Not really, with Pietersen probably returning, selectors can quite easily look to the future and pick Bopara/Joyce, Pietersen, Trott, Collingwood, Prior as the middle order for the tour of SA if they wanted to.
They can easily not pick for SA, presuming he gets picked for the Oval test. Just have to do what they did with Bicknell in 2003, simple horses for courses selection say thank you at the end & let him go.
I know this all hypothetical and the chances are he wont even play but if Ramps dis do well then why not take him to South Africa? In regards to his age are couple of months really going to make any difference? Picking a player simply for one match and not considering him again regardless of his performance seems illogical to me.
Completely agree actually, I was simply contesting the point that he hasn't looked like scoring anything
A bit harsh given that one of his 50s (2nd dig at Cardiff) was an outstanding rearguard which saved the Test.
Fair point. Whilst I advocate Ramps playing at The Oval, whether he should be retained after that is more debateable.
love it
TBH, it was more a case of Ramprakash having insufficient trust in the ability of Caddick and Gough to last very long and thinking that the only chance of England saving said follow-on was for him to go on the offensive.
What do you expect? They gave the **** an MBE for making 6 at The Oval four years ago. He probably thinks a few 50s get him a Knighthood.
Because it's time to look to the future. If Ramps was considered a couple of years ago, I would have said ok, he might still play for a few more years but realistically if England want to start building a good team they need to start by bringing in some new blood and testing them out. I don't see the point in having him hang around for one series when England have the opportunity to brood new players and try to find someone who can potentially have a longer and more successful career.
Say whatever you want about it, but the bottom line is that the Australians have gone past 50 18 times and converted 7 of them into centuries while the England batsmen have gone past 50 14 times this series only to convert it to a 100 once. And Collingwood has played a major part in this.
Nobody gives a **** about the future when the game in question is the deciding test in an Ashes series. All you have to ask yourself is which player is most likely to score runs in this one-off match. Is it Ramps? For me, it's probably not, so I suppose I agree with your conclusion. Key is probably the option for me.
Err, I've been advocating Ramps to play in this series since Lords, let alone the deciding test at the Oval. I think you misread my post, what I was trying to say was that he shouldn't tour South Africa.
I see what you're saying but I think you're taking an extreme position.
Yes I agree with you. However, when you look at the course of someone's overall career, you can make a general assessment based on their conversion rate whether they have wasted opportunities or not. Because match-winning/saving 30s and 50s are generally a rarity. Which is why when you look at Butcher's career you can tell that he was often quite wasteful of his starts based on his 50/100 ratio even though he scored many vital 50s (such as in the WI in 2003/04).
Because those are two completely different situations. Batting is very psychological, dancing on TV isn't. You can get nerves from being on TV, but those fade - I know I've been on TV, live radio etc. enough times. In cricket you may get nerves from playing in front of a big crowd or whatever and they fade just the same, but it's not these sorts of nerves that cause Ramprakash to underperform. It's more complex and psychological than that.
