Mark Ramprakash

[BoyBrumby]

Warming to the theme slightly, perhaps we could learn something from Australia here. Their selectors have taken two ballsy decisions to drop players (Hughes & Hauritz) and have been rewarded both times. Hauritz in particular was unlucky, but Clark's decimation of our middle order on day one justified the decision.

In times of crisis I find solace in cliches, so I'll just say fortune favours the brave and be done with it.

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm, disagree to be honest. Bell has got one decent score (yeah, he had lives, but I didn't see any calls for Pietersen to be dropped after The Oval 05 ) and then failed in a match where the whole line-up has failed. Bopara has failed all series long.

The difference between Bell and Pietersen is the fact that Pietersen scored about 100 runs more than Bell with the same number of lives. That is the difference between a half decent player and a good one.

Regarding Bell v Bopara, you are right Bopara has failed all series long, but Bell has failed all career long.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I was joking about Pietersen tbh, a tad harsh on saying Bell has failed all career long, but he certainly has generally been disappointing. That being said who would I back to score more runs, Bell or Bopara? I'd have to say Bell.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I was joking about Pietersen tbh, a tad harsh on saying Bell has failed all career long, but he certainly has generally been disappointing. That being said who would I back to score more runs, Bell or Bopara? I'd have to say Bell.

Yeah, AWTA. Regardless of how much Bell has disappointed, I still think he's more likely to score runs against Australia than Bopara. Even if it's just his normal lot of a fluent 50 without going on in one innings and a score below 10 in other, that's more of a contribution than I expect Bopara to make.

For my money, Bopara has to go. The question of Ramprakash isn't whether he's more likely than Bopara because, IMO, that's a given at this point. It's whether he's more likely than Trott, Joyce, Carberry, Key etc.. and I don't really know how I feel about that. The romantic side of me wants him to get picked but I'm not sure if I'd actually have the balls to do it myself; I'd probably just pick Trott or Joyce.

 

[Matt79]

To paraphrase Quint from Jaws might say about a forty year old Ramps being thrown in the deep end:
England go in the water? You go in the water? Johnson in the water. (sings)
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

 

[zaremba]

To paraphrase Quint from Jaws might say about a forty year old Ramps being thrown in the deep end:
England go in the water? You go in the water? Johnson in the water. (sings)
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

tbf Ramps has scored plenty of runs at the Oval against better bowlers than this lot

 

[Top_Cat]

There are several problems with this.
Langer made his debut not when the series was square at 1-1. He came in with Australia on top 1-0, and hence there was less pressure on him to perform. I don't doubt that Langer had the sort of mental fortitude that few international players possess (and expecting everyone to have the same sort of steel that he did would be seriously deluding yourself), but even then when it came down to the series deciding game at the WACA, he failed.

That's unfair. He was forced to open when Aus dropped Mark Taylor for the 5th and in the first dig, copped the worst decision I've ever seen, bat missing ball by miles. That the Aussies were 1-0 up meant little because WI were just hitting their straps after demolishing Aus in the ODI series. JL didn't have some superhuman mental strength no-one else possesses, either. He was a tough character but no tougher than anyone else running around at the time.

Langer also had the stability and the experience of the Australian middle order to fall back on. There is a serious, serious difference between having (Steve Waugh who had something like 50 tests on him at the time) and Allan Border (who had well over 100 by this point) coming in after you than having 3 out of Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara, Paul Collingwood and Prior.

AB was a walking wicket by that Test and Steve Waugh was on the verge of being dropped having not been able to establish himself at 3. Have to ask, did you see the series? The Aussie batting was a mess. This was after AB and Mark Waugh had scored tons at Melbourne. It was amazing how quickly their form deserted them when the WI started bowling well. JL walked into the side right in the middle of a bunch of guys playing terribly with a couple (Taylor, the Waughs) playing for their places.

And thats not even considering the fact that Taylor and Boon were opening at the time that there was enough proven and experienced players in that side to take that risk.

I take it you didn't watch then. Taylor was dropped after the Adelaide Test because he'd barely scored a run. Only Boonie really looked likely to score serious runs against that WI attack.

I'll give you that the experience of the Aussie top order was there but they were absolutely on the back-foot by that Test and JL walked into a very, very unstable top-order. Materially, I don't think there's much difference in terms of pressure that a first-gamer would face walking into that line-up vs the England one for the Oval.

 

[Burgey]

If Ramps had his current test record, and was scoring runs in FC cricket like he is now, but was 29 instead of 39, would people view his potential selection differently?

 

[howardj]

For my money, Bopara has to go. The question of Ramprakash isn't whether he's more likely than Bopara because, IMO, that's a given at this point. It's whether he's more likely than Trott, Joyce, Carberry, Key etc.. and I don't really know how I feel about that. The romantic side of me wants him to get picked but I'm not sure if I'd actually have the balls to do it myself; I'd probably just pick Trott or Joyce.

Agreed. Bopara must go. Sometimes batsmen look out of form. Other times, they look out of their depth. He falls into the latter basket. I'd back Chris Tavare in over him at the Oval.

 

[tooextracool]

That's unfair. He was forced to open when Aus dropped Mark Taylor for the 5th and in the first dig, copped the worst decision I've ever seen, bat missing ball by miles. That the Aussies were 1-0 up meant little because WI were just hitting their straps after demolishing Aus in the ODI series. JL didn't have some superhuman mental strength no-one else possesses, either. He was a tough character but no tougher than anyone else running around at the time.


AB was a walking wicket by that Test and Steve Waugh was on the verge of being dropped having not been able to establish himself at 3. Have to ask, did you see the series? The Aussie batting was a mess. This was after AB and Mark Waugh had scored tons at Melbourne. It was amazing how quickly their form deserted them when the WI started bowling well. JL walked into the side right in the middle of a bunch of guys playing terribly with a couple (Taylor, the Waughs) playing for their places.

You are right, I didnt watch the series, except for highlights. Havent claimed to have either.

However, firstly on AB if he was a walking wicket with scores of 39, 60, 112,16 and 57 at an average of 55 before the game where Langer was picked then standards back then must have been pretty high. AB's patch only really started after that, and it extended pretty much all the way to the Ashes that year as I do remember that his double ton at Headingley silenced a lot of critics, if only temporarily

Similarly, both Boon and Mark Waugh had had plenty of success during the series before Langer got picked so it was hardly a completely malfunctioning batting card as England's is ATM. Granted, Langer too was thrown into the cauldron, but just because he came out with some sort of credit in the bank it doesnt mean that it was the right choice ITFP. If you ask me, I would have picked Dean Jones instead of Langer who was rather unfairly cast aside despite doing very little wrong.

I'll give you that the experience of the Aussie top order was there but they were absolutely on the back-foot by that Test and JL walked into a very, very unstable top-order. Materially, I don't think there's much difference in terms of pressure that a first-gamer would face walking into that line-up vs the England one for the Oval.

That maybe the case, but it doesnt mean that it was a good move to pick Langer then and it wouldn't be a good move to pick Trott now IMO. He may very well get picked and end up scoring a century, but the fact is that logically speaking i simply think that it would be asking too much from someone in their first test to come in and rescue a failing middle order with all to play for and the series at 1-1.

 

[tooextracool]

If Ramps had his current test record, and was scoring runs in FC cricket like he is now, but was 29 instead of 39, would people view his potential selection differently?

I would think so because tbh, despite the differences in averages, I dont think Ramprakash was anymore of a failure at the test match level than Ian Bell and the latter is 27 and is still constantly picked. Ramps ironically even in his best years had an astonishingly poor conversion rate much like Ian Bell.

At the domestic level, Ramprakash is undoubtedly the better player, and one could argue hes the best in the country at that. Yes, its only domestic cricket but lets face it, some of the attacks that he has faced in domestic cricket over the years are just as good as this Aussie attack.

 

[Burgey]

This trait in some players of being excellent at FC level and largely appalling at test level is, imo, one of the more curious phenomena going around.

 

[aussie]

I would think so because tbh, despite the differences in averages, I dont think Ramprakash was anymore of a failure at the test match level than Ian Bell and the latter is 27 and is still constantly picked. Ramps ironically even in his best years had an astonishingly poor conversion rate much like Ian Bell.

At the domestic level, Ramprakash is undoubtedly the better player, and one could argue hes the best in the country at that. Yes, its only domestic cricket but lets face it, some of the attacks that he has faced in domestic cricket over the years are just as good as this Aussie attack.

Holdddd up Teco, you know thats nonsense..

 

[Top_Cat]

However, firstly on AB if he was a walking wicket with scores of 39, 60, 112,16 and 57 at an average of 55 before the game where Langer was picked then standards back then must have been pretty high. AB's patch only really started after that, and it extended pretty much all the way to the Ashes that year as I do remember that his double ton at Headingley silenced a lot of critics, if only temporarily

Again, though, that's revisionism. AB's ODI form tapered off in the time between the Sydney Test and Adelaide. The WI bowlers stopped bowling line-and-length and started with the intimidation and AB looked shot. Just have to look at his out in the 2nd dig at Adelaide, fending away a chest ball to short leg. Decent ball but I remember he looked uncomfortable for a while before that.

Similarly, both Boon and Mark Waugh had had plenty of success during the series before Langer got picked so it was hardly a completely malfunctioning batting card as England's is ATM. Granted, Langer too was thrown into the cauldron, but just because he came out with some sort of credit in the bank it doesnt mean that it was the right choice ITFP. If you ask me, I would have picked Dean Jones instead of Langer who was rather unfairly cast aside despite doing very little wrong.

Haha, oh man did I bitch about Deano's non-selection at the time. But, truthfully, although he scored well on the tour to SL, he wasn't part of the new guard. Had a habit of picking up his good scores in dead rubbers towards the end which isn't useful if you want to win Test series.

That maybe the case, but it doesnt mean that it was a good move to pick Langer then and it wouldn't be a good move to pick Trott now IMO. He may very well get picked and end up scoring a century, but the fact is that logically speaking i simply think that it would be asking too much from someone in their first test to come in and rescue a failing middle order with all to play for and the series at 1-1.

Are we asking him to rescue it, though? It might be enough that he contributes. At 29, he shoudl know his game pretty well by now. I just don't think the gulf between the sides is that great. Aus's bowling has stepped up, no doubt. It's still not one you'd put any serious money on, though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

England would do better to go with someone like Stewie Law..

That would be interesting!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Perhaps the massive step up in the level, something which can be rectified through years of moulding one's technique to be more reliable, as he has done in the county circuit.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I agree it's a step up in level, but I don't agree years on the county circuit will make you a better batsman. If the pressure of top level competition is a problem then you won't address that by sticking to county cricket for years. If Ramprakash has done something about his problems performing at a top level then he probably should get another go. If he's just dined out on being a big fish in a small pond then probably not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

tbf Ramps has scored plenty of runs at the Oval against better bowlers than this lot

I'd be surprised if he's faced a 4-pronged attack recently that's much better to be honest - his 100 against Australia with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne was a long time ago. If county cricket is like Aussie state cricket you don't often get a complete attack that is high quality. Given they're showing signs of improvement, if they come out and bowl well this attack is in no way worse than a county attack. If they bowl poorly though then Ramprakash could fill his boots. If Mitch gets a good one going at his scone the same thing could happen

Other than his hundred, Ramprakash has scored a smattering of decent scores (as well as some low ones) at The Oval against teams with both decent and average attacks in tests. All of this was a long time ago though of course.

 

[tooextracool]

Are we asking him to rescue it, though? It might be enough that he contributes. At 29, he shoudl know his game pretty well by now. I just don't think the gulf between the sides is that great. Aus's bowling has stepped up, no doubt. It's still not one you'd put any serious money on, though.

Well thats where we differ though. I didnt rate this England batting before this series, and you can only imagine my estimation of the top 7 with Pietersen out. I dont think that we need someone who can 'make a contribution' or come in and score a 50 in one inning like Langer did. We need someone with experience and maturity to come and show half of these guys how to bat, because quite frankly Bell, Bopara and Cook simply dont have the application or the technique to be able to do so.

Flower's criticism of the England batting side which is on cricinfo is a very accurate reflection of how poorly they batted, repeating the mistakes of the previous year. This is why I suggest Ramprakash, he has 20+ years of honing his game at the FC level, he has arguably as good a technique as anyone out there and he is in better form than anyone else at the moment. It is a big gamble, but if it pays off, we know Ramprakash is capable enough to win test matches, and that is far more than just a 'contribution' that we might get from our debutants.

 

[Jakester1288]

If he is England's best option, obviously after Trott, then he should play. Whether he is or not is debatable, and I don't think too many would think he is there second best option.

 

[inbox24]

Ramps to cash in on the Oval wicket.