PlanetCricket
Bot
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
Article by baggy_blogger -
Rotation policy or specialisation?
Recently there has been some slight disharmony in the Australian cricket community.
Coach and Captain have come out defending the rotation policy, while supporters feel frustration with the feeling that the best team is not being picked.
The recent performances against Sri Lanka have raised the debate that the rotation on the batting front creates inconsistency and uproots stability, while the bowling rotation has merit but the mix is not consistent with the bowlers utilised, perhaps clouded with the constant, somewhat unnecessary push for all-rounders.
In this article I will address the fundamentals of rotation, while also pushing my idea forward that a specialist team is likely a better route to travel than continuous rotation for player preservation with direct shuffling on constant squad change.
Our recently selected Twenty20 squad is a spectacular example of specialisation and these players should be pushed hard over the next 6 months with the chance to then move to ODIs, keeping in mind other Twenty20 players are easy to point out. This is a topic I will touch on.
In August 2011 the Argus Review was gradually released to the public with the recommendations issued to Cricket Australia following the forgettable home Ashes series loss.
In the review were two notable points:
Improving injury management,
Improving national coaching systems.
Therefore the selectors and coaching staff have ensured they adhere to these two recommendations.
There’s just been two problems.
Firstly, the players have never seemed to be at peace with the policy, as Mitchell Starc hit out on Twitter when rested after his Player of the match award and around the time of proposal Michael Hussey stated that he did not agree with the policy regarding batting as it disrupted confidence and stability, but he did go on to state that he understood it’s merit for bowlers given the workload.
The other is that with the rotation used we have seen inconsistency with regards in finding the right players to step in for the relevant player rested. We’ve seen a number of debutants in all forms of the game and in some regards I find this has watered away the value and purpose of receiving a Baggy Green cap, but that’s a whole other debate altogether which I feel strongly about.
These chops and changes leave many supporters in the dark with the intention of player management for a stable team being off balance and also leaves many casual, but as important, supporters clueless as to who is who in the Australian cricket team, which does little to promote pride and invested following for the team. This is not a team comprised of the best men for the job that supporters aim to identify with as they follow the game more and more.
A pillar of Cricket Australia’s focus going forward is:
Put fans first and Produce the best teams, players and officials in the world.
James Sutherland also pointed out the following during the time of the Argus Review:
“There’s an element of truth that comes through in our research that shows there are a whole lot of people in Australia who don’t necessarily relate to the Australian cricket team in the way that many other cricket fans do,” Sutherland said. “That’s largely because of their background, culturally in terms of coming from a different country or alternatively just that they didn’t grow up with cricket as a sport and develop an affinity with the team.
“That’s not the only way a fan can connect with and relate to cricket, there are lots of other ways. It could be in terms of grassroots, club or school cricket, or it could be in terms of entertainment, perhaps engaging with or supporting a BBL team and going along on a Thursday or Friday night to watch a BBL match and have a bit of fun and enjoy the game and follow your team.”
Inconsistent selection policies will only intensify “a whole lot of people in Australia who don’t necessarily relate to the Australian cricket team in the way that many other cricket fans do,” and it likely goes beyond cultural and ethnic standards.
Consistency with Big Bash League selections saw an incredible devotion from fans with their following of players during the campaign. While it is T20 and rotation is almost out of sight, out of mind in such a format, the concept is that over a few weeks in one tournament supporters had a passion towards the players and identified with their team with a consistent side and well clarified replacements.
Trevor Hohns (a former chairman of selectors) recently stated that he felt the rotation was not being properly communicated to supporters of the game and can be seen as creating a diverse issue, as written by Daniel Brettig.
Hohns was asked about the rotation policy and if he’d be executing such a plan and his reply was, “It’s a difficult one to answer, that one. Times are different but possibly not … Way back then, we often rotated or rested players only in one-day cricket and at an appropriate time. I think unfortunately at the moment they are having trouble getting their message across over exactly what they are trying to do.”
The basic concept of rotation is that a player has a certain limit as to how much cricket he can play.
Age, cricketing role and frequency of format played come into consideration. From this the sports scientists can figure out when a player is sliding into a high risk zone for injury, so rotation is therefore executed to try prevent injury from occurring. This also creates opportunity for another player, a “shadow player” if you will, to step in for that player until the next rotation is required.
Read the rest of this article here.
This article is from The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click here.
More...
Rotation policy or specialisation?
Recently there has been some slight disharmony in the Australian cricket community.
Coach and Captain have come out defending the rotation policy, while supporters feel frustration with the feeling that the best team is not being picked.
The recent performances against Sri Lanka have raised the debate that the rotation on the batting front creates inconsistency and uproots stability, while the bowling rotation has merit but the mix is not consistent with the bowlers utilised, perhaps clouded with the constant, somewhat unnecessary push for all-rounders.
In this article I will address the fundamentals of rotation, while also pushing my idea forward that a specialist team is likely a better route to travel than continuous rotation for player preservation with direct shuffling on constant squad change.
Our recently selected Twenty20 squad is a spectacular example of specialisation and these players should be pushed hard over the next 6 months with the chance to then move to ODIs, keeping in mind other Twenty20 players are easy to point out. This is a topic I will touch on.
In August 2011 the Argus Review was gradually released to the public with the recommendations issued to Cricket Australia following the forgettable home Ashes series loss.
In the review were two notable points:
Improving injury management,
Improving national coaching systems.
Therefore the selectors and coaching staff have ensured they adhere to these two recommendations.
There’s just been two problems.
Firstly, the players have never seemed to be at peace with the policy, as Mitchell Starc hit out on Twitter when rested after his Player of the match award and around the time of proposal Michael Hussey stated that he did not agree with the policy regarding batting as it disrupted confidence and stability, but he did go on to state that he understood it’s merit for bowlers given the workload.
The other is that with the rotation used we have seen inconsistency with regards in finding the right players to step in for the relevant player rested. We’ve seen a number of debutants in all forms of the game and in some regards I find this has watered away the value and purpose of receiving a Baggy Green cap, but that’s a whole other debate altogether which I feel strongly about.
These chops and changes leave many supporters in the dark with the intention of player management for a stable team being off balance and also leaves many casual, but as important, supporters clueless as to who is who in the Australian cricket team, which does little to promote pride and invested following for the team. This is not a team comprised of the best men for the job that supporters aim to identify with as they follow the game more and more.
A pillar of Cricket Australia’s focus going forward is:
Put fans first and Produce the best teams, players and officials in the world.
James Sutherland also pointed out the following during the time of the Argus Review:
“There’s an element of truth that comes through in our research that shows there are a whole lot of people in Australia who don’t necessarily relate to the Australian cricket team in the way that many other cricket fans do,” Sutherland said. “That’s largely because of their background, culturally in terms of coming from a different country or alternatively just that they didn’t grow up with cricket as a sport and develop an affinity with the team.
“That’s not the only way a fan can connect with and relate to cricket, there are lots of other ways. It could be in terms of grassroots, club or school cricket, or it could be in terms of entertainment, perhaps engaging with or supporting a BBL team and going along on a Thursday or Friday night to watch a BBL match and have a bit of fun and enjoy the game and follow your team.”
Inconsistent selection policies will only intensify “a whole lot of people in Australia who don’t necessarily relate to the Australian cricket team in the way that many other cricket fans do,” and it likely goes beyond cultural and ethnic standards.
Consistency with Big Bash League selections saw an incredible devotion from fans with their following of players during the campaign. While it is T20 and rotation is almost out of sight, out of mind in such a format, the concept is that over a few weeks in one tournament supporters had a passion towards the players and identified with their team with a consistent side and well clarified replacements.
Trevor Hohns (a former chairman of selectors) recently stated that he felt the rotation was not being properly communicated to supporters of the game and can be seen as creating a diverse issue, as written by Daniel Brettig.
Hohns was asked about the rotation policy and if he’d be executing such a plan and his reply was, “It’s a difficult one to answer, that one. Times are different but possibly not … Way back then, we often rotated or rested players only in one-day cricket and at an appropriate time. I think unfortunately at the moment they are having trouble getting their message across over exactly what they are trying to do.”
The basic concept of rotation is that a player has a certain limit as to how much cricket he can play.
Age, cricketing role and frequency of format played come into consideration. From this the sports scientists can figure out when a player is sliding into a high risk zone for injury, so rotation is therefore executed to try prevent injury from occurring. This also creates opportunity for another player, a “shadow player” if you will, to step in for that player until the next rotation is required.
Read the rest of this article here.
This article is from The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click here.
More...
