England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Richard]

I don't think you have seen Solanki bat. The guy definately has real talent but takes too many risks like Sehwag did early in his career . But the thing is he has played for about 7-8 yrs and still commits the same mistakes. But he has been scoring heavily this season and if has become more solid then i certainly wouldn't put it out of his reach as the top order isn't doing that great in onedayers.

Solanki has tremendous talent but that talent makes him a much better player in the First-Class game than in the one-dayers (still, he's done OK in one-day games in the last 2 seasons).
I still don't understand why everyone seems determined to make him an opener in the one-day game - he's not an opener. And he's certainly not an international opener.

 

[marc71178]

So why does he open all the time then?

And why did he not really do anything when batting in the middle order?

 

[Richard]

rubbish ive watched most of englands ODI games over the last decade and ealham very rarely bowled in the first 15 and 99/100 times didnt bowl in the death. they had 3 better bowlers in the death, gough,mullally and white. you yourself mentioned that he rarely bowled in the death now you say that he did so on several occasions. total tripe, you cant make false claims and get away with it.

What a good job I've not made false claims, then - yet again, it is simply you attempting to misrepresent my words.
Just because the instances have been rare, among 62, it does not stop them being several in number. Nor does it mean Ealham hasn't bowled a bit more in the overs 40-45 - once again, for him to do that was not especially unusual.
Mullally most certainly isn't the greatest at bowling at the death, for the same reasons as Ealham; White, meanwhile, bowled in a sum total of 19 of these 62 - less than a third.
And if you think Ealham very rarely bowled in the first 15 overs you can't have been watching very closely.
If he had bowled exclusively between overs 16 and 40 I'm prepared to bet his economy-rate would be something in the region of 3.7 - some 1.0 lower than your prediction for if he bowled in the last 5 overs every game.
And, given that he is suited to bowling in one situation and not to the other, I know which one I place more value on.

 

[Richard]

So why does he open all the time then?

Because, believe it or not, selectors do not know everything! And just because the Worcs' selectors have made a mistake, why do the England ones have to do the same?

And why did he not really do anything when batting in the middle order?

For probably the same reasons he didn't do much when opening.

 

[Richard]

no he failed for 4 years in a row....you dont retain a player for what he did in 98 i can assure you.

No, he did not fail for 4 years in a row. He failed in his one series in 1999, didn't play in his proper position in 2000 (so as far as I'm concerned didn't play at all), did pretty well in 2001 and failed again in his one series in 2002. Both failures were against New Zealand and all other series from West Indies 1998 onwards he did either pretty or very well in.

as i said earlier...that 37 has mostly to do with what he did in 98....he failed for 4 years thereafter with or without batting in the middle order hence he didnt deserve to be in the side.

He couldn't have many complaints about being dropped, no - though it should be pointed-out that both his failure series against New Zealand which resulted in his dropping were on seaming pitches where bowlers dominated.

no he just wasnt good enough at the intl level then....it was quite clear and so he was dropped. he had some flaws he needed to iron out, and those flaws hadnt exactly been found out at the domestic level for reasons that we know off.

No, he wasn't good enough - in the limited chances he got. What flaws were these, then, except shot-execution that was slightly faulty on a couple of occasions.
He was given lbw to a ball that was going over the top and got two snorting balls that most would struggle to play. In the other two he chipped to cover. Sure, those are massive flaws.

no you've got it wrong...its quite likely that most players who were good enough for the intl level were good enough for domestic cricket.... you would expect that from any intl quality player.

... and what did I say? If you check, you might just find-out that this is exactly what I said.

umm no...you dont retain players who fail miserably that long. generally you get about 1 test series and i think its fair to judge whether or not someone has potential from one series

So despite the fact that Chopra has - whatever Sehwag has done - failed miserably in two consecutive series he still has potential in your mind.
As I have pointed-out, "miserable" failure is always going to have plenty of quibbling about it.

no they were several players who were decent(not brilliant) domestic players but failed miserably at the intl arena. if domestic performances are translated to the intl arena then they should perform just about as well.

No, because as I said, the international level is a step up from the domestic, so it cannot be expected that someone is going to do every bit as well at international as domestic level.

 

[Richard]

Erm where have you "allowed for that 1999 average"?

I mentioned that Ramprakash's one series in 1999 wasn't the greatest.

It is woeful, as was Ramprakash. If not, why was he dropped?

Because twice he failed against New Zealand... and he was made to open.

 

[Richard]

this is just typical of someone who has been proven wrong....you said that there were several players who maintained their ODI record after 35, well lets see you name those several ppl then.

No, I didn't say that - I seeked to prove wrong the sweeping generalisation "you do realise players get worse as they get older, don't you?"
You then mentioned that "we are talking about ODIs here".

no the fact is there have been very few if any at all and even then they would be called anomalies, that trend must say something. ealham was dropped for a reason.....he wasnt good enough then so why should he be brought back when there havent been many players at all who have improved in ODIs after 35? if people tended to remain as good as they were then there would be no reason for them to retire either

You should listen to Don Bradman sometime.
"I think there comes a time in every man's life - irrespective of whether he may still be good enough to carry-on or not - that he should make-way for a younger man".
Wasim Akram is an example of someone who didn't get any worse in ODIs, no matter how old he got, but yes, he's probably an anomaly. However, I'd like to see some examples of players who were pretty good one-day players entering their 35th year and then got substantially worse over the next couple of years.

in the days when england were one of the worst ODI teams around....id say he got plenty of chances. he batted at 7 and there have been several players of better teams who have scored 50s batting at 7

Out of 45 ODI innings, Ealham batted above seven 6 times; at seven 21 times; and at eight 17 times (nine once).
So this disproves your theory of him batting at seven most of the time.
I'd like to see anyone who's made a success out of batting at eight in ODIs.
In his innings at seven in which he failed (ie was dismissed for less than 20) of which I can research accurately, he was dismissed in the following overs:
36; 39 (but run-out, and I can tell you certainly that it was entirely Adam Hollioake's falt, calling for a suicidal second to Pollock at third-man); 47; 44; 40; 42; 24; 22; 43; 42.
So on only 3 occasions out of 9 did he fall outside the last 10 overs. Incidentally, the two occasions in which he fell in the 20s were both collapses in the face of inspired South African bowling where no contribution he might have made would make a difference.

no he didnt...you should check the facts, he was a one dimensional bowler, who wasnt very good at his only skill

Apart from the fact that he isn't one-dimensional and is, very, good at his primary skill - what does that have to do with the fact that Ealham did bowl at the very end of a ODI innngs several times?

and those bowlers had better stats than ealham its that simple. england have younger bowlers capable of doing what ealham did and perhaps bowl at the death, why should he be given another chance

Oh yeah?
England certainly don't have any bowlers ATM capable of doing what Ealham does; and let's see some bowlers with significantly better stats than Ealham, then? Mullally is one, I'd like to see some others.

he was ordinary...he didnt exactly have a safe pair of hands,wasnt the quickest around in the field and would never dive to save a boundary. and all this at 32...can you imagine what hed be like when hes 38?

Never dive to save a boundary? That again suggests you've not been watching very closely. Doesn't have a safe pair of hands? That suggests you've been watching something totally different. Believe it or not, I've never seen him drop a catch. Not that this means he doesn't drop them as often as everyone else, but it says something of the number of games I've watched in which he's participated (about 100) and the number of catches he's taken in that time.
I'll give you he's not the quickest over the ground because he's not got long levers, but personally I'll take an excellent bowler who can catch and stop anything near him, even if he won't chase down the odd one which someone else might.

thats definetly not the case for vaas i can assure you

Let's see the evidence, then? And don't go using the apology of an excuse that all Zimbabwean sides are sub-international par - that only applies from WC2003 onwards.

 

[marc71178]

Because twice he failed against New Zealand... and he was made to open.

Yet his career ended in the middle and he was dropped then - why was that if he was such a success?

 

[tooextracool]

Just because the instances have been rare, among 62, it does not stop them being several in number. Nor does it mean Ealham hasn't bowled a bit more in the overs 40-45 - once again, for him to do that was not especially unusual.

the only times that he ever bowled in the death were during games in which england had almost certainly already won the game...which happened alot against zimbabwe etc and on seamer friendly wickets. neither of which would have too much effect on the ER.

Mullally most certainly isn't the greatest at bowling at the death, for the same reasons as Ealham; White, meanwhile, bowled in a sum total of 19 of these 62 - less than a third.

and where did you come up with this statistic from?

And if you think Ealham very rarely bowled in the first 15 overs you can't have been watching very closely.
If he had bowled exclusively between overs 16 and 40 I'm prepared to bet his economy-rate would be something in the region of 3.7 - some 1.0 lower than your prediction for if he bowled in the last 5 overs every game.
And, given that he is suited to bowling in one situation and not to the other, I know which one I place more value on.

nope, the 4.1 has largely to do with the fact that he bowled 10 overs straight from 16 -40

 

[Richard]

Yet his career ended in the middle and he was dropped then - why was that if he was such a success?

Because he failed in a series - I've just said that.
When you begin your career as poorly as he did (averaging 16 up to 1998), you can't really even afford one bad series.
Both the occasions he had a bad series were against New Zealand and both resulted in his being dropped, despite the fact that very few batsmen did much better in either series.
And he was recalled as an opener and dropped when that unsurprisingly failed in between these two.

 

[Richard]

the only times that he ever bowled in the death were during games in which england had almost certainly already won the game...which happened alot against zimbabwe etc and on seamer friendly wickets. neither of which would have too much effect on the ER.

Apart from the fact that this would have some effect on the economy-rate, it always does because of the defensive fields which make 5-an-over almost impossible not to score, I can't think of a single occasion where he bowled at the death against Zimbabwe.

and where did you come up with this statistic from?

Err, it wasn't very difficult, I just counted the number of ODIs in which Ealham and White both bowled. Then I counted the number of ODIs in which Ealham bowled.

nope, the 4.1 has largely to do with the fact that he bowled 10 overs straight from 16 -40

And as I've said many times, that hardly ever happened. How many times am I going to have to say this?

 

[tooextracool]

No, he did not fail for 4 years in a row. He failed in his one series in 1999, didn't play in his proper position in 2000 (so as far as I'm concerned didn't play at all), did pretty well in 2001 and failed again in his one series in 2002. Both failures were against New Zealand and all other series from West Indies 1998 onwards he did either pretty or very well in..

of course that tour of india doesnt count at all does it? unless you consider an average of 31 to be 'pretty well' done. the only success he had after 98 was in that ashes series where mind you bar the 133 he couldnt get more than 40 in any of the games

He couldn't have many complaints about being dropped, no - though it should be pointed-out that both his failure series against New Zealand which resulted in his dropping were on seaming pitches where bowlers dominated...

yes that series in india was such a bowler friendly series wasnt it with only one result being managed? and let me remind you that there were times in that NZ tour were the pitches werent flat,most notably in the 2nd innings of the 1st test where he failed. and why should failure on seaming pitches be condoned at all?
also its surprising that richardson had a 60 and a 76 in that series and we all know he cant bat on seamer friendly wickets.

No, he wasn't good enough - in the limited chances he got. What flaws were these, then, except shot-execution that was slightly faulty on a couple of occasions.
He was given lbw to a ball that was going over the top and got two snorting balls that most would struggle to play. In the other two he chipped to cover. Sure, those are massive flaws.

oh yes but in chopras case those same flaws stand out despite the fact that chopra averages more than 10 runs more than him.....

... and what did I say? If you check, you might just find-out that this is exactly what I said..

err no....i said that almost every successful english batsman is bound to have good domestic averages but its not necessary that every successful domestic player has good averages and that has been demonstrated on several occasion.

So despite the fact that Chopra has - whatever Sehwag has done - failed miserably in two consecutive series he still has potential in your mind.
As I have pointed-out, "miserable" failure is always going to have plenty of quibbling about it.

and as almost every other forum member believes he hasnt failed at all.....hes done as well as some other greats have done in the past but as we all know you would have dropped steve waugh,sachin tendulkar and the rest. probably picked das ahead of them too......

No, because as I said, the international level is a step up from the domestic, so it cannot be expected that someone is going to do every bit as well at international as domestic level.

and by that logic it cannot be expected that someone who succeeds at the domestic level is bound to succeed at the internatonal level......

 

[tooextracool]

No, I didn't say that - I seeked to prove wrong the sweeping generalisation "you do realise players get worse as they get older, don't you?"
You then mentioned that "we are talking about ODIs here"

most players get worse beyond 33 in both forms of the game, but its all the more rare to see players in ODIs lasting beyond 35 than in tests.

You should listen to Don Bradman sometime.
"I think there comes a time in every man's life - irrespective of whether he may still be good enough to carry-on or not - that he should make-way for a younger man".
Wasim Akram is an example of someone who didn't get any worse in ODIs, no matter how old he got, but yes, he's probably an anomaly. However, I'd like to see some examples of players who were pretty good one-day players entering their 35th year and then got substantially worse over the next couple of years.

you already compiled a list earlier.....gooch,stewart,ambrose,walsh,miandad etc

Out of 45 ODI innings, Ealham batted above seven 6 times; at seven 21 times; and at eight 17 times (nine once).
So this disproves your theory of him batting at seven most of the time.
I'd like to see anyone who's made a success out of batting at eight in ODIs..

thats a stupid claim, how can you call somone who batted more often at 7 a number 8? i shall choose to ignore that and look at other player records at 7...

kaif 38.57(interestingly hes played exactly the same number of games as ealham at 7)
klusener 32.46
boucher 24.07
parore 24.89
dave richardson 26.24

interestingly all of them have scored at least one 50 at that position where ealham has failed to score anything over 45 in his entire career. how you can call anyone who hasnt scored a 50 as a batsman i'll never know.

In his innings at seven in which he failed (ie was dismissed for less than 20) of which I can research accurately, he was dismissed in the following overs:
36; 39 (but run-out, and I can tell you certainly that it was entirely Adam Hollioake's falt, calling for a suicidal second to Pollock at third-man); 47; 44; 40; 42; 24; 22; 43; 42.
So on only 3 occasions out of 9 did he fall outside the last 10 overs. Incidentally, the two occasions in which he fell in the 20s were both collapses in the face of inspired South African bowling where no contribution he might have made would make a difference...

1) why is anything over 20 not considered failure?
2) what those 17 innings that he batted at 8?

Oh yeah?
England certainly don't have any bowlers ATM capable of doing what Ealham does; and let's see some bowlers with significantly better stats than Ealham, then? Mullally is one, I'd like to see some others.

err do you not read?the onyl reason ealham had stats like those was because he never bowled at the death...if he did he would have an ER of aroun 4.7 and there are several other bowlers around who can do the same job and take wickets too. regardless of that both angus fraser(3.54) and caddick(4.01) have better stats than ealham and along with gough,mullally and craig white i find it hard to understand why he was in the side in the first place.....

Never dive to save a boundary? That again suggests you've not been watching very closely. Doesn't have a safe pair of hands? That suggests you've been watching something totally different. Believe it or not, I've never seen him drop a catch. Not that this means he doesn't drop them as often as everyone else, but it says something of the number of games I've watched in which he's participated (about 100) and the number of catches he's taken in that time..

im not sure what ealham you watch but ive never seen ealham dive to save a boundary. the only way he saves a boundary is in that old fashioned booting the ball which is totally outmoded now. as a catcher he was decent, perhaps not a clumsy fielder as butcher or thorpe but he didnt exactly have the safest hands in the field.

I'll give you he's not the quickest over the ground because he's not got long levers, but personally I'll take an excellent bowler who can catch and stop anything near him, even if he won't chase down the odd one which someone else might.

the thing is that he wasnt even a good bowler let alone excellent.....

Let's see the evidence, then? And don't go using the apology of an excuse that all Zimbabwean sides are sub-international par - that only applies from WC2003 onwards.

why because that makes your beloved chaminda vaas looks bad? zimbabwe have been rubbish since 2000 when they lost johnson and goodwin, and theres absolutely no reason why they shouldnt be considered minnows.

 

[tooextracool]

Apart from the fact that this would have some effect on the economy-rate, it always does because of the defensive fields which make 5-an-over almost impossible not to score, I can't think of a single occasion where he bowled at the death against Zimbabwe.?

of course you cant because it would only save your argument.....i cant think of too many occasions when he bowled at the death against any side!

Err, it wasn't very difficult, I just counted the number of ODIs in which Ealham and White both bowled. Then I counted the number of ODIs in which Ealham bowled

im pretty certain that mullally bowled in the death too...as did dominic cork for the while that he played

And as I've said many times, that hardly ever happened. How many times am I going to have to say this?

and how many times do i have to say that it almost always happened

 

[tooextracool]

Both the occasions he had a bad series were against New Zealand and both resulted in his being dropped, despite the fact that very few batsmen did much better in either series.

interesting that...ramprakash average 15 in that series in 01
tresco 28
butcher 29
hussain 56
flintoff 40
thorpe 68
foster 52
vaughan 22

he was quite clearly the worst batsman in that series...in other words a disgrace just like the rest of his career was.

 

[Richard]

of course that tour of india doesnt count at all does it? unless you consider an average of 31 to be 'pretty well' done. the only success he had after 98 was in that ashes series where mind you bar the 133 he couldnt get more than 40 in any of the games

No, 31 is OK when you consider what came before. No-one is going to average 40 series after series - when you go into a series averaging more than 40 over the last 6 series 31 is perfectly acceptible.

yes that series in india was such a bowler friendly series wasnt it with only one result being managed? and let me remind you that there were times in that NZ tour were the pitches werent flat,most notably in the 2nd innings of the 1st test where he failed. and why should failure on seaming pitches be condoned at all?
also its surprising that richardson had a 60 and a 76 in that series and we all know he cant bat on seamer friendly wickets.

Let me remind you that there was just that one instance in the entire New Zealand series where the pitches were flat - the time from the middle of the third day, when Thorpe (after being dropped second ball) and Flintoff put-on about 250, the Richardson ended with 76 to his name despite being absolutely plumb lbw on 44. Ramprakash had already been dismissed for 11 by a ball which seamed back in, which he dragged on.
It's not surprising that Richardson scored 60 in the Second Test because he had about 3 let-offs in the innings.
The series in India was far more bowler-friendly than it might be convenient for you to remember, too - the Bangalore Test was about as seamer-friendly as you'll see, it would have had a result almost beyond question but for all the rain; and the Ahmedabad Test provided a surface which turned sharply and England would probably have won had Giles bowled better on the last day.
Failure on seaming (or turning) pitches should not be condoned at all, but it should be taken in context.

oh yes but in chopras case those same flaws stand out despite the fact that chopra averages more than 10 runs more than him.....

Well there are no technical flaws in either, just flaws in the shot-selection which has meant both have failed, even if Chopra has been very poor while Smith has been a bit worse having had far less opportunity.

err no....i said that almost every successful english batsman is bound to have good domestic averages but its not necessary that every successful domestic player has good averages and that has been demonstrated on several occasion.

No, it's been demonstrated on an occasional occasion, and those are very much in the minority. Knight, Hick and Fairbrother are about the only examples in Test-matches (they were England's best one-day-international batsmen probably in the whole ODI history) in the last 20 years.

and as almost every other forum member believes he hasnt failed at all.....hes done as well as some other greats have done in the past but as we all know you would have dropped steve waugh,sachin tendulkar and the rest. probably picked das ahead of them too......

And as almost every other forum member is mistaken in their definition of "success" that doesn't matter much.
And whether I would have dropped Stephen Waugh, Atapattu or anyone else (not Tendulkar, given that his average never dropped below 29.87 after his 3rd game) is irrelevant, because they weren't dropped - Chopra, it seems, has been.

and by that logic it cannot be expected that someone who succeeds at the domestic level is bound to succeed at the internatonal level......

No, not bound to, but likely to. Anyway, that isn't relevant - it is always likely, while not certain, that someone who's bettered someone else at one level is also likely to better them at another.

 

[Richard]

most players get worse beyond 33 in both forms of the game, but its all the more rare to see players in ODIs lasting beyond 35 than in tests.

If most players get worse then let's see some players whose averages got so much worse in their mid-30s.

you already compiled a list earlier.....gooch,stewart,ambrose,walsh,miandad etc

Yes, and I was making a different point - some players play on because they feel like it, others don't have any desire to. That's why not all players who could play into their mid and late 30s do so. Michael Atherton, for instance, could no longer play because his injury finally became too much, at just 33.

thats a stupid claim, how can you call somone who batted more often at 7 a number 8?

I didn't - I said anyone batting at eight isn't likely to have made a success out of their batting career. And that Ealham has batted, while not most often, then a considerable amount, at eight.

i shall choose to ignore that and look at other player records at 7...

kaif 38.57(interestingly hes played exactly the same number of games as ealham at 7)
klusener 32.46
boucher 24.07
parore 24.89
dave richardson 26.24

interestingly all of them have scored at least one 50 at that position where ealham has failed to score anything over 45 in his entire career. how you can call anyone who hasnt scored a 50 as a batsman i'll never know.

The half-century count may have something to do with the fact that Richardson played 29 innings to Ealham's 21. Kaif, Boucher, Klusener and Parore's reasonable records in terms of average and half-centuries may have something to do with the fact that all are either good or very good lower-order one-day batsmen, much better than Ealham and something I've never denied.
An unfair comparison if there ever was one. Maybe you'd do better to compare some lower-order batsmen of comparable ability?

1) why is anything over 20 not considered failure?
2) what those 17 innings that he batted at 8?

Because in an one-day game once you've made 20 it's a reasonable achievement that can conceivably regularly make a difference to the game. Especially if you're batting in the lower-order.
And as I say, I'd like to see someone who made a success of batting at eight in a one-day game

err do you not read?the onyl reason ealham had stats like those was because he never bowled at the death...if he did he would have an ER of aroun 4.7 and there are several other bowlers around who can do the same job and take wickets too. regardless of that both angus fraser(3.54) and caddick(4.01) have better stats than ealham and along with gough,mullally and craig white i find it hard to understand why he was in the side in the first place.....

Angus Fraser by and large was before Ealham's time and Caddick's massive difference of .07 sure proves a lot. In any case, I'd say Fraser was a better bowler than Ealham. But for injury he'd be one England's all-time greats IMO.
And yes, I do read, and I am without doubt that you are wholly wrong that Ealham's economy-rate would be around 4.7-an-over if he'd bowled the last few overs in most ODIs. Equally, I'm without doubt that it'd be about 3.7-3.8-an-over if he had never bowled in the last 10 overs and regularly bowled exclusively from overs 10 to 30.

im not sure what ealham you watch but ive never seen ealham dive to save a boundary. the only way he saves a boundary is in that old fashioned booting the ball which is totally outmoded now. as a catcher he was decent, perhaps not a clumsy fielder as butcher or thorpe but he didnt exactly have the safest hands in the field.

Thorpe is not a clumsy catcher by any stretch. He's dropped the odd clanger, but who hasn't? He certainly hasn't dropped them with anywhere near the regularity that Butcher has.
Mark my words, I've got videos of games which include Ealham diving to save boundaries.

the thing is that he wasnt even a good bowler let alone excellent.....

Yes, he was, his record is excellent when it's put in context.

why because that makes your beloved chaminda vaas looks bad? zimbabwe have been rubbish since 2000 when they lost johnson and goodwin, and theres absolutely no reason why they shouldnt be considered minnows.

No, Zimbabwe have got steadily worse since 2000 when they lost Johnson and Goodwin, but the big decline came post-March 2003, and only after then can they be considered sub-par by international standards.
Just because some of Chaminda's best has come against Zimbabwe it doesn't mean he hasn't bowled well.

 

[Richard]

of course you cant because it would only save your argument.....i cant think of too many occasions when he bowled at the death against any side!

No, there weren't that many - but there were several.
Whatever my argument, it doesn't change the facts that I can't think of any times when he bowled against Zimbabwe at the death, and you attempted to say that he did.

im pretty certain that mullally bowled in the death too...as did dominic cork for the while that he played

Mullally didn't bowl at the death very often, because he isn't very well suited to it - like Ealham, much best used in the first 30 overs.

and how many times do i have to say that it almost always happened

As many as you like - I'm right, you're wrong.

 

[chris.hinton]

Ealham was a good player

 

[Richard]

interesting that...ramprakash average 15 in that series in 01
tresco 28
butcher 29
hussain 56
flintoff 40
thorpe 68
foster 52
vaughan 22

he was quite clearly the worst batsman in that series...in other words a disgrace just like the rest of his career was.

No, a disappointment just like most of his career in the middle-order after 1998 wasn't.
Thorpe's average of 68 in that series, incidentally, owes just about everything to a dropped catch by Nathan Astle (his first-chance average was 15.60) and Foster owes it to lots of not-outs which were easy to achieve, and a first-ball dropped catch by Parore (his first-chance average was 29.67, still impressive for a wicketkeeper but not that good by batsmen's standards).
The only decent batsman of that series was Hussain and even he needed a bit of luck in his most important innings; Flintoff was pretty good but still that was only because the attack was so poor in his 2 good innings. Even if no-one was as bad as Ramprakash, they were all still pretty poor.