Resting Peter Siddle for the coming Adelaide Test would see common sense in Australia fall to its lowest level yet (even falling below the Doherty-Hauritz-Beer bunfight of last season), as picking the best eleven is replaced by a method of rotation for rotation’s sake.
Far from improving the injury troubles of young bowlers in Australia, a rotation policy would unnecessarily weaken the side and remove continuity, all the while reducing the younger bowlers’ conditioning for the unique rigours of Test cricket.
As far as Siddle goes, he is Australia’s strongest, most physically fit bowler. He’s allegedly the ‘leader of the attack’.
This is a guy who is renowned for his effort and fitness. He runs in hard at 11 am, and he positively charges in at five minutes to six.
He is certainly not a member of the apparently brittle group of young bowlers, jousting for places in the team. Resting him for this match would not only be an utter waste of time, but it would also interrupt his consistent season, and leave Australia with an eleven which is not its best.
Regardless of the current performance of the Indian side, picking a weakened side is not in the spirit or tradition of Australian Test cricket.
Beyond this, the logic behind rotation is fundamentally flawed.
It’s not hard to see why the young bowlers are getting injured. They’re in the gym when they should be bowling. Shane Watson was the first of these, and it ought not surprise anyone that when he started to go a little easy on the dumbbells, his injury trot came to an abrupt end.
The bowlers aren’t in the nets as often as they should be. They are not conditioning their bodies to bowl 20 overs in a day and then back up the next day and do it again, because they never bowl anywhere near 20 overs outside of a first class match situation.
Then all of a sudden, they’re picked for Australia or, god forbid, play in the Sheffield Shield, and suddenly they’re all coming up with stress-related back and foot injuries. It makes sense doesn’t it?
Pat Cummins was selected for Australia after playing a princely three first class games. While his debut indicated that his bowling is ready, the fact his debut has not been added to, suggests his body is not.
Given that prior to his national call-up, he was playing predominantly limited overs cricket. There, he would bowl between four and ten overs and never bowl two days in a row, the selectors should have ensured he was bowling enough in the nets that he was conditioned for Tests.
Alas, rather than being proactive in this way, they instead just picked him, threw him into a Test match and wondered why he developed a long-term injury.
I’m not a doctor or a physiotherapist, but it seems fairly obvious to me what’s going on.
We keep hearing the excuse that the injuries are happening because of too much cricket. I believe the opposite is true, that injuries are happening because of not enough of the longer forms of cricket.
Can you imagine training for an Olympic marathon by running four 100m sprints every three days?
I wonder how far you’d get on race day.
Rotation is not the solution, especially when the player being rotated out is not part of the problem. Rather than looking for this sort of quick answer, Australia should be looking at making sure that bowlers have conditioned themselves properly before they’re picked.
If they fail to do that, we will see an Australian side which perpetually struggles for rhythm, and a group of talented fast bowlers wasted because they crumble when they go past their usual Twenty20 allotment.
M_Campbell23
Roar Guru
Also, given that there have never been second innings substitutions or anything of the sort in the history of test cricket, perhaps something has changed. I wrote a little while ago about how a growing obsession with speed might be hurting fast bowling (http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/12/28/speed-obsession-is-hurting-fast-bowling/). Perhaps chasing the speed gun has something to do with the greater attrition rate. Personally I think speed guns should be completely removed from the analysis of fast bowling.
M_Campbell23
Roar Guru
My point is that surely the optimum workload is the one which matches or is at least similar to what you'll face in a game. I don't know of many tests where the bowlers get 3-4 days rest between heavy workloads, so if they're training for that they're barking up the wrong tree.
aussie1st
Roar Pro
If the test had gone their full course then I would say Siddle is a definite for resting. However the massive gaps in between games should have surely provided him enough recovery time.
Jason
Guest
Siddle isn't even in the first choice OD team so let him play the real cricket while he is in form.
Brett McKay
Expert
Siddle's played 19 days of Test cricket since 1 Dec, and has played 8 Tests since the middle of September as well as all the associated travel through Sri Lanka, South Africa, and around Australia. Surely a rest now and/or during the OD series lessens the risk of injury heading to the West Indies?
Disco
Roar Guru
Lyon goes to Ponting for advice. Oh, dear, He who thought Doherty wax better Test option than Hauritz.
Oracle
Guest
Permanently rotate the backstop for one Test
Stevo
Guest
I would be a fan of rotation if it were applied equally throughout the team. But It's no surprise that rotation remains something only the bowlers have to do when nearly all the people making decisions in cricket (captains, coaches, selectors) are or were batsmen.
Russ
Guest
I suspect because unlike in times gone, profitable touring teams (apart from England) recognise they are losing money being in Australia instead of hosting games themselves. Scheduling invariably comes down to money, and almost any sport you look at tends to schedule as many games as physically possible for their assets. Fast bowlers, like baseball pitchers, just can't deal with as hard a schedule as their team-mates. With substitutes you'd probably be able to play back-to-back-to-back 3 test series. Which from most parties' perspective is no bad thing.
Jason
Guest
So rather than rotate players so the viewing public don't get to see the best on offer, why don't CA spread the tests out a bit more like they used to do.
Russ
Guest
Cricket Australia must despair to read these types of articles. You don't have to be a doctor to do basic research into what is known about bowling workloads and their effect on injury, and read the abstracts. CA has been funding university research on this for over a decade, as have other cricket boards. And what they've found is quite consistent: - There is an optimum range of bowling workload to prevent injury of between 20 and 30 overs per week - There is an optimum number of days between bowling sessions of between 3 and 4 days. - Muscles are most susceptible to injury in the 7 days after heavy workload. - The risk of injury is twice as high in the second innings of games - Bowling more than 25 overs in the second innings of a game massively increases the risk of injury for up to a month afterwards. The idea that bowlers just aren't match fit is not supported by any of the available studies. It might have been the case for Watson, an all-rounder with an uneven workload - but it isn't for the fast bowlers proper. That said, the research also doesn't lend much support to rotation as a solution. If bowling in the second innings is the problem, and a 7 day gap is sufficient to recover with, then rotation will only reduce conditioning. What the research suggests is the need for second innings substitutions, particularly for vulnerable players (players with recent high loads, or recovering from injury). But since noone seems much interested in the idea, we'll probably just have to accept that fast bowlers will get injured a lot and have short careers.
Al
Guest
To me it's not the bowlers that need rotation at the moment.... Maybe the only rotation should be the number 3 spot, and the keepers position... Rotate for bad form... Nothing else.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I agree. It makes sense to rest the young bowlers and it makes sense to rest a guy who's got a bit of a niggle but a fully fit "spearhead?" Not from a Test match. When you also consider that Siddle ,and Hilfenhaus for that matter, average just under 40 with the ball in ODI cricket, surely you'd play them in Adelaide and then rest them during the limited overs series? They can use the T20 and ODI series to blood youngsters who have done well in the Ryobi Cup and BBL. I've said it a few times this week, but I'd drop Starc for the Adelaide test but promise him an extended run in the T20 and ODI teams. Certainly his domestic form in both formats warrants this.