England's rotation policy: A move anchored in flexibility and pragmatism

Late last year, England's selectors and management sat down to plan how they would handle the three months of action encompassing the tours to Sri Lanka and India. By the end of March, England will have played six Tests, three ODIs and five T20Is, all while being cocooned in bio-secure bubbles of one sort or another. It is a hectic, challenging period of cricket. Asking players to play all of it is clearly not a realistic prospect.

Ed Smith, the national selector, and his panel eventually settled on a principle that England's multi-format players would all be rested for at least one part of the winter. The six Tests would be broken up into three blocks of two games each with the impacted players rested for one of those blocks. The plan and the reasons for it were communicated to the players in advance, which Smith said was received well.

For the first block of Tests, against Sri Lanka, Ben Stokes and Jofra Archer were rested. Smith confirmed today that Mark Wood, Sam Curran and Jonny Bairstow would miss the second block - the first two Tests against India - but return for the third and fourth games, the third block, in Ahmedabad.

There is flexibility within the plan, however. Having played the two games in Sri Lanka, Jos Buttler will play the first Test in India but then head home, missing the final three matches. Smith said the likes of Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes and Joe Root will also be given time off at some stage although it is unlikely that Root, the captain, will miss any Tests. He may miss the ODI series against India instead.

It is an unusual approach. Typically, England have rested their all-format players from limited overs cricket. This winter, they are resting them for Test cricket too. But it is an eminently sensible, and innovative, approach. Innovative is a word Smith said he was loathe to use in case England get accused of being too smart for their own good. But surely, in a time of COVID-19, some flexibility of thinking is needed.

On balance, the current course of action is the right one. It enables players to have time away from the confines of bio-secure bubbles. It ensures they remain fresh and fit mentally and physically. It offers opportunities to other players as well. And if England did not rotate their squad, who says the results would be better? At the end of six Tests in eight weeks, an exhausted Ben Stokes probably isn't going to be much use to anyone anyway.

"We are being pragmatic," Smith said. "If you keep people in a bubble unchanged for three months - January, February, March - and expect them to play every game in every format, they will not be able to perform at their best and England will be damaged as a result. We've discussed it with the players and we've had their understanding. They see that it's for the players' benefit as well as England's benefit.

"The concept of a tour needs to be modernised. We're not travelling by boat anymore, you don't go away for five months at a time. We need to be more nimble. We want to have a selection policy which is adapting to the world we live in today, which is [bio-secure] bubbles [and] which is an incredibly congested fixture list.

"We need to have the flexibility to do what's best for them, and best for England, and that's what we always do. Of course, if we believe we need to revisit a decision, we'll revisit it absolutely, but the principle is anchored in flexibility and pragmatism. It's about doing the right thing for the player and right thing for the team."

The are counter arguments to England's approach of course. Smith acknowledged they will often not be playing their best team, which could impact results. There are individual considerations too. Jonny Bairstow has just made a very good return to the Test team and yet he is now being rested for the first two matches against India. Ordinarily, that would seem peculiar timing. The same might be the case if Sam Curran or Mark Wood take a bucket load of wickets in Galle over the next few days.

"I spoke at length to Jonny yesterday, as well as at Loughborough before the Sri Lankan tour," Smith said. "[He had a] fantastic opportunity coming up in Sri Lanka, where we expect you to get game time. But at some point, as is the case with the other multi-format players, you're going to need your rest too, and he completely understands that and endorses it.

"Whatever time you take rest there always a downside because these guys love playing for England but they also understand they need their rest. There's always two sides. This is something we passionately believe in."

So Smith is, rightly, sticking to his guns while also recognising the need to be flexible if circumstances dictate. There is a bigger picture here, after all. England have a T20 World Cup to prepare for in India. Bairstow, Curran and Wood are all likely to be part of the squad for that tournament and therefore, playing them in the five-match T20I series against India is vital preparation. The same with Buttler. They are playing 17 Tests this year too, finishing with an away series in Australia. England don't want a bunch of bone-weary players trying to reclaim the Ashes.

The other benefit to the ECB's policy is that there will be opportunities for those on the fringes of England's team. Dan Lawrence and Bairstow would probably not have been given a chance against Sri Lanka had the likes of Stokes been picked. They both did well, increasing the competition amongst the squad. When Buttler leaves India, Ben Foakes will get an opportunity. By the end of March, England's squad may have significantly more depth than it has now.

As Smith admits, there are clearly potential pitfalls with England's approach. If they lose the Test series in India, the selectors will no doubt be criticised for being too funky in their approach. But that would be unfair. They are trying to deal with the hand they have been dealt as best they can. This is clearly not an ideal situation but then, right now, what is?