*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Uppercut]

I'd ask Nick Knight about his 2002 season then TBH. It may not be very common, but it can certainly happen.

Either way, Joyce is clearly not out-of-nick in either format this summer so far.

The point is that if a player's scoring runs in OD cricket they're more likely to score runs in longer-form cricket too. A correlation you refuse to acknowledge, IIRC.

 

[Richard]

Part of me would quite like to see Ramps selected, for the simple reason that it would reflect an acknolwedgment on the part of the selectors that the Ashes is not the time to be building for the future, it's the time to pick your best players.

If Ramprakash is considered one of the best now, he should've been considered it every summer (and winter) since 2002.

And I for one do not rule-out the prospect of him having done decently if he did, FTR. But his time and his fellows are now long gone.

 

[Richard]

The point is that if a player's scoring runs in OD cricket they're more likely to score runs in longer-form cricket too. A correlation you refuse to acknowledge, IIRC.

They aren't neccessarily more likely. If you take it as read, you're diceing with fire. Pretty much nothing can be gained by making that assumption, and it is possible to lose via it. So I see no reason to make it.

Same way you can be class at one form and not at the other, you can have form at one and not the other.

 

[zaremba]

I'd ask Nick Knight about his 2002 season then TBH. It may not be very common, but it can certainly happen.

Take a large enough sample and, given the vagaries of "form", you're bound to find some instances of this sort. I don't think it's nearly enough to justify the extraordinary and counter-intuitive proposition that you can be in good form in one type of cricket and simultaneously in poor form in another type of cricket.

 

[zaremba]

Same way you can be class at one form and not at the other, you can have form at one and not the other.

To my mind, and with respect, a very unpersuasive analogy.

 

[zaremba]

If Ramprakash is considered one of the best now, he should've been considered it every summer (and winter) since 2002.

Yes. But it doesn't follow from his non-selection then that he shouldn't be selected now. It just means that if he ought to be selected now, the selectors were wrong not to select him before.

 

[Ikki]

The point is that if a player's scoring runs in OD cricket they're more likely to score runs in longer-form cricket too. A correlation you refuse to acknowledge, IIRC.

I agree with the logic.

Richard, of course, it is no guarantee, but there is a correlation.

 

[tooextracool]

The problem with giving Siddle the new ball is that he can't attack the stumps. They'd just end up defending at Sid's end with the new ball, then Johnson would come on after ten overs anyway, only with a ball that's a little older. Bit of an awkward one for Ponting.

Not sure I agree with you on Siddle and his lines of attack, but the point is that no matter what Siddle does, he brings in a semblance of consistency with the new ball that Mitch simply has not been doing lately. As such, any pressure that Hilfenhaus created at one end was utterly wasted because Johnson sprayed it around to all parts. Furthermore, Johnson looked to be bowling with a bit more accuracy with the older ball than the newer ball. Australia can ill-afford another session like the one they got on the first day at Lords this series, and I don't think they should risk it by having Johnson take the new ball.

 

[tooextracool]

I mean against the two left-handers. The vast, vast majority of balls will be missing the stumps. Or pitching a mile outside leg. And he generally moves it away from the lefties too. Hey, it could work. Cricket's not as logical as us armchair analysts on here like to let on. It's just not ideal.

This is true, which is why I think the vast majority of international bowlers are somewhat illogical when they continually bowl from over the wickets to the the left hander. If you cant bowl an inswinger to the left hander, there is little point bowling from over the wicket because you essentially end up bowling to what are the strengths of most left handers. That of course wont stop Anderson and co from bowling over the wickets to Hughes in the next test match though.

 

[Top_Cat]

Take a large enough sample and, given the vagaries of "form", you're bound to find some instances of this sort. I don't think it's nearly enough to justify the extraordinary and counter-intuitive proposition that you can be in good form in one type of cricket and simultaneously in poor form in another type of cricket.

Usually the case but one example that stands out right now is Mike Hussey; Aus's best ODI batsman for the past year yet probably the worst performed Test player in the same period. Weird.

 

[tooextracool]

If Ramprakash is considered one of the best now, he should've been considered it every summer (and winter) since 2002.

There is little doubt that Ramps has been one of the best CC players this past decade. Whilst I can understand the reasoning for ignoring him after he had a couple of good seasons, when someone does it for over 5 seasons at Bradmanesque numbers there comes a point when you can no longer ignore the sheer weight of runs. Honestly, if we are considering picking Ian Bell, who's been given just as many chances as Ramps despite having similar mental frailities, because of his success this season then I do not understand why we should look beyond Ramps for the short term when we all know that in terms of talent Ramps is still infinitely better.

 

[tooextracool]

Usually the case but one example that stands out right now is Mike Hussey; Aus's best ODI batsman for the past year yet probably the worst performed Test player in the same period. Weird.

Personally, I don't think Hussey is out of form. He's looked in excellent nick everytime I've watched him bat and I think its just a matter of getting the rub off the green before he goes on to get a big score. Certainly don't believe all the buzz that he's past it or that he's no longer good enough.

 

[Richard]

To my mind, and with respect, a very unpersuasive analogy.

Take a large enough sample and, given the vagaries of "form", you're bound to find some instances of this sort. I don't think it's nearly enough to justify the extraordinary and counter-intuitive proposition that you can be in good form in one type of cricket and simultaneously in poor form in another type of cricket.

As long as there are any examples, it proves that it's possible. As I say, it is not something that you can expect with tremendous regularity - far more often than not the two will indeed go hand-in-hand - but it is most certainly possible.

As for the analogy that form is temporary, class is permanent and that they can both be applied to the differences between the two game-forms - well form is all about what you're doing right, same way class is about what you have the capability to do right. And given that batsmanship in the OD game and batsmanship in the FC game are based on some shared and some non-shared skills and virtues, it's more than conceivable that as one can be good at one and not so good at the other, one can be in-form in one and out-of-form in the other.

 

[Richard]

Yes. But it doesn't follow from his non-selection then that he shouldn't be selected now. It just means that if he ought to be selected now, the selectors were wrong not to select him before.

I think there was one candidate with a strong case in 2002 - Crawley - though even before his selection everyone knew Ramprakash's goose was cooked. He was never, ever going to be retained in the summer of 2002, Crawley or no Crawley. However, had he been so, I'd far from have ruled-out the idea of him going well.

Once he's been ignored for this long, however, the reasoning must stay constant. Whether England's selectors were right or wrong to ignore him, presuming that his temperament was a lost cause as they so clearly have (his physical ability isn't and has never been in question), they cannot change their minds just because more time has passed. To my mind, the argument that Ramprakash has been beyond brilliant in county cricket for the past 4 years or so and so this means his case is stronger now than ever holds no water. Ramprakash has always been a brilliant county player, he's just been that bit more brilliant of late. The problem has never been his physical talent; it's his mental ones. And no amount of increase in county runs proves that he has solved this issue.

 

[Richard]

There is little doubt that Ramps has been one of the best CC players this past decade. Whilst I can understand the reasoning for ignoring him after he had a couple of good seasons, when someone does it for over 5 seasons at Bradmanesque numbers there comes a point when you can no longer ignore the sheer weight of runs. Honestly, if we are considering picking Ian Bell, who's been given just as many chances as Ramps despite having similar mental frailities, because of his success this season then I do not understand why we should look beyond Ramps for the short term when we all know that in terms of talent Ramps is still infinitely better.

This is a fair enough comment - and frankly I'm not in favour of picking Bell, nor do I feel he should've played for the Lions earlier this season. Right now, I'd prefer Shah or Joyce, on both counts, as both have had far fewer chances than Bell and hence have convinced of their unsuitability less.

 

[Uppercut]

Not sure I agree with you on Siddle and his lines of attack, but the point is that no matter what Siddle does, he brings in a semblance of consistency with the new ball that Mitch simply has not been doing lately. As such, any pressure that Hilfenhaus created at one end was utterly wasted because Johnson sprayed it around to all parts. Furthermore, Johnson looked to be bowling with a bit more accuracy with the older ball than the newer ball. Australia can ill-afford another session like the one they got on the first day at Lords this series, and I don't think they should risk it by having Johnson take the new ball.

Well the point is that you can't attack the stumps with Siddle, for the reasons I mentioned. To me it makes much more sense to bowl your most attacking bowler- Johnson- with the new ball, then if it doesn't come off and he's still bowling crap, revert to the more negative line (to left-handers) of Siddle. Defence should be Plan B.

 

[tooextracool]

Well the point is that you can't attack the stumps with Siddle, for the reasons I mentioned. To me it makes much more sense to bowl your most attacking bowler- Johnson- with the new ball, then if it doesn't come off and he's still bowling crap, revert to the more negative line (to left-handers) of Siddle. Defence should be Plan B.

1) Johnson has been completely unthreatening with the new ball, and is likely to remain so unless he gets the ball to swing. To suggest that he is the most attacking bowler in the series is not just OTT, but also just plain wrong.
2) Sessions (sometimes even games) are lost or won based on the momentum that teams get at the start of an innings. Australia, lost at Lords because Johnson was primarily responsible in allowing England to get off to that flyer. Being 1-0, Australia cannot afford for this to happen again.
3) If Johnson isn't getting the ball to swing, it seems like he is likely to be just as threatening bowling with a slightly older ball than with the brand new ball.
4) Even if Siddle doesn't bowl on the stumps, he's still likely to cause problems to Cook who is a very poor judge off where his off stump is and has been susceptible to poking at deliveries outside his off stump.

 

[zaremba]

OK we're getting all technical again.

And so I'm sure that all CWers will agree that it's time to remind ourself of the scores on the doors.

England 1
Australia 0(That's Nil, Zero, Zilch, ****-All, Nada, Nul Points, Zip, Hayden's Charisma, Nought, Nothing)

 

[Richard]

Let's remind ourselves while we can.

 

[zaremba]

Exactly!