147 - another ton

[marc71178]

I've answered that one before but if you insist I'll do it again.
What Ramprakash has done to be put in that list is averaged over 37 in Test-match cricket over a period of nearly 4 years, in which he played 31 Tests. That period was the most recent part of his Test-career.

Doesn't look like it when looking at cricinfo.

If so, please indicate which matches you have included in this, since I can't work it out from his year on year record (neither the 31 Tests or the average of 37+)

 

[Rik]

I was attempting to do that with subtle humour!

Isn't that a baseless, random attack, Rik?

Not baseless, you just explained it's base. Not random, there was an obvious reason for it.

But despite the reasons, I just decided to take the **** by posting a steaming pile of ****e.

Too many people take the things people say too seriously on this board, so I'm just laughing at everyone who does, subtly of course

 

[Rik]

If you can include Ramprakash in the success list, then I insist Hick is also in there.

I mean he had a 4 year period averaging well over 40 (and that was 37 Tests)

Ramprakash did have a period of success, mainly encompassing the 1998/99 Ashes. I do agree with Richard though about the exclusion of Ramprakash's record whilst opening, which was an ill-judged decision by Fletcher (a coach, I might add, I feel is rapidly loosing his marbles), and I'm sure I'm not the only person who was totally baffled by why he tried to change him into a Test opener. I know they will allways be included in his overall record, but it's all about sorting through his record and taking out the bits that don't give you a good picture, and I'm very sure his record whilst opening has nothing to do with his lack of success in Tests over his career, other than for a short period. It just doesn't give you a rounded view. It's like saying your not allowed to include Harmison's record against Australia and India because they don't show the full picture, which is absurd.

 

[Rik]

If you can include Ramprakash in the success list, then I insist Hick is also in there.

Hick was never asked to open, he was used almost exclusively as a middle order batsman and failed. Ramprakash was asked to open, was often put down the order, rarely was given a proper chance before being dropped. Hick was a success in ODIs however.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ramprakash was asked to open because he was opening for Middlesex at that point.

 

[Rik]

Ramprakash was asked to open because he was opening for Middlesex at that point.

How can I put this...I know...RUBBISH.

Ramprakash asked Fletcher before the season started how he could get back into the England side and he was told there was a place for an opener, since at that time, only Athers was a constant pick and players like Butcher and Maddy had not managed to cement their places. Ramps then went back to Middlesex who agreed to let him open since Langer had been opening for the past season and prefered batting at 3. Ramps scored a few runs then was picked for the Zimbabwe Tests and the West Indies ones before the OD series in which Trescothick shined and then took Ramprakash's place there-on. Ramps was yet again left in the dust after scoring only one 50 and went back to Middlesex and resumed his place in the middle order and by the end of the season was scoring heavily again.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Close enough.. maybe. Erm, I was 13, I don't remember well?

(Hides)

 

[Rik]

Close enough.. maybe. Erm, I was 13, I don't remember well?

(Hides)

Age holds no barriers :saint:

 

[marc71178]

Hick was never asked to open, he was used almost exclusively as a middle order batsman and failed.

Apart from that 4 year period when he averaged over 40 - if Ramps is rated amongst the better players of the era, then Hick must be as well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I can see where Marc is coming from, but as far as I'm concerned, neither were successes for England.

When you average more than 20 less than your FC average I don't think you can be called a success. Ramprakash may have averaged 37 or whatever in Richard's justification (batting at 3, except New Zealand, wearing blue underwear, hopping on one leg etc etc), but he averages over 45 last check in domestic cricket. That's not bad, but with a difference of a hundred every 8 or so knocks to one every 46 knocks, that's not exactly amazing.

Heck, I've never proclaimed Hooper to be a Test success.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Rather more on topic, Simon Jones has 3/47 thus far.

I like the look of Matt Prior's record. It's pretty solid. What's his 'keeping like?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Jones ends with 5/57 as TN declare at 333/9. The spinners were disappointing again.

Newman (57) and Kadeer (56) put on 125 for the first wicket. 140/2 at tea.

 

[Richard]

Close enough.. maybe. Erm, I was 13, I don't remember well?

(Hides)

What's the 29-08-98 to 29-08-99 period got to do with anything?

 

[Richard]

If you can include Ramprakash in the success list, then I insist Hick is also in there.

I mean he had a 4 year period averaging well over 40 (and that was 37 Tests)

Apart from that 4 year period when he averaged over 40 - if Ramps is rated amongst the better players of the era, then Hick must be as well.

Yes, and I did mention that this period of success was Ramprakash's most recent in Test-cricket.
Hick had a good period, no denying that, but sadly it was now 9 years ago. And he's played about 40 Tests since.

 

[Rik]

I like the look of Matt Prior's record. It's pretty solid. What's his 'keeping like?

It's not solid, it's made up of a very poor 1st year and a good 2nd year of belting tired county attacks round from number 7...

 

[Rik]

Apart from that 4 year period when he averaged over 40 - if Ramps is rated amongst the better players of the era, then Hick must be as well.

No he must not, because there are many potential reasons for Ramprakash's failures whilst Hick's were plainly obvious. Hick failed many many many times, Ramprakash was badly treated most of the time in my opinion and it translated into inconsistancy thereon.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What's the 29-08-98 to 29-08-99 period got to do with anything?

11,12,13,14, whatever, I clearly don't remember it well!

And 29-08-98 would make me 12 :P

 

[Rik]

11,12,13,14, whatever, I clearly don't remember it well!

And 29-08-98 would make me 12 :P

Sorta puts it all in perspective eh?

 

[Neil Pickup]

11,12,13,14, whatever, I clearly don't remember it well!

And 29-08-98 would make me 12 :P

If Liam had posted that, I wouldn't have let it rest for weeks...

 

[Rik]

If Liam had posted that, I wouldn't have let it rest for weeks...

But instead it seems you posted it your good self...