Stick or Twist: The dilemma of whether to drop a player

Murray Goodwin has been one of the most prolific batsmen in English cricket since he signed for Sussex at the start of the 2001 season. He scored 1,654 runs in his first season and has since gone on to score 60 centuries in all forms of cricket for the county, including two triple centuries, which on both occasions eclipsed the record for the highest innings by a Sussex batsman. What’s more, Goodwin’s personal success has come at an enormously successful time for the Martlets. He played a crucial role in their first County Championship success in 2003, which was replicated in 2006 and 2007. His astonishing innings in the final match of the 2008 Pro40, where he steered Sussex from a perilous 130/8 to chase down Nottinghamshire’s score of 226, hitting the last ball of the match for six, will live fondly in the memory of Sussex fans. For all the headline news that Mushtaq Ahmed created, it was often Goodwin who quietly accumulating the runs in the background and put Sussex into a position from which Mushtaq could win them the game.

Mark Ramprakash, meanwhile, has had an equally prosperous time at Surrey. Moving to Surrey from Middlesex in time for the start of the 2002 season, he has batted his way into the record books, securing his 100^th First Class hundred in 2008, and racking up more than 2000 runs in a season in 2006 and 2007. There have been few players in world cricket who have scored runs as consistently as Ramprakash, and while his time at the county has not coincided with an abundance of trophies, his impact has nonetheless been remarkable.

 Ramprakash (R) has been the most prolific First Class batsman in a generation.

Aside from their astonishing first class records (Ramprakash has scored 35,614 runs at 53.23, Goodwin 21,871 at 47.54), both share something rather less sought after in common; they have both experienced dreadful starts to the 2012 season. Goodwin has made just 118 runs in 11 innings, a statistic which would appear even more alarming if one removed a 74 against Notts (he would have 44 from 10). Ramprakash, meanwhile, has 75 from 10 knocks and suffered the ignominy of being dropped after a pair against Worcestershire at the start of May. He has not appeared for Surrey since. The dropping of Ramprakash opens up a wider debate over when to drop a player, a debate which is relevant not only in cricket (and in the amateur as well as the professional game) but in all walks of life. It stretches even as far as the workplace – when to remove someone a particular task from someone, when, even, to fire someone.

For Ramprakash and Goodwin, who are both in the twilight of their careers, being dropped must be seen as a hugely significant event. It could potentially spell the end of the road. Should Ramprakash fail to make it back into the Surrey team this season, no simple task when up against the talented young batting line-up the Brown Caps have at their disposal, his contract is unlikely to be renewed and his glittering career will have come to an end with two ducks at a wet New Road in May. Hardly the finish many would have expected. Goodwin, perhaps on the back of a strong season in 2011 (Ramprakash on the other hand made just 700 runs at 33), as well as a Sussex batting line-up lacking strength in reserve, has been given a little longer to show his form. Yet time is not on his side.

Murray Goodwin (R) in happier times.

Dropping a player, particularly a batsman, is a difficult decision. It comes down to whether to stick or twist. It might be justified based on the player’s confidence being shot, with his performances, or lack of them, becoming a burden to the side. It is, in this respect, perhaps kinder to withdraw him from the firing line. It was on this basis that Ravi Bopara was dropped in favour of Jonathan Trott in the 2009 Ashes. Bopara was instructed to win back his place through strong performances for his county; though it must be noted that the dangers of being dropped are incidentally shown by Bopara’s failure to win back his place despite scoring heavily for Essex – once others seize their chance, no matter how many runs you score in reserve, if everyone else is doing the same, it is a long road to return. Equally, it is not without reason that the phrase ‘form is temporary, class is permanent’ is so regularly referred to. There is no better example of this than Goodwin, who suffered an atrocious start to the 2009 season, before smashing 344* at Taunton in August.

Each individual case is different, with timing inevitably the most important factor. Drop a player too late, and their lack of performance may cost your side results as well as shattering their confidence and enjoyment; drop a player too early and you risk giving them too little chance to come good and show their class. I will admit that I advocated dropping both Alastair Cook before the Oval test match in 2010, and Stuart Broad before the Indian test at Lords last summer. How wrong I was. Both were in miserable form prior to those matches, and both put in performances at those games which kick started an extraordinary run of form subsequently. Ultimately statistics are only worth so much when real selection dilemmas are had in cricket. More often than not it comes down to gut feeling. The examples of Cook, Broad and Strauss do appear to show the value of keeping confidence in a player, even through the most diabolical run.

It is ironic that for all their similarities, Goodwin and Ramprakash are on opposite sides of the coin now. While Goodwin will be hoping that the above rings true for him at Sussex, Ramprakash must rely on the opposite being the case at Surrey if he is to win his place back.

Alastair Mavor

Don't let the Ashes go the way of Twenty20

The mention of the English Twenty20 competition last year was almost universally followed by every journalist’s increasingly favourite phrase: the ECB were killing the goose which laid the golden egg. Indeed, this goose had been fed up so much that by the end of the summer it appeared to be fois gras on the menu. Terrible jokes aside, they had a point; the schedule was crazy. The competition had expanded too extensively. Desperate to cash in on its early popularity with the punters, the ECB had increased the number of group games to 16. With quarter finals and a box office finals day to follow, big crowds deserted the competition. There were exceptions – Hove and Chelmsford still regularly drew big crowds – but in general, number of mid-week games, poor weather, and most crucially increased number of overall games saw spectators become diluted. Even finals day failed to sell out. Quite simply, supply massively outstripped demand. Realising their mistake, the ECB have scaled back the competition to three groups of six this year, allowing each county six home games to sell, in the hope that the flame will be rekindled. Although, it is questionable whether it is really a change of schedule or more likely the reintroduction of Kevin Pietersen (for Surrey) to the competition which is likely to have the bigger impact upon ticket sales!

 Trent Bridge will host the first Ashes Test next year 

Overkill of Twenty20 is an issue in its own right. In saying that, it is less of a concern than the outrageous amount of ODI cricket played these days. Both, however, reflect a general trend to attempt to squeeze every possible pound from potential commercial opportunities, which have become increasingly accessible in the game recently. The publication of next summer’s Ashes schedule today has highlighted the regularity of our forthcoming battles against the Aussies. Not only do we play them in a full test series next summer, but we have 5 ODIs against them this summer. We then tour Australia in the winter of 2013/14, before hosting them again in the summer of 2015. That is three test series in three years, and we host them in some format in three of the next four summers. There is no doubt that the Ashes provide fantastic entertainment, and are a key part of the ECB’s plan to encourage more people to play and follow the game, and there is some sense in ensuring the World Cup no longer falls straight after a tough series in Australia. Yet, the amount of Ashes cricket must be a concern. Part of the lure of these Ashes test series is that they do not come round every year. They are unique, and placed upon a pedestal as the peak of international cricket (at least in terms of competitive spirit). By playing them three times in three years (four times in four if you count this summer’s ODIs), you are simply denigrating The Ashes. Every cricket lover in the country spends the intervening summers looking forward to them; each series in between is often judged in relation to how it has aided England’s preparation for The Ashes. They are the perennial yardstick for England’s performance, and even if Australia have not been as strong in the last four years as the previous four decades, they have still provided some fascinating encounters. Aside from this, much of the England teams management is built around the Ashes. It is no coincidence that Andrew Strauss speaks of captaining England until at least the end of the 2013/14 Ashes; Paul Collingwood retired after the last Ashes, and Andy Flower may well move on after the 2015 Ashes series. Having such a short Ashes turnover not only removes some of the special atmosphere which accompanies the spectacle as they inevitably pass from luxury to decency, but it also removes the element of each side building up for each series through a number of other series. After all, there will hardly be any series in between!

England celebrating their Ashes victory in Australia last winter. But will over-scheduling reduce demand? Photo: Getty Images

The ridiculousness of it all is that the number one and number two best sides in the world are set to face eachother in England this summer. It is the first time since 2008 that England and South Africa have met on English soil. Yet they play just three test matches. The sides do not meet again until December 2015, by which time England will have played three five match test series against Australia. I am a huge fan of Ashes cricket, but where is the sense in that?

A good meal should always leave you wanting a little bit more. That has been the beauty of the Ashes in recent years. Exciting series have combined with sensible scheduling. The danger by 2015 is that the general public end up wanting a little bit less.

Alastair Mavor

Pietersen: Right Decision, Wrong Timing?

Kevin Pietersen is box office entertainment. From the moment he strolled into the ODI series against South Africa back in early 2005, Pietersen has demanded attention. Be it on the field, his immense natural talent and audaciousness of shots has undoubtedly broadened the appeal of world cricket, or off the field, his resignation from the England captaincy in 2008 was just one example of some poor misjudgements, he is unrivalled entertainment. That England will no longer be able to exercise his talent in the shorter format of the game is undoubtedly hugely disappointing. Hugh Morris, CEO of the ECB, admitted as much today. Pietersen retires having scored 4184 runs at an average of nearly 42 in ODI cricket. These stats are impressive enough, but when added to his strike rate, which at over 86 dwarfs his fellow top order partners (Ian Bell’s is 73, Eoin Morgan’s is 83), the importance of Pietersen becomes clear.

 End of an Era: Pietersen will no longer be seen appearing in England's ODI kit. Photo: A.Joe

It seems clear that Pietersen stated a desire to continue to play International T20 cricket, while giving up on the 50 over format; this proposal was rebuffed by the England Management though who have a policy of players appearing in both limited overs formats or none. The ECB’s stand is not without reason – travel and preparation is expensive and having players picking and choosing competitions at the end of test series is one sure fire way of disrupting the set up and removing the continuity between the sides which has been so important to England’s success in 

recent years. But one cannot help feeling a little frustrated that Pietersen has chosen this moment to call time on his one day career, especially when England’s defence of the Twenty20 World Cup in Sri Lanka is just 4 months away. Pietersen’s handling of the situation has perhaps been poor; certainly there seems little reason why he could not have waited until after the T20 World Cup to make a decision. It is especially frustrating given Pietersen seemed to rediscover his ODI form this winter and stated only as recently as February that he was focusing on the World Cup of 2015.

There are legitimate reasons why calling a time on his one-day career is not quite as selfish as some have made out though. He may still seem young and fresh, but Pietersen is approaching 32 and with the demands of international cricket as they are (this was well documented in the last post), he is perhaps right to consider a move to prolong his Test career. Pietersen also has a young family, and he wouldn’t be the first man to feel the need to be more selective over his commitments as a result.

Until we see what Pietersen plans to do with his new expanse of time, it is hard to make a conclusive judgement on his decision. If he merely spends his time maximising his commercial interests by playing Big Bash and IPL cricket, further criticism will ensue. But he may use the opportunity to properly recuperate from the game, and he could become a box office hit at The Oval if he turns out for Surrey in this year’s T20 competition. Time will surely tell. Regardless, Pietersen has no end of options, and first impressions point to it being more England’s loss than Pietersen’s. Nevertheless, it is a shame Pietersen could not have waited until October; defending the T20 World Cup would have been an excellent point to bow out. Instead, he has divided opinion once again, and sadly it is not his cricket, but his off the field decision making which is set to do the talking.

Why England are not wrong to consider resting their 'Fab Four'

Imagine the situation: England, 1-1 going into the final test match against South Africa this summer, lose one of Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad to injury. Debate rages – should they replace them with the in-form Graham Onions, or the heir-apparent Steven Finn, who has been patiently (or increasingly impatiently) waiting in the wings for the last 18 months. Neither has played test cricket for some time, and both have had their involvement in county cricket curtailed by being a non-playing part of the test squad for much of the summer. Several commentators suggest both may have to be accommodated, with Matthew Prior moving up to number 6. However this option only gains validity because of fears of the reliability of the bowling replacement. Perhaps England thus need an additional, fifth, bowler to account for the net loss of one of their opening duo?

The above is not an overtly unlikely situation either. Broad has suffered a number of injury problems over his short career, most significantly missing the final three tests of the last Ashes series with a stomach strain, while Anderson has had his niggles in the past too.

One of Anderson (L) or Broad (R) may be rested at Edgbaston Photo: M. Hutchings.

A number of journalists – predominantly ex-players – have suggested it would be wrong for England to rest players for the third test against West Indies next week. First, because it disrespects the opposition and test cricket. Second, because they should be playing to win every test match. There is truth in what they say – too many international test-match teams have been decimated by the IPL recently for example. But they take a short-sighted view. England are not planning to rest players because they have played too much IPL cricket; neither has played it. They are considering resting Broad or Anderson because both play a major role for England in all three formats of the game. By resting them, they are not lessening the importance of the third test, but merely recognising its relative importance compared to the first test against South Africa. Let us be honest, we would rather have both fit and firing for South Africa than risk overworking them in a redundant test against the West Indies now, especially with a full and competitive one day series to follow. England are still very much playing to win every test match; they are just taking a long-term view to it – in effect saying that in order to win test matches later in the summer, they might have to rest one or two players now.

Bob Willis was astonished that Broad or Anderson might need resting in his review of the test on Monday. He is correct to point out that England have a nine-day break before the next test (they need it – the pair got through 214 overs between them over the last 10 days of cricket), and that should provide some recovery time. But international cricket has changed since the 1970s and 80s; England’s schedule is hectic over the next six months. They follow the third test with three ODIs and one T20 against the West Indies, a further 5 ODIs against Australia, finish the summer with 3 test matches, 5 ODIs and 3 T20’s against South Africa and then fly immediately to Sri Lanka to defend the T20 World Cup. This is then followed by a tough tour of India between November and January. That is a potential of 77 days of international cricket by mid January alone. The demands of the fast bowler are also different. International cricket is dominated by hard, covered wickets, while fast outfields, big bats and shorter boundaries have weighted the game in the batsman’s favour. Aside from that, neither Broad nor Anderson can be considered typical fast bowlers; both are exceptional fielders, Anderson particularly so, but both regularly throw themselves to the ground in pursuit of saving runs. The workload on these fast bowlers is thus harsher; the days of languishing down at long leg are gone – Jonathan Trott fields there for England!

It is right to question whether resting England’s fast bowlers is the best course of action. Both Broad and Anderson will be anxious to play at Edgbaston, a ground which is renowned for helping swing bowling. Yet it is for the long-term aim of winning test matches that a change may be the best option. It is pointed that Keymar Roach has recently gone home, not because he was unfit to bowl, but because he had a niggling injury and, in the words of physio CJ Clark, the management were anxious to “prevent the onset of more serious injury”.

The decision to rest skipper Andrew Strauss from England’s tour of Bangladesh a few years back was derided and criticised for similar reasons. Hindsight proved the England management correct. If England succeed later in the summer, and manage to take an in-form and healthy squad to the sub-continent in the winter, they will be proven correct once again.