147 - another ton

[Rik]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post - I read decent position as being better than 200-5.

Let's ask Rich, he certainly knows...

 

[Rik]

I'd like to know on what basis - is it the averaging more over longer?

On the basis that over the period of Feb 1998-99 he scored 989 runs at 44.95 topping the England batting averages and being hailed as the batsman of the year. This included 379 runs at 47.38 from 5 Tests in Australia, when he again topped the averages.

 

[Richard]

I'd like to know on what basis - is it the averaging more over longer?

No, it's having a good period more recently than someone else's.

 

[Richard]

His overall average is a statistic, and that is deceiving. It doesn't matter how it got there, the fact is that it portrays a picture different from the reality.

Fine - the fact is, some stats are deceiving, others portray the true picture.
In this case the overall career average is the most-used one - sadly the most-used one is the deceiving one.
My point is this can't be used in your campaign against domestic averages, because there are some that tell IMO the true story that Prior is just a substandard slogger.

 

[Richard]

To the extent of 77 in 3 matches or 127 in 4?

Nope - no batsman who played as many matches as him in either series scored so lowly.

Yes, he underperformed worse than all of them. And I didn't actually seek to use that excuse - every dismissal bar one was due to a poor stroke on his behalf rather than a RUD (a bad decision formed the other one, and he couldn't really complain given that in his very previous innings he had been dropped on 0 and went on to make 58).
However, the fact is that plenty of batsmen underperformed in both series.
Even Trescothick had a rare luckless series, so his scorebook average was in the low 20s with his first-chance one.

 

[raju]

Well I'm afraid you can't, because, in many people's views, Hick was more of a failure than Ramprakash.

...and in many people's views he wasn't. I've just never met anyone (in person) who considers Ramps a success at test level. Maybe they only exist in cyberspace.

I totally agree that Ramps recent record is better than Hick's but as they are both former test players we can look on their records as history...and take their good & bad into account.

Personally, I would view both as never achieving what they suggested they were capable of at test level. For whatever reason is the matter of conjecture IMO. Both have (genuinely) wonderful FC records but average test records...WHY???

BTW...I don't think Hick was harshly treated when Atherton declared when he was on 98* at the SCG...he had an age to get to his century (when his eye was in) and there comes a certain point where the all bets are off.
I know Athers said in his book he regretted it but IMO it was the right move because of the game situation...and IMO the team comes above any personal milestone.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's having a good period more recently than someone else's.

I'm talking about the whole career, not a snippet (since I've shown you can take a snippet from Hick's career and it outshines Ramprakash's best snippet)

 

[Rik]

I'm talking about the whole career, not a snippet (since I've shown you can take a snippet from Hick's career and it outshines Ramprakash's best snippet)

Prove it

I'd hardly call a year and a bit a "snippet" and from what I can remember, Hick's 6 centuries have rarely come when England needed them and he's done sod all against Australia and the West Indies (when Curtley and Courtney were in their prime) whereas Ramprakash has...

 

[Rik]

...and in many people's views he wasn't. I've just never met anyone (in person) who considers Ramps a success at test level. Maybe they only exist in cyberspace.

I totally agree that Ramps recent record is better than Hick's but as they are both former test players we can look on their records as history...and take their good & bad into account.

Personally, I would view both as never achieving what they suggested they were capable of at test level. For whatever reason is the matter of conjecture IMO. Both have (genuinely) wonderful FC records but average test records...WHY???

BTW...I don't think Hick was harshly treated when Atherton declared when he was on 98* at the SCG...he had an age to get to his century (when his eye was in) and there comes a certain point where the all bets are off.
I know Athers said in his book he regretted it but IMO it was the right move because of the game situation...and IMO the team comes above any personal milestone.

Said it in one thank you!

As for Hick's 98* (I was sure it was 99* but anyway) I know Athers did it because Hick was scoring slowly, but still the game was only ever going to be a draw and Hick needed the confidence, you never know it might have made him stronger, but in the end it messed him up even more. I've met the guy and he's a lovely guy seriously, but just so sensitive. He's bloody HUGE yet he's so gentle, it's really odd. When he was fielding at this benefit game I was at, he was more concerned about his son than about saving runs on the boundary. He put on a brilliant show when he batted though

 

[Rik]

Right, because in 1 of his first 9 matches he lasted beyond the 5th wicket (having come in at either 3 or 4 down)

Now try telling me that that is a young player being left shepherding the tail (which is hardly a tail if Chirs Lewis is batting at 10 after Defreitas and Pringle)

Also, please explain how he was "zigzagged" in his early career when he only ever batted at 5 or 6, and most of those were at 5.

No you said he batted at 5 or 6, therefor he batted with the tail if he batted for any length of time.

Early career stretches further than 9 Tests. But of course I cannot argue with you because you are allways right.

Marc if this arguement is so vital to you, here it is, I hand it to you. Because, unlike you, I don't feel the need to constantly prove myself better or more important than other people through stupid and baseless arguements. (and it is stupid and baseless because Hick is one of the biggest failures for England in the last 10 years)

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about the whole career, not a snippet (since I've shown you can take a snippet from Hick's career and it outshines Ramprakash's best snippet)

And I'm talking about the relative importance of those snippets to the careers. Hick's was in between two periods of failure, and both these periods of failure rivalled the period of success. Ramprakash's period of success came after a long period of very bad failure. Hence it holds more relevance.
Because it is far more logical to suggest that Ramprakash would have continued to have success had his Test-career been allowed to run further than it was than to suggest Hick would have had another period of success 5 years after his last one ended.

 

[Craig]

Cant you and marc agree to disagree :rolleyes:

 

[Rik]

Cant you and marc agree to disagree :rolleyes:

That would involve Marc chilling out, doubt it can be done really.

 

[marc71178]

I'd hardly call a year and a bit a "snippet"

I was talking about 4 years.

 

[Rik]

I was talking about 4 years.

I wasn't. See why there is a disagreement now?

 

[marc71178]

No you said he batted at 5 or 6, therefor he batted with the tail if he batted for any length of time.

A fact I've already disproven since he only lasted past the 5th wicket twice in his early career.

Early career stretches further than 9 Tests.

In a career of about 50 matches, how many do you want to bring into "early". With 9 matches under their belt, I'd hardly call someone inexperienced.

But of course I cannot argue with you because you are allways right.

Whenever you don't have an answer to my argument, you seem to bring this out...

 

[Rik]

Whenever you don't have an answer to my argument, you seem to bring this out... [/B]

Well I do have an answer, I just find winding you up much more fun. I quite simply cannot be bothered arguing with someone who can never admit they are wrong. Why? Because it's because it's built into you. You have to be right all the time, you cannot accept defeat. Arguements become so personal you feel you have to win them. Well, at least I don't

You, as usual, have given absolutely zero evidence on why Hick should be classed as more of a success than Ramprakash. And as usual, you are claiming victory. Look Marc, I don't need this win as much as you obviously do, so to satisfy your ego, here it is, have this arguement, because I've got better things to do than waste my time arguing weather Hick was a success or not when it's pretty obvious with an average of 31 from 65 Tests, that you are just on another post hunt/ego boost.

 

[Richard]

To be fair, he never did say that - he just said "if I argue that Ramprakash was a success, he shall maintain that Hick was".
Personally I believe that Ramprakash was a success in the later part of his career - marc has a perfectly valid point that Hick was a success for a part of his career in the middle.
My argument is simply that, no matter how much longer Hick's good period lasted, and no matter how high his average was in it, it counts for less because it was preceded and suceeded by failure. Ramprakash's most recent series was a failure (like many batsmen on both sides) and there was a period during it that can give a false impression of failure, very bad failure. Personally I don't count that period because I don't believe it has any significance.
However, the basic fact of the matter is, since 1998 Ramprakash as a Test batsman has averaged over 37 when batting in his correct position. I don't seek to argue that this makes-up for a long time averaging just over 16 (:O), but I do simply ask that it be recognised, and people notice that Ramprakash was quite possibly turning the corner when the axe fell for the last time.
Most people, remember, do know about Hick's succesful period in the mid-1990s. So neither you nor me (nor Rik) have lost this argument.

 

[Rik]

but I do simply ask that it be recognised, and people notice that Ramprakash was quite possibly turning the corner when the axe fell for the last time.

Yes but you are arguing with Marc, so he won't recognise it and instead will keep on waffling on with his Hick arguement which has nothing to do with Ramprakash's period of success. Richard, just ignore him, he does it for the attention and you are giving him that attention. Just accept he can't see other people's points of view, because he will never agree with you. It's sad I know, but just let the thread die because whatever you say is not going to make him change his mind. Even if you said White was White he'd disagree.

 

[Richard]

Problem is I'm not much better.:duh:
I hate people blatantly disagreeing with what I see as clear evidence so I just go on and on trying to make them see and accept it.