would want to interfere with the history of the game being eleven versus eleven. Test cricket is meant to be exactly that, a test of a teams mental and physical strength.
Secondly I’m sure that those in charge would find justification for a rotation policy whether it’s 11v11 or 12v12.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:48am
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Hi AndyRoo,
Fair call.
However, it really isn’t a problem. You still have 11 versus 11, in the same way you have 13 vs 13, or 15 vs 15, or 18 vs 18, but the ‘bench’ gives you flexibility.
In cricket, you still have 11 batsmen versus 11 fielders & bowlers, the only difference being being you can swap a batsman for a bowler or vice-versa, depending on whether you’re batting or bowling/fielding.
As for the history of the game, cricket has endured continuous change. Tests have gone from three days in England out to five, & from unlimited days in Australia back to five. Rest days have been removed.
Overs have gone respectively from four balls to five balls & to eight balls in Australia for a very long time, but now standardised to six balls. Wickets used to be uncovered & left to the elements, creating ‘sticky’ wickets. Now all major pitches are covered when it rains.
There are many more changes that could be mentioned, many of them cosmetic. The essence of the game doesn’t change however, if you go from a squad of 11 players to 12. It is still the same game.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:50am
Red Kev said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:50am | Report comment
The only issue I have is the one that we saw Clarke struggle with at the SCG when Australia had 5 frontline bowlers. The rotation was too much for him, he’d bowl guys for short spells and sub them because he felt he had to.
Overall I like the idea, but it needs to be trialled at lower levels so captains can get the hang of how to manage it.
January 21st 2013 @ 9:31am
Happy Hooker said | January 21st 2013 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Sheek,
The BBL only works at a fan level, because so many people are on holidays and the kids aren’t at school when its on. Transfer it to the end of season, and crowd numbers will end up being of the magnitude of Sheffield Shield.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:00am
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Hi Happy Hooker,
I agree the BBL should be at the end, or towards the end of the season. For one thing, it provides an incentive for fringe players to keep their name in front of the selectors throughout the season.
I guess we should determine at what point is the end of the season?
I would hold open until mid-January for the test window, especially an Ashes series of five tests. Whether five or six tests in season, they should be played out over a nine-ten week period. This then allows two x three test series to be played over weeks, with another week or two break in between.
An Ashes five test series ought to be played over eight weeks. All tests being played two weeks apart except for Boxing Day/New Year’s Day tests, which would start eight days apart.
When should the Shield final be played? Could it be brought forward to the end of January, thus freeing up February for BBL? And where do we fit the one-dayers in?
The practice of cutting the Sheffield Shield season in half, & they do the same with super rugby, is totally wrong in my view. I would rather see the Shield season finish earlier than have it cut in half. You don’t do this to other prime comps like the AFL, NRL or A-League.
I know many major football comps in Europe have a mid-season (end of year) break, but this is due to practical consideration of weather conditions, & not at the whim of administrators trying to extract the last dollar out of the paying public.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:14am
El Capitan said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Sheek,
I think players just need to play and get match fit, not gym fit. Last night when they put the old 80′s games on during the rain peroid, those players weren’t necessary gym fit, but were match fit enough not to break down.
Players need to be able to bowl 20-30 overs in a day and still back up to perform the following day. there are two ways to achieve this. Net sessions, like a game day conditions and or off season matches. Net sessions are straight forward. Put a batsman in and bowl, just like a normal match. Bowl your 10 overs have a rest, chasing balls, catching practice ect, then back and bowl again.
Off season matches, well I’m sure CA could establish games to be played in Cairns/Darwin ect during winter, where the climate is kind, and they can keep performing through out the off season, or they go on tours (maybe a CA invite team to SL/India/WI/SA) where they can play all season long (fringe players)
What ever the case there must be a better way than leaving a player out cause he’s due for a rest.
January 21st 2013 @ 10:49am
The Kebab Connoisseur said | January 21st 2013 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Not a fan of rotation policies. End of the day, you are not fielding your best 11. I pay good money to watch the best play. If they are not fielding the best Australian 11 then I will keep my money.
Now that is the ultimate judgement on on well your policies are working cricket Oz.
If burn out is such an issue then maybe C.A.should schedule a lot less fixtures.
One thing from a lifelong fan of cricket. The authorities have just about killed off the shorter forms of the game for me and I stopped going about 6 or 7 years ago due to the average teams they keep putting out there.
Next time Australia is at the MCG against West Indies I will look at the team line ups before thinking of attending. It is a lot of money to go nowadays to watch a couple of second string elevens going around. It should only cost 20 bucks a ticket to sit anywhere in my opinion.
January 21st 2013 @ 11:06am
Dingo said | January 21st 2013 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I thought when I read the headline and first sentence you were going to suggest putting Billy Birmingham in the commentary box.
………come to think of it that would be an improvement.
I like the idea in the limited over formats of the game, not too keen on it for the “real” game though.
For the life of me I still can’t understand what could be better for a player than being match fit and there is only one way to maintain that level of fitness and that is to be out there playing the damn game………….. Preaching to the converted, I know.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:12pm
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Hi Dingo,
I probably got too cute with the banner line, but heck, sometimes you have to try & be a bit different in your delivery!
Thanks for your input. I really think though that 12 players is the way to go. It will help alleviate this stupid rotation policy.
With respect to the rotation policy, it’s come unstuck because the selectors, or whoever is driving this “informed player management” policy have well & truly let practical common sense fly out the window.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:35pm
Beardan said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
To take 9 wickets in a test and then be rested for the highlight test of the summer, the MCG boxing day test, like Mitchell Stark was, was and will always be a disgrace.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:35pm
jameswm said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Sheek
It’s always been player management, but they described it as rotation.
You said “I can understand the need for the rotation policy up to a point”. Yes, some form of rotation, resting certain players has merit. You’re not for example going to play a Peter Siddle in all 7 games of a ODI series just before a test series.
Similarly, if 2 guys are slugging it out for one spot in our ODI team and you have 4 games, give them 2 each.
If you’ve got a guy like Ryan Harris who is a fantastic bowler but can’t play 2 back to back tests, then you play him in tests 1 and 3, rather than just 2.
Remember with Siddle missing Perth, we were down a bowler in Adelaid and he bowled a heap of overs to get us a win.
I’ve got no issue with player management per se. It’s just a question of whether or not it’s being done intelligently. The issue for me is I don’t think our selectors are great at the best of times, and I don’t have much confidence in the physio/conditioning staff. Get a smart bunch of people there, and it can work.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:44pm
Matt F said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
I think you’ve summed it up pretty well there James. The basic system isn’t a bad idea. The problem seems to be more that the people in charge don’t appear to know how to implement it properly
January 21st 2013 @ 1:19pm
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
James/Matt,
This is correct, it’s a good policy if practiced wisely. It’s not being practiced wisely by Australia at the moment.
At the moment, it’s kind of witch doctor stuff, not much practical science behind it all, despite what they say.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:44pm
Matt F said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Yep, the issue should be with the people running the system rather than the system itself.
It doesn’t inspire any confidence at all when they come out one day and say that “we won’t pick anyone who isn’t 100% fit” but then come out the next day and say that Starc has spurs in his ankle, which will definitely require surgery, but we’ll try and get him to play through the next 6-12 months with the injury before we book him in for the operation
January 21st 2013 @ 1:56pm
Justin2 said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Exactly, they are all over the place.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:40pm
clipper said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
One downside would be that it will diminish the role of the all rounder. If you have a good all rounder, your team has a distinct advantage over the opposition, which would be negated with 1 or 2 extra players. It would be very handy for injuries, although it would be hard to police.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:26pm
sheek said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Clipper,
I did give this fact some thought. At the end of the day the genuine allrounder will still have a role to play.