PlanetCricket
Bot
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
Article by baggy_blogger -
Player rotation is an interesting topic of debate at the moment.
There?s a few ways you can look at it with the given pros and cons behind it.
On the surface I?d have to say I am in favour of it but let me go a little further into detail.
Pat Howard is the performance manager for the team. He has notable experience with the Wallabies as a player and will perfectly understand the management of hyper Rugby Union athletes having been General Manager of the High-performance Unit for the ARU (Australian Rugby Union).
I trust Howard?s stance on the matter and trust that he will be looking at what is the best for the team moving forward handling player management as a collective tactic rather than individual pampering.
Howard can also play a vital role in strategic execution for the side as well.
Mickey Arthur, recently selected full ?time Coach, has stressed that player rotation will occur and, in conjunction with the Argus Review, the player?s must respect the concept and the matter must be handled maturely and subjectively.
It puts immense pressure on a Captain and Coach when new players get selected on the basis on desperation to fill the void for a player out injured.
Arthur is already in a tough place being new to operating within the Australian cricket landscape and having to also gel with his team.
A major positive with Arthur is he has little emotional history with the players in terms of loyalties having not played as an Australian State cricketer, worked in State coaching and has been in operation with an opposition side.
There won?t be any favouritism given to support an individual selection if a player repeatedly shows inconsistency and doesn?t deliver, despite that player?s legacy.
I can?t see politics playing a role with his time on the job and a support staff with immense knowledge of the game, the Australian cricket landscape and the players which will only enhance things for Arthur.
If a player needs to sit out, I can?t see him having sleepless nights about it if it is the right thing for the match, the team or the player.
Then there?s Michael Clarke who has been on the playing field with a dramatic peak in fixtures. He immediately made a point of stating that Patty Cummins needs to be handled with care if he is to be a player on longevity at the elite level. He (Cummins) is already injured and clearly demonstrates he must either be worked over at Test level or given more time in the shorter forms of the game.
A balance has to be found!
I also trust Michael will have the insight into his team and the courage to know when a player is reaching burnout.
A player being burnt out with fatigue, over played to the point of waning concentration or even given continual ego boosts of their invaluable role for the side can be handled by positive implementation and execution from a designated group of individuals to assess how the player rotation is to be managed.
This shouldn?t be confused or misused within an administrative position as a safety net for player?s showing inconsistency and continually struggling within their respective roles to be given endless life lines.
I think there has been some confusion on this matter with regards to Michael Hussey?s statements that he views player rotation as a worry. I think he was rather ranting on about inform players scoring runs being left out of a team just to protect their bodies and workload, even if there is no apparent threat.
A batsman shouldn?t be left out if he is scoring runs and has found rhythm purely because the game can turn around so quickly that a bloke in form today could be heading back to Sheffield cricket in two weeks? time.
I feel that Michael Hussey?s views recently stated not agreeing with the rotation on a batting frontier could be seen as a defence mechanism for player?s who have been inconsistent. This seems to be where the confusion came in on the various forums and articles I have read. It would seem Hussey made a slightly confusing statement mixing player rotation for workload management with the concept of a player being on the verge of getting dropped for not scoring consistently.
Hussey made a point in a source where he stated;
?I think from a batting point of view, if you’re playing well you want to keep batting, and if things aren’t quite going right, you want to keep playing so you can get that big score.
“So I think it’d be more so with the bowling stocks, because there’s so much cricket and back-to-back games, it is tough to keep backing up. Maybe more [rotation] with the bowlers, but I think from a batting point of view, once you get in there you want to keep the roll going.?
The first part of Hussey?s statement defends the obvious being that a player in-form and scoring runs should not be rested if he feels he?s handling things well. There is, in many respects, less pressure on a batsman?s body than that of a bowler?s.
So yes, Hussey is spot on when he says ?if you’re playing well you want to keep batting?
The supporters should definitely agree on this!
What I don?t agree on is Hussey?s statement that if things aren?t going well you want to keep players going until they get that big score.
This is what leads to inconsistency and is a clash with the concept of player rotation.
This persistence is what leads to an inability to confidently call on players to replace key players either dropped or injured after an extended run.
It is a waiting game which can be detrimental to progress. Even as supporters a degree of trust and belief must be shown to each and every player within a side but it?s not an old boys club. It is competitive sport and if a guy is not finding rhythm or consistency which is costing the side and retaining him is at the expense of a player ready for action or deemed worthy by the selectors, then he shouldn?t be played. It is surely as simple as that.
It would be a cop out if a player is under-performing but retained for two or three series waiting for them to come right having this policy in place to allow some players just a bit of breathing space. With some player?s I can understand this to a degree as it?s the nature of sport but there has to be a line, especially where inconsistency is concerned.
It?s important that player rotation is used for its ultimate goal to manage a player?s workload and then reel in recognised player?s with a stable and consistent skill set offering to be given a fair chance.
Player rotation must be seen as a positive. It will allow the selectors a chance to get the contingency players in the mix at the elite level and have players understand exactly where they are in terms of the team?s progression.
It will test the depth of the players for the NSP (National Selection Panel) to call upon and allow the Coach and Captain the knowledge to work with 20 to even 25 players worthy of contributing with their skill sets in whichever format they are to be needed.
Read the rest of this article here where you can also post your comments.
More...
Player rotation is an interesting topic of debate at the moment.
There?s a few ways you can look at it with the given pros and cons behind it.
On the surface I?d have to say I am in favour of it but let me go a little further into detail.
Pat Howard is the performance manager for the team. He has notable experience with the Wallabies as a player and will perfectly understand the management of hyper Rugby Union athletes having been General Manager of the High-performance Unit for the ARU (Australian Rugby Union).
I trust Howard?s stance on the matter and trust that he will be looking at what is the best for the team moving forward handling player management as a collective tactic rather than individual pampering.
Howard can also play a vital role in strategic execution for the side as well.
Mickey Arthur, recently selected full ?time Coach, has stressed that player rotation will occur and, in conjunction with the Argus Review, the player?s must respect the concept and the matter must be handled maturely and subjectively.
It puts immense pressure on a Captain and Coach when new players get selected on the basis on desperation to fill the void for a player out injured.
Arthur is already in a tough place being new to operating within the Australian cricket landscape and having to also gel with his team.
A major positive with Arthur is he has little emotional history with the players in terms of loyalties having not played as an Australian State cricketer, worked in State coaching and has been in operation with an opposition side.
There won?t be any favouritism given to support an individual selection if a player repeatedly shows inconsistency and doesn?t deliver, despite that player?s legacy.
I can?t see politics playing a role with his time on the job and a support staff with immense knowledge of the game, the Australian cricket landscape and the players which will only enhance things for Arthur.
If a player needs to sit out, I can?t see him having sleepless nights about it if it is the right thing for the match, the team or the player.
Then there?s Michael Clarke who has been on the playing field with a dramatic peak in fixtures. He immediately made a point of stating that Patty Cummins needs to be handled with care if he is to be a player on longevity at the elite level. He (Cummins) is already injured and clearly demonstrates he must either be worked over at Test level or given more time in the shorter forms of the game.
A balance has to be found!
I also trust Michael will have the insight into his team and the courage to know when a player is reaching burnout.
A player being burnt out with fatigue, over played to the point of waning concentration or even given continual ego boosts of their invaluable role for the side can be handled by positive implementation and execution from a designated group of individuals to assess how the player rotation is to be managed.
This shouldn?t be confused or misused within an administrative position as a safety net for player?s showing inconsistency and continually struggling within their respective roles to be given endless life lines.
I think there has been some confusion on this matter with regards to Michael Hussey?s statements that he views player rotation as a worry. I think he was rather ranting on about inform players scoring runs being left out of a team just to protect their bodies and workload, even if there is no apparent threat.
A batsman shouldn?t be left out if he is scoring runs and has found rhythm purely because the game can turn around so quickly that a bloke in form today could be heading back to Sheffield cricket in two weeks? time.
I feel that Michael Hussey?s views recently stated not agreeing with the rotation on a batting frontier could be seen as a defence mechanism for player?s who have been inconsistent. This seems to be where the confusion came in on the various forums and articles I have read. It would seem Hussey made a slightly confusing statement mixing player rotation for workload management with the concept of a player being on the verge of getting dropped for not scoring consistently.
Hussey made a point in a source where he stated;
?I think from a batting point of view, if you’re playing well you want to keep batting, and if things aren’t quite going right, you want to keep playing so you can get that big score.
“So I think it’d be more so with the bowling stocks, because there’s so much cricket and back-to-back games, it is tough to keep backing up. Maybe more [rotation] with the bowlers, but I think from a batting point of view, once you get in there you want to keep the roll going.?
The first part of Hussey?s statement defends the obvious being that a player in-form and scoring runs should not be rested if he feels he?s handling things well. There is, in many respects, less pressure on a batsman?s body than that of a bowler?s.
So yes, Hussey is spot on when he says ?if you’re playing well you want to keep batting?
The supporters should definitely agree on this!
What I don?t agree on is Hussey?s statement that if things aren?t going well you want to keep players going until they get that big score.
This is what leads to inconsistency and is a clash with the concept of player rotation.
This persistence is what leads to an inability to confidently call on players to replace key players either dropped or injured after an extended run.
It is a waiting game which can be detrimental to progress. Even as supporters a degree of trust and belief must be shown to each and every player within a side but it?s not an old boys club. It is competitive sport and if a guy is not finding rhythm or consistency which is costing the side and retaining him is at the expense of a player ready for action or deemed worthy by the selectors, then he shouldn?t be played. It is surely as simple as that.
It would be a cop out if a player is under-performing but retained for two or three series waiting for them to come right having this policy in place to allow some players just a bit of breathing space. With some player?s I can understand this to a degree as it?s the nature of sport but there has to be a line, especially where inconsistency is concerned.
It?s important that player rotation is used for its ultimate goal to manage a player?s workload and then reel in recognised player?s with a stable and consistent skill set offering to be given a fair chance.
Player rotation must be seen as a positive. It will allow the selectors a chance to get the contingency players in the mix at the elite level and have players understand exactly where they are in terms of the team?s progression.
It will test the depth of the players for the NSP (National Selection Panel) to call upon and allow the Coach and Captain the knowledge to work with 20 to even 25 players worthy of contributing with their skill sets in whichever format they are to be needed.
Read the rest of this article here where you can also post your comments.
More...
