Ramps sulking

Bopara needs to start. and do well otherwise. Ramprakash can feel very hard done by.

Rob I wrote:

Leo wrote:Bopara is rubbish. Ramps is class.

I bet Ravi ends up with the better test average of the two.

So you now reckon Marcus Trescothick was better than Graeme Gooch?

Leo wrote:

Rob I wrote:

Leo wrote:Bopara is rubbish. Ramps is class.

I bet Ravi ends up with the better test average of the two.

So you now reckon Marcus Trescothick was better than Graeme Gooch?

<<< sniffs bait >>>

<<< walks round trap >>>

DJ_Smerk wrote:Bopara needs to start. and do well otherwise. Ramprakash can feel very hard done by.

Only if Bopara goes on to have a pathetic test career of more than 50 tests with an average under 30.

I reckon Ravi would have to average 35 to be considered better than Ramps, given that the bowling is carp these days.

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

I could have named those three myself - but as a proportion of batsmen who have played post-war? And I would echo Shoeshine's comments - they were all proven test players, Ramps isn't.

What proportion of post war test players have averaged 100 in two English county seasons?

Either Ramprakash has proven that he is worth test selection or County Cricket is so useless it may as well be flushed down the gurgler. Its as simple as that.

England can hold its own against all opposition apart from Australia. The Aussies tour again in 2009. If Ramprakash really is in Bradman-like touch then he needs to play in that series. England needs to find out before then whether this is true or not. It will only do so by playing him in test matches.

One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Graveney played all of his cricket on uncovered pitches, Boycott played most of his on the same and Gooch's formative cricket was played on uncovered pitches too.

Rob I wrote:I reckon Ravi would have to average 35 to be considered better than Ramps, given that the bowling is carp these days.

I reckon bowling is gonna 'come back' in the next 3-4 years. There's some good young quicks around.

Henry wrote:

Rob I wrote:I reckon Ravi would have to average 35 to be considered better than Ramps, given that the bowling is carp these days.

I reckon bowling is gonna 'come back' in the next 3-4 years. There's some good young quicks around.

Sorry to harp on about pitches, but where will these good young quicks get to ply their trade, unless they've got a good line in slower balls and cutters already!

Given that Ramps averaged 37 in the second half of his career, I reckon he'd have to average at least 45.

So if Ravi plays one test and gets 45 in the second dig, he'll be better than Ramps?

Basil wrote:
One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Totally. I mean, not a single Test is played on a shirtfront. I think the last non-minefield Test cricket was played on was in the 1950's.

Batfink Begins wrote:

Basil wrote:
One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Totally. I mean, not a single Test is played on a shirtfront. I think the last non-minefield Test cricket was played on was in the 1950's.

The post, which this was taken from was areference to pitches in domestic English cricket. The point being that Ramps' recent performances have to be put in the context of batsmen friendly surfaces where groundsmen are sh*t-scared of preparing pitches with any sign of life or prpensity to take spin.

Rob I wrote:So if Ravi plays one test and gets 45 in the second dig, he'll be better than Ramps?

The really sad bit is that read that, laughed and thought "yes". Then I thought about it more seriously and thought "yes".

Not sure why this is being seen as Ramps V Bopara anyway. Surely the last batting place in S/L (barring injury) is Shah's for the taking.

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

Basil wrote:
One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Totally. I mean, not a single Test is played on a shirtfront. I think the last non-minefield Test cricket was played on was in the 1950's.

The post, which this was taken from was areference to pitches in domestic English cricket. The point being that Ramps' recent performances have to be put in the context of batsmen friendly surfaces where groundsmen are sh*t-scared of preparing pitches with any sign of life or prpensity to take spin.

But if that were the case, why aren't there loads of blokes averaging over 100 every season?

It's not so much the size of the numbers that make an interesting case for Ramprakash's inclusion, more the vast chasm between him and the next English batsman: Owais Shah, who averaged 70.

Anyway, they haven't picked him. It's probably for the best. Move on.

I'd only pick him as being part of some sort of strange quasi-time travel thing where we return to an age where Ramps plays for England and reality is pleasantly askew.

No rational case for including him though unless you count making a pleasantly unhinged Australian a very happy young man as one.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

Basil wrote:
One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Totally. I mean, not a single Test is played on a shirtfront. I think the last non-minefield Test cricket was played on was in the 1950's.

The post, which this was taken from was areference to pitches in domestic English cricket. The point being that Ramps' recent performances have to be put in the context of batsmen friendly surfaces where groundsmen are sh*t-scared of preparing pitches with any sign of life or prpensity to take spin.

But if that were the case, why aren't there loads of blokes averaging over 100 every season?

Ramps isn't thick: he's worked out how to score heavily in domestic cricket - one advantage of being 38 with 52 tests behind him I suppose.

Still the right decision not to pick him.

Eric Air Emu wrote:I'd only pick him as being part of some sort of strange quasi-time travel thing where we return to an age where Ramps plays for England and reality is pleasantly askew.

No rational case for including him though unless you count making a pleasantly unhinged Australian a very happy young man as one.

:bom:

Basil wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

I could have named those three myself - but as a proportion of batsmen who have played post-war? And I would echo Shoeshine's comments - they were all proven test players, Ramps isn't.

What proportion of post war test players have averaged 100 in two English county seasons?

Either Ramprakash has proven that he is worth test selection or County Cricket is so useless it may as well be flushed down the gurgler. Its as simple as that.

England can hold its own against all opposition apart from Australia. The Aussies tour again in 2009. If Ramprakash really is in Bradman-like touch then he needs to play in that series. England needs to find out before then whether this is true or not. It will only do so by playing him in test matches.

One word - pitches!

The ECB in their finite vision have legislated the life out of most pitches in our game - and the ones that don't fit the norm get points deductions.

Graveney played all of his cricket on uncovered pitches, Boycott played most of his on the same and Gooch's formative cricket was played on uncovered pitches too.

I can't see what that proves. The question was whether there are examples of batsmen playing well in their 40s not whether Ramprakash is a better batsman than Boycott, Gooch or Graveney. (BTW i would rank them in that order with Ramprakash about equal to Graveney).

Test matches are played on as good or better pitches than county matches in general, so if this helps Ramps at county level it will help him at test level too. Everyone is playing on these pitches but only Ramprakash is averaging 100.

Also, good pitches means that batsmen are more likely to be able to play well into their 40s.

ten years after wrote:BTW i would rank them in that order with Ramprakash about equal to Graveney

Tom Graveney 79 Tests, 4882 runs @ 44.38 with 11 hundreds.
Mark Ramprakash 52 Tests, 2350 runs @ 27.32 with 2 hundreds.

Pretty disgraceful slur on a fine, fine player like Graveney to even mention Ramps in the same breath.

Shoeshine wrote:

ten years after wrote:BTW i would rank them in that order with Ramprakash about equal to Graveney

Tom Graveney 79 Tests, 4882 runs @ 44.38 with 11 hundreds.
Mark Ramprakash 52 Tests, 2350 runs @ 27.32 with 2 hundreds.

Pretty disgraceful slur on a fine, fine player like Graveney to even mention Ramps in the same breath.

Ramps isn't fit to tie Graveney's laces.

Basil wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

ten years after wrote:BTW i would rank them in that order with Ramprakash about equal to Graveney

Tom Graveney 79 Tests, 4882 runs @ 44.38 with 11 hundreds.
Mark Ramprakash 52 Tests, 2350 runs @ 27.32 with 2 hundreds.

Pretty disgraceful slur on a fine, fine player like Graveney to even mention Ramps in the same breath.

Ramps isn't fit to tie Graveney's laces.

Only for people with an irrational hatred of Ramprakash. Graveney was a fine and graceful batsman. Ramprakash too. Like Ramprakash, Graveney underachieved at test level but had two redeeming features to his career.

1/ Unlike Ramprakash he did played 4 big innings during the first, generally unsuccessful, part of his career in which he scored nearly a third of all the runs he scored in his first 76 innings and without which he would have averaged 29 prior to being dropped in 1959.

2/ He was brought back for another go at age 40 and averaged 50 in 24 tests. It looks like Ramps may not get this opportunity.

Ramps did take one of the great test match catches though.

His catch off Langer in the classic MCG test of 1999 is worthy of any best of list.