*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[tooextracool]

The way Trott played puts paid to the ridiculous notion that Ramps should have been in the side because he's more experienced, playing a debutante in a pressure game might wreck him, etc. If a bloke is in the nick he is and the incumbents are under-performing, you pick him. Kudos to England for that at least.

Don't buy it whatsoever. Giving credit to the selectors based on hindsight is about the worst thing you can do, otherwise we'd have to give them credit for selecting Ian Bell for this test as well. There is absolutely no way any person could have known how Trott would respond to the pressures of a debut test match, which is why Ramprakash was a better option. Not to mention that Ramps was eclipsing Trotts performances at the FC level for years.

As it turns out, he's reacted well so far, but scoring a calm 41 in one innings is hardly 'let's take our shirt off and celebrate' material despite the fortune of his eventual dismissal.

 

[tooextracool]

Sorry but that's a load of rubbish.

It is, although his statement is not too far from being right. Saying that he had a lot of luck is itself incorrect, his inning was chanceless and there is no evidence to suggest that he was the beneficiary of more luck than anyone in the history of the game. What is also incorrect, is the fact that the rest of the 4 would have score centuries had they received the same luck, because it takes a blind person to think that this England side is capable of scoring centuries.

However, as I've made it a point to mention over and over and over again. 70s are not good enough in test match cricket!!!!!! When you get set, it is your responsibility to go on and convert your innings into 100+. Despite what people will want to make you think, Bell displayed nothing different today than what he's done before, he scored runs in a pressure situation but lost concentration and threw it away. This is a hallmark of his career. Yes he scored a 50, the aussies on here seem to think this must be some sort of miracle, get over it. He must have scored 7 other half centuries against your lot, and quite possibly at least 6 of them against much better attacks than this one. That he can score 50s against you lot was never a debatable topic.

 

[four_or_six]

Don't buy it whatsoever. Giving credit to the selectors based on hindsight is about the worst thing you can do, otherwise we'd have to give them credit for selecting Ian Bell for this test as well. There is absolutely no way any person could have known how Trott would respond to the pressures of a debut test match, which is why Ramprakash was a better option. Not to mention that Ramps was eclipsing Trotts performances at the FC level for years.

As it turns out, he's reacted well so far, but scoring a calm 41 in one innings is hardly 'let's take our shirt off and celebrate' material despite the fortune of his eventual dismissal.

Don't buy that in the slightest. That's a major part of what the selectors could do, make a judgement on his ability to play under pressure.

And Ramps hasn't eclipsed Trott this season at all, Division 1 runs are worth way more than Division 2.

 

[NUFAN]

It is, although his statement is not too far from being right. Saying that he had a lot of luck is itself incorrect, his inning was chanceless and there is no evidence to suggest that he was the beneficiary of more luck than anyone in the history of the game. What is also incorrect, is the fact that the rest of the 4 would have score centuries had they received the same luck, because it takes a blind person to think that this England side is capable of scoring centuries.

However, as I've made it a point to mention over and over and over again. 70s are not good enough in test match cricket!!!!!! When you get set, it is your responsibility to go on and convert your innings into 100+. Despite what people will want to make you think, Bell displayed nothing different today than what he's done before, he scored runs in a pressure situation but lost concentration and threw it away. This is a hallmark of his career. Yes he scored a 50, the aussies on here seem to think this must be some sort of miracle, get over it. He must have scored 7 other half centuries against your lot, and quite possibly at least 6 of them against much better attacks than this one. That he can score 50s against you lot was never a debatable topic.

I know what you are saying but I disagree. It seems like Ian Bell is in a no win situation whenever he scores under 100 (and against lesser sides, even if he scores over 100).

Take Shane Watson for example, 3 innings 3 50's with a highest score of 62. He's done a good job but I've not been hearing much anger at him for not going on with it. The reason is he's had Clarke and North making 100s so Watson's runs have been useful.

I think 72 is a good score, it's just that he hasn't much support, and it's pretty easy to see why: Cook and Collingwood out of form, Trott on debut and your number 6 is a keeper!

Only Strauss has enhanced his reputation this series out of the batsman.

Actually amazingly England's top 6 batsman career averages are currently so close:
45.58 Matt Prior
44.36 Andrew Strauss
43.20 Alastair Cook
42.93 Paul Collingwood
41.00 Johnathan Trott
40.25 Ian Bell

 

[vic_orthdox]

Watching the highlights, its ridiculous how many balls that weren't timed all that well still made the boundary down the ground. Not saying that they were bad shots or anything.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't buy that in the slightest. That's a major part of what the selectors could do, make a judgement on his ability to play under pressure.

So you are telling me the selectors could make such a judgment by watching him play a couple of games for Warwickshire in low pressure environment? Believe it or not, there is no way of actually knowing how someone will react to the pressure of playing on his debut test without actually throwing them in the deep end and finding out. Yes you can make judgements as the selectors did, but those could turn out to be completely incorrect because quite simply he's never been put in such an environment at any point in his career. Then there's also the small matter of whether his technique will hold up, which we don't know yet.

When you throw all those variables into the equation, Ramps was a better pick. There is never going to be a way of finding out who would have done better, nor does it change anything. Making the right selections doesn't always translate into getting the best results.

Cue: Harkison taking 6 wickets in the next inning.

 

[Burgey]

That (deserved) reputation won't be tested in this match, not against Swann.

As opposed to the times he's belted that other no hoper Murali?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Can understand the point about Trott, but you're comparing him to Ramprakash.

 

[tooextracool]

I know what you are saying but I disagree. It seems like Ian Bell is in a no win situation whenever he scores under 100 (and against lesser sides, even if he scores over 100).

Yes, thats exactly the point. Scoring less than 100 he is in a lose situation because he's not done his job completely. Why one earth should we applaud him for it? Would your girlfriend applaud you if you only go half way?

Take Shane Watson for example, 3 innings 3 50's with a highest score of 62. He's done a good job but I've not been hearing much anger at him for not going on with it. The reason is he's had Clarke and North making 100s so Watson's runs have been useful.

Believe me, as long as hes scoring 50s in situations where his team is doing well he wont face any pressure. But if he continues in the same vein and Australia are losing there will be serious question marks asked about him. And the fact that Clarke and North made 100s is really what saved his arse to be honest with you. They were the ones that won Australia the game not Watson.

I think 72 is a good score, it's just that he hasn't much support, and it's pretty easy to see why: Cook and Collingwood out of form, Trott on debut and your number 6 is a keeper!

Only Strauss has enhanced his reputation this series out of the batsman.

Actually amazingly England's top 6 batsman career averages are currently so close:
45.58 Matt Prior
44.36 Andrew Strauss
43.20 Alastair Cook
42.93 Paul Collingwood
41.00 Johnathan Trott
40.25 Ian Bell

They also share one other thing in common, which is the direction in which their averages have been going in over the past few years, which is down.

 

[four_or_six]

So you are telling me the selectors could make such a judgment by watching him play a couple of games for Warwickshire in low pressure environment? Believe it or not, there is no way of actually knowing how someone will react to the pressure of playing on his debut test without actually throwing them in the deep end and finding out. Yes you can make judgements as the selectors did, but those could turn out to be completely incorrect because quite simply he's never been put in such an environment at any point in his career. Then there's also the small matter of whether his technique will hold up, which we don't know yet.

When you throw all those variables into the equation, Ramps was a better pick. There is never going to be a way of finding out who would have done better, nor does it change anything. Making the right selections doesn't always translate into getting the best results.

Cue: Harkison taking 6 wickets in the next inning.

You can make a judgement on someone's character, and then make a judgement on how they will react to the pressure, and you can also look at their records this season. Yes, we don't know if Ramps would have done better, but we do know that as recently as last season he cracked under pressure fairly badly. And plenty of commentators were saying that Trott had a good character to show he wouldn't be overawed by the occasion. So, given all they knew, I think the selectors made a good judgement and therefore the correct pick.

 

[tooextracool]

Can understand the point about Trott, but you're comparing him to Ramprakash.

Yes there is a question mark on Ramps temperament as well. However, at least in his case you can remove the question marks on 'will his technique hold up?', we know his technique is good enough for the international level. We can also safely lose the question 'how will he handle the pressure of his debut test', because it isnt his debut test, he's been there and we know he's good enough to score runs against Australia because hes done it before so his experience would likely aid him. I honestly think that the pressure on Ramps to score runs in this test would have been far far less than what it is on Trott at the moment.

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't buy it whatsoever. Giving credit to the selectors based on hindsight is about the worst thing you can do, otherwise we'd have to give them credit for selecting Ian Bell for this test as well. There is absolutely no way any person could have known how Trott would respond to the pressures of a debut test match, which is why Ramprakash was a better option. Not to mention that Ramps was eclipsing Trotts performances at the FC level for years.

As it turns out, he's reacted well so far, but scoring a calm 41 in one innings is hardly 'let's take our shirt off and celebrate' material despite the fortune of his eventual dismissal.

What utter crap. Just because he's never played a Test before, doesn't mean you can have zero idea of how well a bloke is going to handle the pressure of a Test. It's still cricket, still using a bat to hit a red ball being thrown down at you by another human FFS. There are, I'd imagine, unique aspects to a Test vs FC match but to say you can have no idea is ridiculous.

I don't give kudos in hindsight, I give credit for the selectors picking the bloke in the form of his life instead of going back to a well which has been empty every time they've gone to it.

 

[tooextracool]

What utter crap. Just because he's never played a Test before, doesn't mean you can have zero idea of how well a bloke is going to handle the pressure of a Test. It's still cricket, still using a bat to hit a red ball being thrown down at you by another human FFS. There are, I'd imagine, unique aspects to a Test vs FC match but to say you can have no idea is ridiculous..

Disagree, even if you have an inkling of an idea how someone might react under the pressure of a debut test match against Australia with the Ashes at stake, you still don't take that risk in the deciding test of the Ashes series.

I don't give kudos in hindsight, I give credit for the selectors picking the bloke in the form of his life instead of going back to a well which has been empty every time they've gone to it.

Interesting then that they ended up picking Harmison yesterday.

 

[Top_Cat]

Disagree, even if you have an inkling of an idea how someone might react under the pressure of a debut test match against Australia with the Ashes at stake, you still don't take that risk in the deciding test of the Ashes series.

So, picking the proven Test failure is a better option?

Interesting then that they ended up picking Harmison yesterday.

Point? Has nothing to do with whether they deserve credit for picking Trott.

 

[NUFAN]

Yes, thats exactly the point. Scoring less than 100 he is in a lose situation because he's not done his job completely. Why one earth should we applaud him for it? Would your girlfriend applaud you if you only go half way?

Yes she would, it would mean she wouldn't have to clean up.

 

[tooextracool]

So, picking the proven Test failure is a better option?

Yes because he was a proven failure 8 years ago, not yesterday. A lot might have changed in those 8 years which we dont know about. Even 8 years ago, as a proven failure I might add, he scored 133 against the same side on the same ground which he should have played on yesterday

Point? Has nothing to do with whether they deserve credit for picking Trott.

Just pointing out the inconsistency in the selection policy. Either that, or they don't feel the same way you do. Honestly, If Ramprakash was 29, I have absolutely no doubt that he wouldn have been picked. As someone on the daily telegraph recently wrote, if they picked Ramprakash, it was a lose-lose scenario for the selectors because whether he scored or didn't they would have been chastised for it. So they pulled their ba**s out and took the safe route for themselves.

 

[Uppercut]

Not really up on my Oval Tests but in previous recent games, has the ball gone through the top on day 1? The last time I saw so many footmarks early was '97 and there were 3 bowlers who took 7-fer in that game.

None of the wickets to fall have had anything at all to do with the pitch. Genuine question, is it really going to deteriorate heavily enough for Australia to fail to make 330-odd in the first innings?

It looks like deteriorating, but for my money it's still easy to bat on.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If England had a decent attack including a high quality spinner they would be in strong position. They had by far the best of the batting conditions and batted like spods. If they do win it'll be due to the pitch and winning the toss.
Alec Stewart reckons yesterday it resembled a third day pitch.

 

[inbox24]

This is make or break day for Australia, a solid batting performance will earn 50% of the urn.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Have the selectors openly said that the issue is "Samit Patel is overweight, so he's not in the team" -- as opposed to "Samit Patel would be good enough to play if he lost weight, but his weight means he's not good enough to play for England"?

Yer Torygraph reports Dusty as saying,

"The demands of international cricket are huge and Samit must recognise that fitness levels are a vital part of a successful team in international cricket."

"He really needs to understand and grasp that fact because his fitness levels have regressed between his first assessment during the build up to the England Lions tour and the second Test during the first week in New Zealand."

So it's the fact his fitness had gone backwards after having his card marked that has cost him a chance of selection rather than his extra poundage per se.

Don't buy it whatsoever. Giving credit to the selectors based on hindsight is about the worst thing you can do, otherwise we'd have to give them credit for selecting Ian Bell for this test as well. There is absolutely no way any person could have known how Trott would respond to the pressures of a debut test match, which is why Ramprakash was a better option. Not to mention that Ramps was eclipsing Trotts performances at the FC level for years.

So you are telling me the selectors could make such a judgment by watching him play a couple of games for Warwickshire in low pressure environment? Believe it or not, there is no way of actually knowing how someone will react to the pressure of playing on his debut test without actually throwing them in the deep end and finding out. Yes you can make judgements as the selectors did, but those could turn out to be completely incorrect because quite simply he's never been put in such an environment at any point in his career. Then there's also the small matter of whether his technique will hold up, which we don't know yet.

When you throw all those variables into the equation, Ramps was a better pick. There is never going to be a way of finding out who would have done better, nor does it change anything. Making the right selections doesn't always translate into getting the best results.

Cue: Harkison taking 6 wickets in the next inning.

This is Dickinson-esque levels of BS, surely?

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of "knowledge"; it's equally impossible for the selectors to know how Ramps would've performed too. The fact selectors did something other than you would've doesn't make them wrong if their judgements are then vindicated.

Not that I think 72 & 41 are necessarily huge vindications.