How many times does one have to bang ones head against a wall to get the point across that informed player rotation is a symptom, not a cause. If Australia had a strong, injury free bowling attack it would not rotate:
MICKEY Arthur isn't the only one paying the price for Australian cricket's poor reputation with chief executive officer James Sutherland promising fans there would be no more rotation in Test matches.
“Looking ahead to the Ashes series that we will see in England and next summer in Australia you won’t see any of that rotation policy in the fashion that we have in the past. It (rotation) is about providing opportunity for players in a team that’s in transition so that selectors can give players an opportunity at international level to see how they cope with that and to respond.”
On a more sinister note, it is interesting to read Stakeholders Sutherland had indeed negotiated player rotation with the broadcaster(s). Which of these three do you think holds the most sway? Which is the bigger, ahem, stakeholder?
The controversial rotation policy has upset fans, commentators and broadcasters in recent times and its death will not be widely mourned.
You can now see why Stakey was guarded in his comments vis-a-vis Nine and rotations. Yes, he has made a distinction between the one dayers and the Tests, but it is nevertheless a concession CA made concessions to Nine.
And you also already know what I think about "transition".