Paint it, Black: Dissecting the Rotation Policy

The phrase "Rotation Policy" was most famously drummed about during the ODI campaigns of Steve Waugh's Australian side during their peak, in 2000 and 2001. It essentially comprised of two strategies: slotting individual players into definite roles, and resting the incumbents at various times during a series so as to give the second-choice player a chance. While Gilchrist and Mark Waugh were regular openers, Waugh was often rested to give Matthew Hayden a chance. Such tactics apparently kept the side fresh and the competition healthy, and all along Australia's success was attributed to their flexibility. Central to this policy was a middle order of 'utility' players which included Andrew Symonds, Ian Harvey, Shane Lee and Damien Martyn (yes, he was thought of as a bits and pieces player).

But, in January 2002, when New Zealand and South Africa arrived for the annual VB series, the same rotation policy was shown up for being too, yes, inflexible. As New Zealand fans will fondly remember, Australia lost three and almost a fourth game to the kiwis chasing, and failed to make the finals in their own backyard. The press criticised the complacency that had been bred as a result of Rotation, and the Waugh twins were jettisoned for good. To cite an example of how the policy failed at the time, it dictated that Mark Waugh,Gilchrist and Hayden could not play together in the playing XI because their role as openers was cleary defined; thus Australia would not field their strongest (or, shall we say, in-form) side. The same set of utility players I mentioned were shaken up and forced to reinvent themselves; Harvey as a specialist death or changeup bowler and Martyn as an authoritative no.4, while Symonds found his feet in the World Cup after a prolonged struggle. Since then, it's fair to say Australia have been practising a restrained form of rotation under Ricky Ponting. Except, it's no longer a compulsive strategy - Ricky Ponting refuses to leave anything to chance. The word 'rotation' is something you'll never hear from the Aussie Camp these days.

Now, kiwi coach John Bracwell has adopted the tactic with a view to building depth in the side before the World Cup. It may be partly justified given New Zealand's problems with injuries, and at the same time may leave players confused as to what exactly their role in the side is. At the moment, it has certainly brought in changes that look promising - Brendon McCulum as an attacking opener, Hamish Marshall down to a more comfortable number 6 and Michael Mason establishing himself at a World Cup contender. There have been a couple of perplexing moments too, such as Daniel Vettori's promotion to the middle order, which I hope will be discontinued. Before the all important tri-series in Australia, however, you would have to wonder if New Zealand's premier batsmen are better off having some time in the middle - particularly Stephen Fleming and Nathan Astle. The batting failures during the Champions Trophy were attributed to lack of match practice, so I'd much rather see a settled batting lineup for the time being. New Zealand go into the fourth game of the series with a 2-1 lead, with the additional bonus of Ross Taylor and Mark Gillespie proving their worth, at least on favourable surfaces. They could well end up winning 4-1, but I would have thought the objective of this series was to find out their best combination or unit, going into the Australia series rather than juggling the players about. You really can't afford to use elimination games against Australia and England to figure out who your best XI is, even if certain key players are missing. James Marshall scores a half-century as opener but is not required for the upcoming games, while Craig McMillan has suddenly been handed a lifeline and a ticket to Australia. Mind you, McMillan looks a better bet than Marshall, but his inclusion feels a bit unjustified. Bracewell has conveniently decided he will be slotted into Brendon McCullum's role at number7, but this again smells of the inflexibility which as I mentioned could be a side-effect of the Rotation policy. Surely there must be a better position for McMillan? It also means there is a certain sameness to the bowling. Mason has done well in conditions that suit him but I don't see him troubling the Australians - having him, Adams and Franklin in the same lineup is a bit of a worry. Jeetan Patel hasn't been given a game and it looks like Chris Martin will not figure in the selector's plans at all. All this places too much responsibility on Shane Bond, although there seems to be some cover for him at least.

New Zealand have two more games against Sri lanka to get into their stride, but they are in danger of a potential mess during the tri-series if they don't identify their best side on form. The Rotation policy may be here to stay, but Bracwell must be careful it doesn't inhibit any flexibility on his part during the all important build up to the World Cup.