Mark Ramprakash

[zaremba]

If Anderson's a bit of a *****, I'd love to see what Langer has to say about Ramprakash.

Given that Ramps averaged 53.10 in Tests in which they played against each other, JL probably rates him pretty highly.

I'd be surprised if many people would put Ramps in the "*****" category. His problem as it seemed to me was if anything an excess of intensity.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd be surprised if many people would put Ramps in the "*****" category. His problem as it seemed to me was if anything an excess of intensity.

....... and ill treatment by Test selectors

 

[fredfertang]

FFS how are people not getting this.

He'll be a spineless wreck

It doesn't matter whether he averages 500 in FC cricket.

He will still be useless at Test level

However loud you shout them those statements will still be inaccurate

 

[tooextracool]

The idea of selecting someone like Trott or Joyce at this point in the series is by far the most ludicrous idea I have heard. You don't have someone make their debut in a series deciding test match of an Ashes series if only because they have very little probability of doing any better than Bell or Bopara.

And yes, I would have gone for the bloke whos been averaging over 100 this year long before Bell got picked for Edgbaston.

 

[tooextracool]

Assuming he's fit enough to play a test (which apparently he isn't) I would be more for picking him if he'd scored his runs in Division 1. This whole two divisions thing does complicate matters a little for selection... Key and Shah are also scoring their runs in Div 2, whereas Trott is scoring them in Div 1. The other likely-looking players scoring in Div 1 are Carberry, Read and Hildreth.

Yes, we know how poor Ramprakash was in Div 1 the past 2 years having averaged 101 and 61. And lets just remember that he went through a bad run of form during one of them. Trott can do whatever he wants, the point is that it would be sheer madness to pick a debutant in the 5th test of an Ashes series with everything on the line.

Just the amount of pressure that would be on someone like Trott would be immense and could be career threatening even. Ramprakash, if he were picked, would have nothing to lose really and his prior international experience would no doubt help him in this sort of situation anyhow.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just the amount of pressure that would be on someone like Trott would be immense and could be career threatening even.

Haha, sheesh, blowing it up much? Christ, have a look at Justin Langer's first Test; against a WI team with Curtly, Bish and Courtney in it who'd just won the B&H Cup Final and were in form. JL wore more balls than he hit yet got 50 in the second dig when Aus were in deep, deep trouble. And he was several years younger than Trott is.

Basically, a bloke who's any good will come through. Don't buy this idea that a poor Test in a crunch game will automatically wreck someone's Test career nor that you should only bring in new players when the going's easy.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Given that Ramps averaged 53.10 in Tests in which they played against each other, JL probably rates him pretty highly.

I'd be surprised if many people would put Ramps in the "*****" category. His problem as it seemed to me was if anything an excess of intensity.

Think that seems to be the consensus amongst people who've played with him. In A Lot of Hard Yakka Simon Hughes painted a picture of the teenage Ramprakash as a young man who was utterly focussed on his career and knew his own mind. He was prepared to stand up to 50+ test veterens like Emburey & Gatting as a tyro, which doesn't suggest he's afflicted with a Bell-esque diffidence.

 

[Manee]

I believe that mental/psychological assessment is so amateurish (in that it is not professional and, argued the right way, opposite viewpoints can have equal credence) when coming from people who have no qualification on the issue, or like Scaly, have an axe to grind, that it should be left out altogether.

 

[Jamee999]

Just the amount of pressure that would be on someone like Trott would be immense and could be career threatening even.

1. WE SELECT THE TEAM FOR A DECIDING ASHES TEST TO WIN THE TEST! NOTHING ELSE!
2. If Trott can't handle this, if it's truly "career threatening", then he's not got what it takes to play Test Matches

 

[Langeveldt]

England would do better to go with someone like Stewie Law..

 

[Scaly piscine]

I believe that mental/psychological assessment is so amateurish (in that it is not professional and, argued the right way, opposite viewpoints can have equal credence) when coming from people who have no qualification on the issue, or like Scaly, have an axe to grind, that it should be left out altogether.

So there's just some quasi-scientific explanation involving different dimensions to explain his utter ****ness at Test level and run-fests at FC level then?

 

[tooextracool]

1. WE SELECT THE TEAM FOR A DECIDING ASHES TEST TO WIN THE TEST! NOTHING ELSE!
2. If Trott can't handle this, if it's truly "career threatening", then he's not got what it takes to play Test Matches

That is the very point though, we are talking about 1 test. Trott may very well go on to be be a better player than Bell and Bopara over time, but no one is the finished product by the time they set foot to play their first test match. If Trott had an outstanding record in FC cricket, which he doesn't at the moment, its hard to see how he will come in and do much better than someone who has a similar record with more international experience like Bell and Bopara.

And its not a question about whether Trott can handle it or not. Playing at a level that is much higher than what you are used to takes time to adjust to, few players come and settle into it like a duck in water. Which is why most selectors prefer to ease players into test match cricket rather than throw them into the cauldron. Sorry, but if Trott was selected at the start of the series or even at Edgbaston with England 1-0 I would have been all for it. However, I would not select him after they just got thrashed with everything to play for on his debut test at the Oval.

 

[tooextracool]

Haha, sheesh, blowing it up much? Christ, have a look at Justin Langer's first Test; against a WI team with Curtly, Bish and Courtney in it who'd just won the B&H Cup Final and were in form. JL wore more balls than he hit yet got 50 in the second dig when Aus were in deep, deep trouble. And he was several years younger than Trott is.

There are several problems with this.
Langer made his debut not when the series was square at 1-1. He came in with Australia on top 1-0, and hence there was less pressure on him to perform. I don't doubt that Langer had the sort of mental fortitude that few international players possess (and expecting everyone to have the same sort of steel that he did would be seriously deluding yourself), but even then when it came down to the series deciding game at the WACA, he failed.

Langer also had the stability and the experience of the Australian middle order to fall back on. There is a serious, serious difference between having (Steve Waugh who had something like 50 tests on him at the time) and Allan Border (who had well over 100 by this point) coming in after you than having 3 out of Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara, Paul Collingwood and Prior. And thats not even considering the fact that Taylor and Boon were opening at the time that there was enough proven and experienced players in that side to take that risk. This example is not even remotely close to England's middle order which with players like Cook, Bell/Bopara, and Prior is not just inexperienced but also very unproven. Throwing in a debutant at this time is plain madness. If Pietersen was around, the selection would have made more sense but at the moment just no.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's always the possibility there might be two middle order slots up for grabs anyway, if the selectors bite the bullet and take Bell & Bopara to the barn with the shotgun.

Might be wishful thinking, but hope springs eternal and all that.

 

[four_or_six]

There's always the possibility there might be two middle order slots up for grabs anyway, if the selectors bite the bullet and take Bell & Bopara to the barn with the shotgun.

Might be wishful thinking, but hope springs eternal and all that.

I think it being two of them makes it more complicated. They've both been pretty bad, so can you drop one and not the other? But do you want to drop both and bring in two new players for a one-off match? Probably not.

 

[tooextracool]

There's more reason to drop Bell than Bopara to be honest given his string of failures and underperformance runs much longer. However, there is reason to drop both but only if there are valid alternatives. Personally, I'd pick Ramprakash and stick with Bopara but I get the feeling Trott will play instead Bopara with Bell retained.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it being two of them makes it more complicated. They've both been pretty bad, so can you drop one and not the other? But do you want to drop both and bring in two new players for a one-off match? Probably not.

It's stick or twist, really, isn't it? Two changes does look a bit like panic, but equally has either done anything worthy of keeping their place? Bell's 53 must've had about 3 lives and even then he didn't go on.

Have sympathy for the selectors, but if the blokes in possession aren't performing they can't be afraid to change.

One could even argue Bell's only really in as a temporary replacement for the incumbent, hasn't done his job so should be dispatched back to the shires.

 

[four_or_six]

It's stick or twist, really, isn't it? Two changes does look a bit like panic, but equally has either done anything worthy of keeping their place? Bell's 53 must've had about 3 lives and even then he didn't go on.

Have sympathy for the selectors, but if the blokes in possession aren't performing they can't be afraid to change.

One could even argue Bell's only really in as a temporary replacement for the incumbent, hasn't done his job so should be dispatched back to the shires.

And yet somehow I feel Bell is more likely to score runs than Bopara. I have no idea why, though. And I like Bopara.

I think right now I'm thinking:

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Collingwood
Trott
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson/Sidebottom (fitness permitting)
Onions

Bell can't be any worse than Oval 2005.

 

[GIMH]

There's more reason to drop Bell than Bopara to be honest given his string of failures and underperformance runs much longer. However, there is reason to drop both but only if there are valid alternatives. Personally, I'd pick Ramprakash and stick with Bopara but I get the feeling Trott will play instead Bopara with Bell retained.

Hmm, disagree to be honest. Bell has got one decent score (yeah, he had lives, but I didn't see any calls for Pietersen to be dropped after The Oval 05 ) and then failed in a match where the whole line-up has failed. Bopara has failed all series long.

 

[Manee]

So there's just some quasi-scientific explanation involving different dimensions to explain his utter ****ness at Test level and run-fests at FC level then?

Perhaps the massive step up in the level, something which can be rectified through years of moulding one's technique to be more reliable, as he has done in the county circuit.