Rotation policy. Informed Player Management. The idea of the first causes many to rise up in furious anger. The mention of the second by anyone associated with Cricket Australia makes all of us die a little inside.
Are they one and the same? Does the first even exist? Should the second?
Behind these new age expressions and questions lingers the suspicion that the oft-mentioned but rarely seen sports scientists, apparently infused with the wisdom of a thousand Dumbledores and owners of Harry Potter’s invisible cloak, are selecting Australian cricket teams, or at the very least dictating who should be available, for how long, and how much ‘loading’ their fragile bodies can take.
Apart from anything else, there’s no evidence to confirm these people, with seemingly enough power in sporting organisations to give God an inferiority complex, know what they’re doing.
James Pattinson injured himself in three separate Tests in 2012, forcing him to miss eight matches. Ben Hilfenhaus was ‘player managed’ out of the Perth test this summer, only to injure himself in Hobart eleven days later.
John Hastings played one Test and missed a month of cricket.
As an aside, Essendon is one of the richest clubs in the AFL, and we imagine they spent millions of dollars on their sports science department in 2012. First they endured one of the most soft-tissue injury ravaged seasons we’ve ever seen in 2012, and now…well…let’s just say if you don’t love the Bombers you hate them, so all we can do is watch on and laugh.
But back to the cricket – what is fact and what is fiction? I certainly don’t know, but for every connected cricket insider or ex-player that swears one thing to be true, you’ll find a CA representative to dismiss such an idea with nothing short of contempt.
Of course, it’s hard to get to the bottom of any of this now that chairman of selectors John Inverarity is on public record admitting that lying to the public about why a cricketer might miss a match is preferable to telling the truth.
So, where do we go from here?
My take is quite simple: The rotation policy is nothing short of an absolute disgrace. It is also completely essential if implemented correctly.
Allow me to expand on this apparent contradiction.
With Test matches being the pinnacle of cricket (with the exception of the BBL, IPL and Champions’ League of course) the Australian Test team should always be beyond compromise, and not subject to any form of manipulation that doesn’t involve selecting the best team to win a match at the given time.
The thing is, the Test side has always had a form of rotation policy. If a batsman was under-performing and there was a better option available, he was dropped. If a bowler was injured and unable to take part, he wasn’t selected.
Does it need to be any simpler than this? Not in the opinion of this humble observer, if we’re to avoid repeats of the farce that occurred in Sydney against Sri Lanka.
As we all now know, Mitchell Starc was rotated out of the MCG Boxing Day test while being promised reinstatement for Sydney (and don’t even get me started on a player being promised a Test cap ahead of time).
The problem was that the fast bowling brigade in Melbourne were all, effectively, ‘un-rotatable’.
Jackson Bird was arguably the most impressive of the three and, as a debutant that struck all who saw him as a perfect fit for Test matches on English soil, he needed more exposure at the highest level.
Mitchell Johnson got the figures, made the runs, and was hostile enough to injure as many as he got out on his way to the Man-of-the-Match award. Peter Siddle, sparingly used in Melbourne, had taken 9/104 in his previous test, and in any case was seen as the mythical ‘leader of the attack’.
Nathan Lyon was the spinner all summer, and none were as safe as he heading into Sydney.
So who was dropped to accommodate Starc?
None of them of course. With CA now standing for ‘Compromise Australia’, the selectors decided that hard decisions weren’t required. Rather than give Glenn Maxwell exposure at Test level to see if he could cut the mustard in India, or to bring a clearly identified future batsman like Usman Khawaja back into the fold, they would go in with five bowlers.
The game was won, completing a series whitewash, and no doubt at CA headquarters pats on the back were being thrown around like confetti. But the ends didn’t justify the means and a valuable opportunity to glimpse the future was thrown away because the selectors had painted themselves into a corner of weakness.
So, after all of this, when is rotation ‘completely essential’ as I had written earlier?
Any series of one-day and T20 internationals would be the answer, although I’d call it rest rather than rotation.
There isn’t a cricket fan with a mouth who hasn’t decried the amount of meaningless ODIs that get played throughout the cricketing calendar. The same people were up in arms about David Warner, Michael Clarke and Matthew Wade being rested for the first two matches against Sri Lanka.
So they should have been rested, and frankly it wasn’t for long enough.
Resting established Test match personnel from limited overs cricket after a long and exhausting series is where the rotation policy can come into its own. Squeeze every ounce of effort, skill and mental application out of these guys in the Test arena, and give them a break when it’s over.
I’ve long been a fan of potential Test players getting exposure to international cricket though ODIs, with Mark Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke, among many others, all examples of this thinking.
Resting senior hands gives the ODI side a freshen-up, both internally and to the cricket public. For many fans, it’s the first time they’ll see a player who they’ve heard is tearing it up at Shield level.
Watching a player bowl or bat during a 50 over match can give one an insight into whether his technique, concentration and skill are transferable to the Test arena.
Based purely on Glenn Maxwell’s first class averages, I was thinking he would be well worth taking a punt on.
Having seen him with bat and ball in hand for the first time during recent ODIs, I’ve now got huge reservations. Not as huge as Maxwell’s bank balance I must say, but big enough all the same.
As for T20, I’m of the opinion that no Test player should be considered for selection in the format. If the workloads are so strenuous, as we are constantly told, and Test cricket is the most important, as we are constantly lied to about, then there can be no issues with such a stance.
As for those thinking that what the public or broadcasters want should have any impact on selection (ie – Warner to play all ODIs and T20), if that were the case, Dean Jones would still be named in every Australian match played at the MCG.
The sanctity of Test cricket must remain absolute, and selection should be treated accordingly each time an Australian Test XI steps onto the field of play. By all means, rest, rotate, have a look at other players in the shorter forms, but let natural selection take its course in tests.
And if anyone can nail down a sports scientist, rotate them out of the sporting infrastructure for me.
lou
Guest
Glad someone else realises that other teams rotate players. Some of the stuff written here is just junk.
lou
Guest
Russ, I applaud your effort here. But I can't see it taking you far on the Roar!
Jake
Guest
Oh so the same as every other day Brendan...
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Selections have always been a topic of discussion, but I can't remember selection policies ever being discussed, mainly because we just used to pick our best team. We might have disagreed with who that 'best' were, but we weren't dismayed with policies, resting, player management, and confusing comments.
Brendon
Guest
Maybe if you read more and trolled less you would have seen some good points surrounding injuries in the Australian cricket scene and then some good debate in the posts that followed.
Brendon
Guest
Great article and a great opinion from Bayman, I'll admit I wasn't happy with batsmen being rested for ODI's but having just watched 8 ODI's with little more than 5 day breaks to break them up and then some T20 thrown in then perhaps I was wrong.
Redx
Guest
I agree with most of your comments as well but you have missed out on one major: the captain. When I watch the SA-Aus series I noted that Smith would bowl his pace bowlers mostly for 5 overs, max 6 in a spell where a lot of the Oz bowlers were going past the 7 over spell region. The captain has to protect his bowlers from themselves at times
Rob Barrow
Guest
Agree Luke with the lack of test batsman around, we should have pushed Khawaja in earlier. But its good to see him in the India squad and positive comments by Inevarity that he should get a start in the first test there are reassuring.
jameswm
Guest
Nah I don't agree about playing every test regardless of any niggles. If you have a 5-test series, the aim is to win the series. That might mean resting one of your bowlers for one of the games, to ensure they're at their best for the others. What if test 3 is on a road and there's only 3 days' rest before test 4, on more seamer-friendly conditions? There are times when rests during tests are warranted. I totally agree though about resting them from ODIs. But look at Patto and Siddle, and now Bird - they are pegged as test specialists, as well as our three best quicks right now! Starc is in lethal form with the white ball.
rl
Guest
and in the tests mate - I was at the Gabba test and Clarkie was not well pleased when Pattinson was taking a (weel earned) breather at fine leg and didn't move in quick enough to field a ball. Gave him a look that would have done Allan "Captain Grumpy" Border proud!
sledgeross
Guest
I know Bob Simpson thinks training is too "specialised". In his book "The Reasons Why" he states that teenagers who play sport are not getting the all round workout they used to ie tennis friday nights, cricket saturdays, hockey sundays etc. Kids tehse days are being asked to choose what sport to specialise in as soion as they hit high school. They do fitness, weights, watch what they eat. They are generally not as robust. Doing lat exercises and running on a treadmill wont replicate bwoling 20 overs.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Good point RL, there is no doubt we expect more of our players in the field during limited overs matches. Perhaps another reason why we should have more long and short form specialists, rather than trying to put the same players into all three forms as often as we can.
Cameron Rose
Expert
This is the whole thing isn't it Bayman - we don't know what to believe any more, and we certainly don't know who to trust. True information breeds confidence, silence and lying breeds confusion.
rl
Guest
Ryan Harris is 5ft 10 and fits the prototype you described, but still gets injured. I'd say if they are good enough, they are tall enough! As per my earlier reply to Cameron, I reckon Bedser, Trueman etc did absolutely sweet FA in the field in between overs. How many extra kms does all this constant motion and diving add to their daily workloads? I recall Michael Parkinson telling how Trueman just wouldn't move between overs in county cricket unless he was bowling, continuing to carry on his banter with spectators (basically moving from fine leg to deep long off, without actually moving!)
rl
Guest
I think Boof was a subscriber to the the "efficiency of effort is the secret to longevity" way of thinking!!! Off-topic, but your comments on "Boof" also remind me that Billy McDermott is alleged to be not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, yet he oversaw great results from our bowlers. Something to be said for the KISS approach?
Bayman
Guest
....and Bruce Reid was one of them. It is one of the great mysteries to me, now, that fast bowlers like Bedser, Trueman and Statham could bowl as much as they did as often as they did. The notion that modern bowlers have a greater workload than those guys is laughable. How does anybody measure intensity? Do modern cricket fans, or sports scientists, really think these guys just didn't try? The one thing they had, apart from skill and a tremendous competitive nature, was strong legs, a strong back and an ample backside. Somewhere, somehow, the Windies managed to convince the world that fast bowlers had to be six foot five inches tall - or taller. Strangely, their best fast bowler was Malcolm Marshall who was less than six foot - but we somehow missed it. Most of our recent quicks have been tall. One of our greatest ever, Lindwall, was not. Larwood was 5' 8". Hogg was about 5' 10". Perhaps shorter quicks might better survive the rigours of the workload while still young. I'd almost bet, though, that somewhere in CA there is a fast bowlers blueprint which states - "Must be well over six foot or we won't even look at him. I hope not - but my faith is diminishing. Much better a blueprint that says, "Can he bowl? Good enough!". And if it asks, "Can he swing it?", even better. Perhaps the issue is not height, rotation or player management. Perhaps the real issue is a lack of understanding in what types of bodies make resilient fast bowlers. I hope we are not discounting someone because he is not tall enough.
rl
Guest
Cameron - "mystery men shrouded in secrecy" will be one of my favourite Roar quotes so far this year!
rl
Guest
Selection policy will always be a point of debate - always has, always will be. A couple of years ago we had different captains for tests and ODIs and boy, wasn't that the end of civilisation as we knew it? I'm more concerned with issues like excess volume of cricket diluting public interest, so they aren't really talking about the cricket at all. There has been an awlful lot of people very convincingly disguised as empty seats at the cricket this year. CA is killing the goose.
rl
Guest
Cameron - while I don't deny that bowlers of days gone may well have bowled higher volumes, they also spent their time between overs standing at fine leg doing absolutely bugger-all. Look at Courtney Walsh or Angus Fraser - both players of unbelievable longevity, both complete spectators in the field. Today's quicks need to be dynamic in the field, constantly in motion, hurling themselves around the field like a soccer goalie. I know its in the shorter forms of the game, but look at the starting heart rate of some of the bowlers - they are in the 120-140 BPM range before they start an over. I'd be surprised if Courtney ever topped 50 BPM! (unsurpassed in his "efficiency of effort" in the outfield) I think that must have some impact in how tired our guys get at the end of each day's play and, as Russ suggests, increases their susceptibility to injury (wear and/or tear).
Russ
Guest
Cam, there is nothing mysterious about sports science. CA has online whole conference proceedings that they fund. The papers are published in journals. You can read them online via a library membership to any state library. You can tweet and ask the scientists to send their papers to you. The exact details of how the Australian team is managed are different, but then the Australian team is managed to win, and to play certain matches, not just prevent injuries. No sports scientist is out there recommending back-to-back tests or switching from a T20 competition to a test series on a week's notice. But it still happens. Rotation out of T20 or ODI won't necessarily prevent injuries at all. A good pattern of workload is the same amount week-in, week-out. A bad pattern is 4 overs spells for four weeks then 20 overs or more in a day or two. Recovery after the intense load helps, but studies indicate that recovery time might be as long as a month. That won't happen. Players play more test cricket now, so the list of 200+ wicket bowlers is skewed to the present. But moreover, you can't measure career length and say injuries are increasing or decreasing. Australia can only ever play their best XI. If that is four machines able to handle the workload, then they'll have long careers. If it is a mixture of carefully managed players who can't deal with the workload and machines then the stats will show shorter, more injury-prone careers. Apples and oranges.