The sports medicine experts, who know a lot about their subject but don’t understand much about what they know, successfully encouraged great teams like the All Blacks and the baggy green caps to adopt a rotation policy.
The theory behind the policy is the bodies of super athletes are best protected by them training more than they played.
In the case of the All Blacks, the result of the policy was their worst performance ever at the Rugby World Cup, in 2007.
For the baggy green caps, the result was the mass collapse into continual injuries of one of the greatest potential line-up of fast bowlers Australia might have produced.
Moreover, the rotation policy resulted even in the batsmen losing confidence in their abilities to play at the highest levels, with the result of Australia sliding down the rankings of Test nations, and losing the Ashes.
It has been reported that batsmen in the Ashes squad were scared to go into the nets because the possibility of subsequent criticism would undermine their confidence and, more importantly, result in losing their place in the side.
I am on the side of those old-timers – like Ian Chappell and before him, the great Bill O’Reilly – that say modern coaches have too much influence on their players.
The notion here is that cricket, batting and bowling, is a relatively simple business that can be made unmanageably complicated when too much instruction and theory is loaded into the heads of the players.
What is needed in all sports from coaches is clarity about means and methods. With clarity, which will differ from player to player and position and position, comes an understanding of the essentials involved with the task.
Bill O’Reilly also believed too much coaching (he would call it bad coaching) can take away from the natural genius some players have been endowed with.
He himself was told my Arthur Mailey to change his unusual grip on the ball and his bouncy, kangaroo-hopping long run-up. Luckily he rejected this advice.
It is worthwhile to consider, too, the greatest batsman of all time, Don Bradman, never received formal batting coaching.
His method, with his circular back-lift, is at odds with the text book approach that has generally been taught from the earliest days of cricket.
Warwick Franks, a cricket scholar, has pointed out recently that O’Reilly bowled 97.4 eight ball overs, 38 maidens, 185 runs and five wickets at the first Ashes Test at the Gabba in February 1933.
A week later, The Tiger bowled another 60 overs!
“Meanwhile,” noted Franks, “lavender water and cold compresses are pressed to the fevered brows of our contemporary cosseted darlings, plus the odd skinfold test.”
Quite.
The current selectors are to be congratulated then for keeping together the team that has won the first three Tests so splendidly in the 2013/2014 Ashes series. If it ain’t broke, as Shane Warne – the great captain, along with Keith Miller, Australia never had – points out.
There has been much discussion in cricket circles at the number of the current baggy green caps who are over the age of 30. With the extreme monetary rewards now available for successful cricket players these days, I’d say 30, in cricket terms, is the new 26.
Players can make a career out of cricket that is so financially rewarding they really don’t have to worry, like even the greats of the past and the even recent past, about establishing a real career when their careers are finished.
Also remember that Jack Hobbs scored a hundred first class centuries after his 40th birthday.
Of the present squad I’d say only Chris Rogers is perhaps vulnerable in the short term, and by that I mean during the next series against South Africa, if he falls out of form. But if he keeps on scoring runs, there is no reason for him to be dropped.
His nudging, pushing, behind-the-wicket game provides a contrast to the forthright, front-of-the-wicket smashing game.
George Bailey, in my view, has done enough to stay in the side for the next series, at least. He provides the hitting number six slot that has served Australia so well over the years.
I’m an ancient and Bailey reminds me of Les Flavell, who came into the Australian XI at an older age and provided, like Bailey, the toughness to take the fight back to the opposition when things aren’t going well for the team.
Both Flavell and Bailey get on with the game, and that is the Australian way. Bailey’s demolition of James Anderson at Perth with 28 off a single over to allow for an early declaration was the most emphatic statement of the intent to get on with the game by attacking rather than defending, which is the usual English way.
The really major decision with the team that needs to be made sooner or later (sooner in my view) is promoting Steven Smith to the vice-captaincy.
Ian Chappell suggests Smith or David Warner are likely future Australian captains.
I would rule out Warner on a number of grounds we needn’t go into right now, except to say Warner is a one-off who is best used by the team in just getting on with his individualistic game. He plays best as a free spirit. Darren Lehman has unleashed him and the good results are obvious from the statistics.
I was talking recently to a student of cricket with an ear to the inside thinking and he told me the expectation is Smith’s batting may well decline slightly over the years and his bowling will come on a lot more, rather like Richie Benaud in his career.
Like Benaud, too, Smith has an unflustered authority about his captaincy. He was calm and calculating for the Sixers, changing his bowlers carefully and thoughfully, while Warner launched a massive attack for his Thunder’s team at the SCG on Saturday night.
These are good days for Australian cricket. The hope is, and I expect it to be met, the momentum to crush England will continue at Melbourne’s MCG starting on Boxing Day.
Hossey
Roar Guru
Good piece Spiro. Those whose jobs require a lot of physical exertion didn't have a four day rest after their first Monday morning, they just pushed on until their body adapted to the work and they could do it for 40 hours every week. It's no surprise injuries spiked when we weren't allowing our bowlers the opportunity to adapt to the stresses of FC cricket.
IndianCricketFan
Guest
i love watching sports on boxing day...from the ashes at MCG with crowds in excess of 90k to the 2nd test match of the sadly shortened but the superb test series between India and South Africa! also my beloved Manchester United against Hull and two rivals of United in Manchester City vs Liverpool it is an exciting lineup of sports which also includes new zealand vs west indies!
Brendon the 1st
Guest
I wonder how Ryan Harris would feel being left out of the biggest cricketing event of the year? Perhaps we should ask him, 90,000 people or a rest Rhino, what say you mate?
Gav
Guest
This doesn't quite sit right with me. One dayers and T20 agreed - rotation among the top say 15 players is a good thing With tests I differ slightly. Harris is a classic case for mine where one players welfare should be taken into account for the long term benefit of the side. Harris injury is degenerative, he only has a finite no of games left in him. We won't necessarily extend that no of games by resting him, but he will be around for longer in terms of time if we take theses opportunities, Given that the Ashes have been won, why wouldn't you rest him in Melb, which would give him a good break before Syd, bring him back in for Sydney to keep him and the team the groove. He would then have 4 weeks before SA. In the mean time we get to blood a young guy like Coultier Nile and start sewing the seeds of our future bowling attack.
Buk
Guest
Yeah, holding my breath until after the SA series.
Griffo
Guest
Good article. I agree that the rotation policy ought not to have any place in Test Cricket. The way I see it every series and every match is important and worth fielding your best team. There's also a whole host of knowledge going back along way now that suggests Test Cricketers need to keep playing to stay in form. This seems to be true of batsmen, bowlers and wicketkeepers. I would however suggest that rotation policy has a highly valid place in the shorter forms of the game. Reading Steve Waugh's tour diary of 2001 he speaks about how there had been a rotation policy for ODIs in place for a little while and that he thought it was a necessary thing to give players enough rest and increase depth in the squad. ODIs have a clear pinnacle and that is the world cup, therefore if the team's immediate strength can be sacrificed for the benefit of the world cup campaign. I think that 2 successive world cup campaigns without loss is the evidence that this policy worked. In short : Rotation Policy in T20 and ODIs = Good; Rotation Policy in Tests = Bad.
Bayman
Guest
Spiro, I once saw Les hit the first ball of a Sheffield Shield match for six. I guess he was a great believer in the concept of starting how you mean to continue. He'd have loved T20 cricket. A licence to do what he did naturally.
Chop
Guest
I agree, especially the batting. The top 6 looks anything but convincing to me even after the pasting they've given the poms. I think Warner, Clarke and Smith are the only permanents in the batting lineup at this stage.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Quite right. Sheek. As usual. Homer nodded once again, I must concede. Les Favell, a batsman I once saw score four fours off the first four balls he faced in a Test at Wellington. The umpires, who had turned down an appeal against the light, then gave it on the grounds that the fieldsmen were in danger of getting injured.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Assuming no injuries, I can't see any changes being made to the team. But my fear is that this Australian team is being made to appear much better than it actually is by an astonishingly abysmal England team. South Africa (I assume) will be a much harder task to deal with. If the Australians can perform well against SA, then that will be very encouraging. Until then my enthusiasm will be tempered.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Bayman, Just on the overall theme, I think the difference between wisdom & knowledge, is how to use what you've learnt to maximum effect. or something like that. Knowledge is learning things, wisdom is how to best apply it. And yeah, I'm pretty sure Spiro meant Les Favell. Heck, it happens to the best of us! ;-)
sheek
Roar Guru
No problems Buk, We presented the same view from different angles - all good.
Bayman
Guest
You may have been thinking of Jack Flavell, the former and now late England fast bowler, but I suspect you meant Les Favell as the Australian batsman of whom George Bailey resembles. While the former South Australian skipper's name is simply littered with the letter 'L' he did not have one after the 'F'. The essence of the article, however, is one with which I could not agree more and your opening line perfectly explains the problem. I wish I'd written that.
Buk
Guest
Sorry to repeat much the same ideas Sheek, your post was not through on my computer when I first began
Buk
Guest
Enlightening observations Spiro, especially to learn the batsmen's minds being undermined through rotation, and scared to go to the nets. Slightly alarming too, in that the baggy greens seemed to "pioneer" the mind game tactics ("accidentally" leaving copies of their team plans to target opposition batsmen's weaknesses). Possibly even pioneered sledging at test level ? as a means to test the mental fortitude of opponents. The whole Australian ethos used to be centred around being mentally tough, as well as technically able. Now all the psychologists and theorists come out with their ideas, and they are adopted because they are university-educated or have some letters after their name, then after a while people realise that some of the "old guards" theories (eg pick the best team available, take pride in the traditions and fighting spirit of the team you are representing) based on practical sporting experience instead of a psychology degree, actually works better. I wonder if in the future the psych experts will advocate rotation as a means of testing/developing mental toughness through being dropped regularly.
sheek
Roar Guru
Good morning Spiro, Unfortunately, I'm going to run out one or two cliches here. Firstly, human nature being what it is, there's always someone every other week who wants to re-invent the wheel. This is usually because a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, & people think as soon as they acquire some knowledge, or a piece of paper confirming same, or a position of power/influence, they're suddenly all-knowing. A lot has been written about the rubbish rotation policy, by more practically learned folk than me. Hopefully this nonsense has been put out to pasture, at least until the next "genius" comes along...