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 100th
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment