Ramps Watch

Yes, I'm afraid I just can't help myself...

Well, Ramps ended up plundering 188 against the feeble Hampshire attack, and has now amassed 1510 runs @ 83.88 this summer. The rained out game last month has probably put paid to any chance of 2000 runs in the season, but he's still a champ.

Ian Bell is rubbish, by the way. Watch Murali brush him aside contemptuously in Sri Lanka. Selectors are dills.

Lest we forget, Ramps is the one, the only, the greatest, unique, perfect and magnificent...

Puke-stomach Ramprakash is flourishing in this leisure park of cricket. I would prefer him to Ian Bell however.

I've always thought of Bell and Ramprakash as being quite similar players. Shortish, good technique, quite intense, good fielders who both bowl a bit. Both have all the shots its just that when the pressure's on they hardly ever seem to play any of them.

Gary 111 wrote:I've always thought of Bell and Ramprakash as being quite similar players. Shortish, good technique, quite intense, good fielders who both bowl a bit. Both have all the shots its just that when the pressure's on they hardly ever seem to play any of them.

Really? If I were Ramprakash I'd be quite insulted. He's a much better player of high class spin and a better against pace as well.

Bell has a limited range of shots and doesn't play spin especially well.

He does however appear to have a better temperament than Ramps did at that age. Plus he hasn't played over 90% of his tests against Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall/Wasim/Waqar/Warne/Hughes/McDermott/
McGrath/Donald/Pollock.

Leo wrote: Plus he hasn't played over 90% of his tests against Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall/Wasim/Waqar/Warne/Hughes/McDermott/
McGrath/Donald/Pollock.

Who did then? No wait, I want the challenge of working it out.

Batfink Begins wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:I've always thought of Bell and Ramprakash as being quite similar players. Shortish, good technique, quite intense, good fielders who both bowl a bit. Both have all the shots its just that when the pressure's on they hardly ever seem to play any of them.

Really? If I were Ramprakash I'd be quite insulted. He's a much better player of high class spin and a better against pace as well.

Unfortunately he kept this well hidden at times during his England career!

In the 90's we had a whole batting line-up of 'enigmas' who should have been much better than they actually were:

Ramprakash
Hick
Crawley
Lewis

Even Atherton's Test batting average of 37 is a massive underachievement for his talent.

rosydaysarefew wrote:

Leo wrote: Plus he hasn't played over 90% of his tests against Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall/Wasim/Waqar/Warne/Hughes/McDermott/
McGrath/Donald/Pollock.

Who did then? No wait, I want the challenge of working it out.

At least 2 of the above list were involved in 16 of Ramps' first 17 tests...

The exception being a game against Sri Lanka in 1991, where I understand he went for a big slog and got out for a duck. So maybe it didn't make that much difference.

Leo wrote:Bell has a limited range of shots and doesn't play spin especially well.

He does however appear to have a better temperament than Ramps did at that age. Plus he hasn't played over 90% of his tests against Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall/Wasim/Waqar/Warne/Hughes/McDermott/
McGrath/Donald/Pollock.

Ramps' average of 20 against the fearsome Harris / Cairns / Tuffey / Astle / Allott axis New Zealand had in the late 90s also shows his mental problems. He would have mullered these bowlers in county cricket. But put him in an England shirt...

I remember hoping that his 154 at Bridgetown against Walsh and Ambrose would be him finally turning the corner. Sadly it wasn't to be.

If he was starting his career now, its probable he'd have made it at test level

Can't see the benefit of picking a 38yr old though

JKLever wrote:If he was starting his career now, its probable he'd have made it at test level

Can't see the benefit of picking a 38yr old though

Ian Bell's batting average of 42 definitely flatters him, he has faced easier bowlers than Ramps did and generally cashed in against weaker opposition and struggled against the best.

But even then there's a hundred in Pakistan, consistent good starts against Warne & co down under and those 3 tons on the trot against a Pakistan at home. Yes they were a bit understrength - but Ramps faced worse attacks and never scored hundreds against them.

Bell's 42 would probably be worth about 34 in the 90s with all the good bowlers (still much better than Ramps 27) and I think Bell will improve as well. His batting prime should be ahead of him.

I actually think Bell's got a lot more talent than given credit for. He has scored runs against some very good bowlers.

He's just far too passive to ever dominate at this level. When he's playing well he's great to watch.

Gary 111 wrote:Bell's 42 would probably be worth about 34 in the 90s with all the good bowlers (still much better than Ramps 27) and I think Bell will improve as well. His batting prime should be ahead of him.

I'd like to see your quantification of this.

Leo wrote:

rosydaysarefew wrote:

Leo wrote: Plus he hasn't played over 90% of his tests against Ambrose/Walsh/Marshall/Wasim/Waqar/Warne/Hughes/McDermott/
McGrath/Donald/Pollock.

Who did then? No wait, I want the challenge of working it out.

At least 2 of the above list were involved in 16 of Ramps' first 17 tests...

The exception being a game against Sri Lanka in 1991, where I understand he went for a big slog and got out for a duck. So maybe it didn't make that much difference.

Where the forum is in doubt, there your Ramps mancrush springs eternal. It's very comforting.

It's Becky (iwsh), by the way. Hope you're well.

Had a dose of 'flu over the weekend, but okay now. A bit busy at present applying for jobs and trying to keep up with final semester study, but pretty good. It beats being eaten by a maniacs piranhas, anyway.

Yourself?

frittering away the "summer" working as a secretary before second year starts. Watching Essex try very hard to avoid promotion. Trying not to think about England doing slightly well in jamodis in case I scare it away, farkworth-lewpiss notwithstanding.

rosydaysarefew wrote: Watching Essex try very hard to avoid promotion.

We're garbage and we know we are...

My mate is a Notts fan. He's going to be unbearable.

Do we want promotion?

We're playing 3 batsmen in the team right now, clever...

Fair point. Maybe we're actually gunning for the creation of a 'special' league where we only play against community outreach teams.

Infact i'm thinking of renaming us 'Andy Bichel'

Andan Bicheria?
Dandy Kanel?

rosydaysarefew wrote:Andan Bicheria?
Dandy Kanel?

or simply, Danish Salami

Batfink Begins wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:Bell's 42 would probably be worth about 34 in the 90s with all the good bowlers (still much better than Ramps 27) and I think Bell will improve as well. His batting prime should be ahead of him.

I'd like to see your quantification of this.

Well its all in my head, but I would rank Bell as a disappointing batsman. One who looks good but is never quite as good as you think he would be. Is worth a couple of gritty 70s in a series but never makes that commanding hundred when you think he should. I reckon he's been about as good as Crawley, Gatting or Butcher were who all averaged mid 30s. Its just they were usually up against better bowlers.

He's not as bad as the über bottlers like Hick and Ramps. But then again I think they were at times destroyed by a lack of confidence and England's knee-jerk selection policies.

Neither is he as good as the likes of Athers, Nasser and Alec Stewart who all averaged less than him but for my money were finer batsmen.

But he is only 25 - there are plenty of really good players who failed at this age and came back older and wiser in their late 20s.