Australia's rotation policy playing into India's hands

To say that Test cricket and one day cricket are two very different kettles of fish is to state the obvious. Very few teams manage to do well in both forms of the game simultaneously and very few cricketers are able to have an excellent record in both the longer version and the shorter version. England, for a period stretching from the mid eighties to the early 90s, had a woeful Test record but they performed in exemplary fashion in instant cricket, epitomised by the fact that they were runners-up in two successive World Cup competitions, in 1987 and 1992.

Similarly just because Australia lost the Test series narrowly to India - a defeat that ended a run of 16 successive Test triumphs - there was no reason to believe that Australia would not do well in the one day series, where again they had a run of ten consecutive victories. One thought that if Greg Matthews' prediction of Australia winning the Test series 2-0 did not come through, his other prediction - Australia to win the one day series 4-1 - would at least be fulfilled. However, roughly halfway through the five match series, it is difficult to see India not establishing their supremacy by wrapping up the limited overs contest as well.

To be sure, the Australians would primarily seem to be responsible for this unenviable situation. Overall, it must be admitted that while the Indians have played well enough, the Australians have dug their own graves by their casual approach, marked by a hard to fathom `rotation policy.' Even after hearing Steve Waugh give the Australian viewpoint on the subject, it is hard to see the wisdom behind such a move.

The Australian captain has said that this move is towards planning a long term goal. According to him, by this system, all players get a chance to play and everybody, by turn, gets a well-deserved break as well. Waugh is of the view that those criticizing the system are speaking with just the short-term goal in mind. According to Waugh, the Australian team management is looking at the bigger picture at this stage. He feels that this system enables a larger group of players to get experience at the top, an important factor considering the World Cup is less than two years away. It is with this long-term goal in mind that the rotation system is being tried out, to test new blood and new combinations, says Waugh.

Sure, one must encourage new blood and try out new combinations but there is a time and place for these things. This policy will be wise if tried out against weak opposition or when a series has been decided or when a place in the final of a tournament has been booked. The middle of a closely fought series which is running neck and neck is hardly the time to try out something dubious as a "rotation policy," as the Australians must have discovered by their defeat at Indore on Saturday.

Astonishingly, instead of learning from their mistakes, the Australians plan to continue with the system, an approach which is hard to understand. Waugh has indicated that Glenn McGrath would be given "a well deserved break" in one of the next two games. Whichever way one looks at it, and however much one would like to see things from the Australian viewpoint, the rotation system is still a policy not many would agree with. It is a system short on wisdom and long on hollowness.

After losing the Test series, one would have thought that the Australians, with their in built aggression, would have gone all out to salvage some pride by routing India in the one day contests. And it wasn't that there were no warning signals, for they lost the first ODI at Bangalore. They were obviously up against a side which was determined to prove that their Test series triumph was no fluke. Taking the field without their leading run getter Matthew Hayden and their best bowler Glenn McGrath (as was indeed the original plan) was plainly inviting trouble, especially after they had already lost their best one day batsman in Mark Waugh through injury. McGrath finally played at Indore only because Nathan Bracken was indisposed.

It is fine to have a long term goal and indeed this is a commendable objective. But some compromise can always be reached. Surely, there will be plenty of opportunities for the Australians to inject new blood and try out new combinations. The immediate objective of any captain or team must be to win a match. The abject surrender at Indore could not have done much to lift the morale of the Australians, especially at the fag end of what has been an extremely taxing tour.