A case for rotation

Avinash Subramaniam

Enough and more has been said on why we don't need rotation by people far more articulate than me. Words to the effect on why this is one of the more hare-brained strategies the normally clear thinking Aussies have come up with. Or worse, that this is a subversive tactic being championed by players to play less for more. Except, the Aussies are the best team in world cricket. And I say rotation will only make them a better team. I'm with Steve on this one. (Got to hand it to this man. And at the risk of repeating myself, Sourav, there is much you can learn from this man.)

Consider this. Rarely do teams base their strategy to deal with the Aussies around the need to take out one or two of their stars. (Like the way teams almost always target Sachin first and then wait for the rest of the Indians to come crashing down.) More often than not, you never know who among the Aussies will decide today is his day to stand up and be counted. Focus on McGrath and Bracken will come up trumps. Take out Warne and Harvey will come to the party. Send the Waughs packing and Bevan will take them home. The result, the Aussies won the one-day series despite not being at full strength in any of the matches.

Because for Steve, full strength means any 11 men wearing the baggy green with pride when they stop on the field. Period. He has repeatedly emphasized that anyone who has been bestowed the privilege of donning the baggy green should be as valuable to the team as any other member. In other words, nobody is indispensable. Nobody should take his place in the side for granted. And nobody is more equal than the other. Australia is all that matters. They are the best team in world cricket. And, I repeat, rotation is only going to make them harder to beat.

Furthermore, when teams play as much cricket as is played nowadays, a rotation policy becomes less a player-preservation option than an essential long-term cricketing strategy. Which could perhaps be the reason it is being criticized so much in this day and age. Long term, you see, is rarely the thing on most people minds. Add to that the innate fear and resistance people feel towards anything alien or/and new and, you got yourself a damn good, passionate, case against rotation.

But ... what if one were to hold those guns for a moment and pause to think about the possible lasting benefits that could accrue from this revolutionary and thought-provoking new strategy brought to the table by a captain we all so greatly admire. Give or take a few losses, there's much good that could come out of this move. Trust Steve, he knows what's good for Australian cricket. And often what's good for Australian cricket has done much to improve the lot of world cricket. Case in point, the pioneering emphasis Allan Border placed on fielding and team effort has been contagious and good for world cricket. Steve's contribution will be rotation.

My take: damn the experts who militate against it. Every one of the 'articulates' bashing it so vehemently never played in a time when cricket was as big and as frequently played as now. Never was so much at stake on the cricket field. The pressures, physical and mental, were never this monumental. Bodies and minds were never made to undergo the wringer that life for a top cricketer nowadays is. And it doesn't take an Einstein to tell you how difficult to near impossible it is to identify with what present cricketers feel when you come from a time when cricket was not the money-spinning gargoyle that it has become. I mean, how can have a handful of superstars carrying the burden of a gazillion expectations? They're not Gods. (Oh, but they are.)

Careers have become shorter, life more difficult, and players less resilient. The need of the hour is either we play less cricket, read one-dayers, or cultivate a larger pool of talent to absorb the glut of matches that cricket is. The authorities want more money. We want more cricket. Our teams must win ALL the time. Well, the only way that is going to happen is if we do what is required to ensure our players continue playing cricket of the highest order more times than not. And the only way that is going to happen is if we make it physically and mentally possible for them to do so. And the only way that is going to happen is if we have more players constantly pushing one and other for the honour of playing in the first eleven. And the only way that is going to happen is by unearthing/trying more and more and more fresh talent. The other option is ... umm ... there is no other option.

Can you imagine an India without Sachin Tendulkar? Which is precisely why we need rotation. I rest my case.

Avinash Subramaniam

Mail Avinash Subramanium