Mickey Arthur plans to revive Australia’s fortunes by introducing a rotation policy. Err, good luck with that mate.
The conspiracy theorists amongst us thought ‘hmmmm’ when Mickey Arthur was appointed as Australia coach. During his tenure with the Cricket Boks he liked the Australians about as much as Tony Greig likes Bill Lawry’s pigeons – therefore, it’s more than a little weird that he’s now the Baggy Greens’ head honcho.
Of course, suggestions that Arthur is some kind of Trojan horse are as absurd as Paul Adam’s bowling action. However, his announcement yesterday that he wants Australia to rotate their senior players has definitely raised the odd eyebrow. He can’t be serious, can he? Perhaps he is a secret agent working to destroy Australian cricket from the inside after all.
Mike Hussey has already voiced his concerns about rotation. Being a thoroughly sensible chap, Hussey realises that rotating players can upset a cricketer’s rhythm, form and confidence. Few countries have succeeded with the policy.
Let’s look at England for example. The team struggled to be consistent for years. One summer we went through four captains and about five hundred different players. The result? We were rubbish.
Things only started to improve when David Graveney adopted the ‘consistency of selection’ mantra. England’s performances improved dramatically within a short period of time. Players knew where they stood, they were able to prepare mentally for upcoming challenges, and they didn’t have to worry too much about their place in the side. New players were generally given a fair crack of the whip, and senior guys knew they’d retain their place if they kept delivering the goods. In the case of Paul Collingwood, they even retained their place if they didn’t.
England’s strategy all added up to a dressing room that was united. What’s more, the players were comfortable in their own skins – and when players are settled, they usually perform at their best.
Despite calls for England to change the balance of their side in recent series, the team management always sticks to its guns. We always play six batsmen, a wicket keeper, and four bowlers – and the names of those players are always the same (unless a change is made due to injuries). The results speak for themselves.
Occasionally, England give a player a series off to rest and recuperate, but this is different from rotation. We don’t tinker with the team on a match by match basis, depending on the weather or which the side of bed the captain gets out of. Nor did any of the great teams of yesteryear: did the Windies replace Ambrose with Kenny Benjamin for one off matches, or Australia give Nathan Bracken a game at Glenn McGrath’s expense? Definitely not. It would be perceived as madness – which, of course, it is.
England’s success in recent years has been based on selecting exactly the same side (if possible) in all circumstances. Why would Mickey Arthur want to do exactly the opposite? Perhaps he’s looking for a subtle way to get rid of Ponting, Hussey and Co; but even so, isn’t a clean break better than an elongated and messy separation?
Our message to Mickey Arthur is therefore this: stick to your guns mate. Impose your rotation policy. An unhappy and somewhat unsettled Australian dressing room is an England fan’s dream. Besides, I’m sure you know best; South Africans always do (ahem).
James Morgan
Rotation is probably just a fancy word for ‘rest’ and ‘recuperation’ and no-one knows how this is going to work yet. Anything that stops players who are not at all in form from sitting in the team for series on end like like toads under a rock is fine by me.