Mark Ramprakash

[Top_Cat]

Yep and, as intimated by Waugh, Ramps went on from that 133 to dominate world cricket, scoring runs against every other Test team he played against and becoming an all-time great.

Oh wait.....

 

[tooextracool]

Steve Waugh indeed - personally I'm pretty confident that his judgment of a batsman's mental toughness is likely to be pretty sound

Why? Just because someone is mentally tough, doesn't mean that whatever he sprouts can be taken as gospel.

 

[Burgey]

I may well be out on a ridiculous limb here but am pretty comfortable there! With respect, I think you're misunderstanding what I've tried to say, or alternatively you're setting up straw men to knock them down. I've simply not said that siddle or hilfy "are not as good as county bowlers" (although it's true that some county bowlers in recent years, such as Clark, Warne and McGrath, to give some obvious examples, are better than them) or that Johnson is "merely a county bowler". If I'd said those things then I would agree that I was talking crap (and am always prepared to accept that it's possible that even what I do say is crap).

I think what you're saying is they're like the little girl who had the little curl right in the middle of her forehead.

And I think you're spot on tbh.

 

[zaremba]

Yep and, as intimated by Waugh, Ramps went on from that 133 to dominate world cricket, scoring runs against every other Test team he played against and becoming an all-time great.

Oh wait.....

Yeah that's the problem.

Anyhow it will not happen, any more than Trescothick will return. It would certainly be interesting if he / they did though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah that's the problem.

Anyhow it will not happen, any more than Trescothick will return. It would certainly be interesting if he / they did though.

Well I think it has slightly more chance of happening than Trescothick returning TBH, as the selectors have ruled out Trescothick but refuse to do so with Ramps.

 

[zaremba]

Well I think it has slightly more chance of happening than Trescothick returning TBH, as the selectors have ruled out Trescothick but refuse to do so with Ramps.

My guess is that the difference in the selectors' approach to the two cases reflects Tresco's particular circumstances more than anything else.

Trescothick has a serious psychiatric condition that may be triggered or exacerbated by stress; for that reason they're not going to pick him, and for the same reason they're ruling him out early so as to diminish the intensity of the media spotlight on him over the next week or so.

In Ramps' case, even though I don't think they're seriously considering selecting him, there's no similar reason to depart from their usual "rule no-one out, rule no-one in" line.

 

[BoyBrumby]

In Ramps' case, even though I don't think they're seriously considering selecting him, there's no similar reason to depart from their usual "rule no-one out, rule no-one in" line.

Not so sure, myself. One would hope the selectors aren't so naive as to realise that all the inevitable media second and third guessing because they haven't nipped it in the bud could be detrimental to the (already fragile) confidence of our middle order.

If he wasn't seriously being considered I reckon they might've said "Ta, but no ta" when asked. I mean at the outset they announced a sixteen man squad for The Ashes (largely fictious as it was) which was a de facto exclusion of those outside of it.

 

[zaremba]

You may be right: Ramps being seriously considered, says Miller.

Not sure I like this bit: "Miller said that the squad selection would have to strike a balance between the long-term requirement to build the tight and cohesive unit essential for future England success, and the short-term desire to win the world's most prestigious Test series. "

Well, that's bollocks, quite frankly. There's no balance to be struck. There is only one real objective, and that's winning this game. Long-term requirements mustn't enter into it. And in any case, the best way of catering for those long-term requirements is to win the Ashes.

"Ah well, we lost the Ashes but at least in doing so we avoided causing disappointment to one of our young players. He's really chuffed to have been retained in this side, even though we lost, and that's something we can really build on for the future." Give me a ****ing break.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You may be right: Ramps being seriously considered, says Miller.

Not sure I like this bit: "Miller said that the squad selection would have to strike a balance between the long-term requirement to build the tight and cohesive unit essential for future England success, and the short-term desire to win the world's most prestigious Test series. "

Well, that's bollocks, quite frankly. There's no balance to be struck. There is only one real objective, and that's winning this game. Long-term requirements mustn't enter into it. And in any case, the best way of catering for those long-term requirements is to win the Ashes.

"Ah well, we lost the Ashes but at least in doing so we avoided causing disappointment to one of our young players. He's really chuffed to have been retained in this side, even though we lost, and that's something we can really build on for the future." Give me a ****ing break.

100% agreement. Building for some vaporous and potentially illusory "future" is a convenient smokescreen for current failings IMHO. "Yeah, he's crap but at least he's young. Might improve."

 

[sledger]

100% agreement. Building for some vaporous and potentially illusory "future" is a convenient smokescreen for current failings IMHO. "Yeah, he's crap but at least he's young. Might improve."

Yes, I also concur with this.

 

[four_or_six]

Still reckon it's going to be Key at 3, myself. Smacks a lot less of panic stations, and yet he's experienced and in form.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Still reckon it's going to be Key at 3, myself. Smacks a lot less of panic stations, and yet he's experienced and in form.

Ish. 0 & 1 in his last completed CC game.

 

[GIMH]

Ish. 0 & 1 in his last completed CC game.

Would fit right into our middle order without much disruption with those scores

 

[Hoggy31]

OMG Please pick him, the lols will not stop from me.

 

[four_or_six]

Ish. 0 & 1 in his last completed CC game.

A 90, two centuries, and a double century over the last five matches.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A 90, two centuries, and a double century over the last five matches.

Yeah, wasn't being entirely serious, tbf.

Key's always looked very vulnerable first up whenever I've seen him tho, so all things being equal, I'd prefer Ramps for a one-off selection. Key could be a compromise selection between a debutant (Joyce, Trott) & a veteran with questionable test credentials (Ramps himself, obv) tho; he's played before, done slightly better than Ramps (not against Oz tho, it must be said) and is the best part of a decade younger.

Would be a typical English fudge, so could definitely see it happening.

 

[zaremba]

Rob Key and fudge? My money's on Key.

 

[Jamee999]

That quote about building for the future makes me want to kick Geoff Miller in the crotch. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TEST WE'LL PLAY FOR TWO YEARS!!! PICK A TEAM THAT WILL WIN!!!

 

[marc71178]

That quote about building for the future makes me want to kick Geoff Miller in the crotch. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TEST WE'LL PLAY FOR TWO YEARS!!! PICK A TEAM THAT WILL WIN!!!

In that case, I pick Australia.

 

[tooextracool]

Interestingly enough, a 'close friend' of Marcus Trescothick claims that if the England selectors approached him to play at Oval as a one-off test, it was 60-40 that Marcus would accept. And Tresco himself has stated that he would consider playing if approached. This is of course while Miller has publicly ruled him out of contention.

Personally, cant think of a better player to play at the Oval given his record and penchant for run scoring at said ground.