rotation policy: sangakkara is right on money...

every now and then someone from the power circle comes out and gives lip service to the rotation policy... but as soon as the statement is over... the issue is forgotten and brushed aside safely under the carpet like unwanted rust...

of late almost every team is struggling to put up their first choice players specially bowlers on the park and given the way cricket is on air every alternate day this situation is not going to change... it will only get worse if proper attention is not given to this 'everybody-talks-about-no-one-follows' problem...

sangakkara is right on money when he suggested...

"From team point of view, we can recommend rest to certain players, especially fast bowlers because of their load. But the final call has to come from selectors, otherwise there is too much responsibility on the individual player.

"And when you have a rotational policy, I think it is important that the player has the confidence that if you are rotated out of the team, you get first choice back. It doesn't matter if your replacement scores a hundred or a double."

sanga's suggestion addresses two points very clearly... first, that it is the system who will have to make the call... and secondly but more importantly... while making rotation calls the system must address to the insecurity aspect of the player... the very core problem of the issue...

administrators have been passing the buck by saying that player should be honest and should themselves take calls on whether they need rest or not or in declaring injuries which just goes to show that they are living in cages and are not in sync with how cricket is being played and how much the stakes are involved these days...

with the amount of money players are getting these days through endorsements which are directly or indirectly linked with whether the player in question is in the team or not... its not hard to understand why they want to make the most of it while they can...

another core aspect is the insecurity... what if the player opts for rest and the replacement player goes on to score a century or a five-for...? will the player who opted to take rest have to again fight for the spot again he vacated willingly...?

until unless the insecurity aspect is not taken care of and we have selectors of integrity and authority... we will never reach to a workable implementation of rotation policy... that is why sanga is right on money for honestly coming out in open with the players concerns yet at the same time asking system to take the call...