Is It Man Or Money Management

Mitchell Starc

A short note on the scheme currently halfway through its trial in the top levels of Australian cricket ...

... originally know as "resting" and then "rotation", Cricket Australia now prefers the term "player management" but it all boils down to the same thing. Regardless of form, regardless of the state of a series, players will be routinely scheduled for controlled resting based on their workload over a previous period which hasn't been named. So far this Australian season, it has probably cost the host nation a series against South Africa and the chance to return to the number one spot it lost so spectacularly to the English the last time they toured and gave Ricky Ponting his third Ashes thumping.

In the current Boxing Day Test of mild temperatures and milder opposition, it has cost Mitchell Starc a Test cap when in the best form of his first class career. Starc was deemed to be in need of a rest after being 12th man for two Tests against South Africa, playing in the third and then, after ten days rest, playing in the first Test against Sri Lanka in Hobart - a total of 98 overs spread across twenty days (five days each Test and ten days between). His only other bowling has been 40 overs in two Sheffield Shield matches for NSW, on November 2nd to 4th and 13th to 16th and 4 overs for the Sydney Sixers on December 8th.

On the basis then of 142 overs in nearly two months (55 days to be precise), Starc was forced to rest when fully fit. If the decision to rest Siddle in Perth and throw away a series was on workload, then the sacking of Starc is improbable at best.

Garth McKenzie

Ask former Australian opening bowler Graham "Garth" Mackenzie if its a good idea. He was "rested" for a few Tests against easy opposition to blood new players before the 1968 tour of England and it cost him the chance to become Australia's leading wicket taker to that stage. Garth averaged 50 overs a game in his Test career.

Starc is said to have broken ranks and expressed his anger at being left out of the team after such a long battle to get in.

The concept of forcing players to rest isn't that new. Australia has been doing it for years during the endless January/February ODI matches, rotating players in and out from a flexible squad. With so many matches played, it not only made sense but kept those mindless one day series fresh and gave the Australian selectors a chance to blood new talent, always with an eye on replacements for aging players wearing the Baggy Green. Short form cricket served Test cricket.

That's changed.

During this Boxing Day Test, notable opponents have registered their opinions. Old timers like the greatest and most durable bowler of all time, DK Lillee, have called the policy "bewildering" and Damien Fleming can't follow the logic of forcing Siddle to rest in Perth with a hamstring niggle and pushing Clarke to play in Melbourne with a similar injury. There are plenty of others raising their voice against Cricket Australia and the boffins from sports science organisations who design their models on computers but rarely meet the players whose numbers they manipulate. Their knowledge of the game comes from data which can only count to 0 or 1 not the sound of leather on willow which targets tens or hundreds.

To Starc or not to Starc?

Of course the players do as they are told, after all, if you can be rotated out for a hamstring then its just as easy to be "managed" for a big mouth. No less than the Mr Midas himself, Michael Clarke, has told the Australia public to get used to rotation. Little Lord Ponting has issued an edict saying opponents to the policy are out of touch and don't know what they are talking about ... so there. Matt Prior and Gautum Gambhir - neither of them shy of a headline - have spoken to Australian media in its favour, both calling it a necessary advent of the modern game.

All of this would be just Jim Dandy if the heart of the matter was the proper care and management of players but there is a sense that this is not the case.

I have mentioned earlier in an article called "Injuries, Intrigue and Law Suits" that the legal action being bought against Cricket Australia by Nathan Bracken - a $million claimed for not managing his injury and for shortening playing career - is a driving force in this new regime of warm fuzziness toward our most delicate men, the fast bowling collective. Its interesting that the current skipper even chooses to use the same terminology that Bracken has voiced in his complaint.

A further powerful pressure may well be the Big Bash League franchises who have been vocal about the absence of Australia Test players from their playing squads, despite the bulk of the BBL season having been scheduled when Australia has finished their summer Test commitments. There is big money behind these franchises and having men like Clarke as no more than titular heads is a situation which makes them unhappy. The defending champions, the Sydney Sixers, would be unhappier still if Starc was unavailable during their campaign in January. You can be sure that the fine men with strange wigs who raise cultured argument in Her Majesty's courts will be interested in any action which might redeem lost revenue for their employers. Look at India if you need convincing.

If Cricket Australia has invented a plan to show they care, in order to avoid future litigation, perhaps they should consider this. Players are rewarded for their service to Australian cricket with a superannuation scheme which is based, in broad bands, on the number of Test match appearances they make. What happens in a future time if Starc finishes his Test career one or two Tests short of qualifying for a higher superannuation payout?

Oops!

Forget that. What if Starc finishes his career on 798 Test wickets - unlikely but what if?

Oops again!

Watch those silks tote the big figures then.