I'm going to say it. It might not be popular, but I'm going to say it anyway. I like the way Mickey Arthur and Cricket Australia are building a pool of fast bowlers. Despite all the negativity I've read on sports articles, despite all the opposition from former players on the radio, TV and web forums, I LIKE the rotation policy. I've heard commentators (most of them former players) say that they agree with building a strong squad and exposing young players to international cricket, yet at the same time they disagree with the rotation policy. How can you build a large squad without rotating players? Their answers appear to be to wait until one of three things happened. Either there was a consistent drop in form by a player, an injury or a retirement. Unless you've got a poorly performing, injury prone and ageing attack, I don't see how this approach allows regular opportunities for new talent. To be fair Australian Cricket seems to be experiencing a spate of injuries to fast bowlers so this approach has some warrant, even if it is highly negative. To just continue to bowl bowlers until they can't bowl anymore, what a caring lot. Put the best XI available on the pitch is the catch cry. Sound theory but my best XI might not be your best XI, who might not be the selector's best XI, so the discontent continues.
Personally I see no problem with having depth in the national side. I don't see what is wrong with testing players at international level and seeing how they perform before there is an injury or retirement. When Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and co. retired, Cricket Australia seemed to cop a whole lot of shit because they hadn't developed the next generation bowling attack. They had relied too heavily on Warne and McGrath and it was all CA's fault that Australia had no immediate replacements ready, waiting in the wings. Now they're getting sprayed because they are developing too many players. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Lastly, I've heard some of these same commentators lamenting the fact that international cricketers don't play enough shield cricket. If Australia has 10(or more) fast bowlers, who have all proven themselves at Test level, vying for 3 spots in the Test team, where do the other unused bowlers go? I assume that one will stay in the squad as 12th man but the the other half dozen or so will go back to shield cricket. They will take their international experience, and hopefully intensity, back to their state sides. Ideally developing talent has a knock-on effect by playing state cricketers against Test players more regularly.
I'm no expert. Not a former international, not a sports scientist, just a bloke standing outside looking in. I'm also not suggesting it's perfect, and I'm not saying I agree with every decision the selectors make. I don't think any decision the selectors make is going to please everybody. I like to think that I'm not alone in saying that if I stopped watching cricket because I didn't agree 100% with the selectors, I probably wouldn't have watched a match in at least the last five years. Call it rotation, call it player management or call it whatever you like, I do like the idea of depth, not relying on the same two blokes to get the job done every time.
End rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment