Crowe points out that the Australian match was a setback which hurt NZ in the Semi Final. I wonder what Jacob Oram must be thinking – just a few weeks ago, he was talking about amputing a finger if necessary in order to play the World Cup, and now he sat out because of bruised heel, and if being criticized for it.
Just goes to show that sitting back and taking ones foot off the pedal is never an option in international sport. When the going is good, everything that needs to be done to ensure that it stays that way has to be done, and one of those things is to never compete at less than one hundred percent. New Zealand did that against Australia. The Sri Lankans did so as well – but that was a tactical selection and not just meant to give Murali and Vaas a rest. Murali and Vaas did return against the Irish.
Where does that put rotation? Rotation has been controversial, but it makes a lot of sense to me. The core premise is that any combination chosen from the squad is as competitive as any other and every combination is the first team combination. When Rotation is implemented in this spirit, it must work – as it did for the Australians. Sure, sometimes they lost when McGrath didn’t play, but the point of the exercise was not to rest McGrath, but to throw the new bowler in at the deep end. The attitude with which this is carried out must make a huge difference to the squad. A squad minus the star players must not percieve the safety net that them losing is not so bad because the full Australian side would hammer the opposition anyways.
In some ways, with other sides in transition or with players who are past their prime, this policy is likely to be even more beneficial. It is possibly also the best way to build squad depth. How will this work? It will possibly have to be a directive from the Employer – in India it would have to be approved by the BCCI working committee.
Crowe’s reaction might be percieved as being harsh – but his point about resting players is well made.
Kartikeyadate's Weblog 