*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Neil Pickup]

My dreams are still haunted by that wild swash he took at a length ball from Warne in the 2001 Ashes. England were 100odd for 5 (?) for goodness sake! You're the last recognized batsman! Warne is a class act! Yet you charge down the pitch?!?!? What???

Now I'm upset again.:!(

That shot is permanently imprinted upon my mind.

http://uk.cricinfo.com//link_to_dat...N_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T3_02-06AUG2001.html

 

[marc71178]

Although this is the wrong place, I have to say I'm firmly of the belief that FC average means nothing when it comes to Tests.

Look at the number of bowlers with superb FC records called up by England in recent times.

If you went on average, our middle order would be Hick, Crawley and Ramprakash...

 

[Richard]

Let's look at some facts...

1/ Ramprakash played Test cricket as a specialist batsman.
2/ Ramprakash played 52 Test matches and 92 Test innings.
3/ Ramprakash scored just 2350 runs in those 52 Tests and 92 innings.
4/ Ramprakash averages 27.32 at Test cricket.
5/ Ramprakash has scored 23223 FC at 46.39 per innings.
6/ Ramprakash has 66 FC hundreds and 110 fifties.
7/ Ramprakash has 2 Test hundreds and 12 fifties.

Interesting...

OK, here's some more for you:
In Ramprakash's first 35 Test-innings, he averaged 17.20. In his next 50 (excluding opening, where he reached 20 once in 7 innings and proved fairly conclusively that he is not suited to that position) he averaged over 37.
Now, some people would hold the first 35 against him, but personally I'd say there's ample evidence that the corner has been turned.

 

[Neil Pickup]

England 181/2 vs Bangladesh CB President's XI

ME Trescothick c Aftab Ahmed b Enamul Haque 90
181/3
GP Thorpe c Anwar Hossain b Enamul Haque 0
181/4
N Hussain lbw b Gazi Alamgir 17
181/5
R Clarke c Aftab Ahmed b Enamul Haque 0
181/6

Words fail me, once more...

 

[Neil Pickup]

251 all out. The oldest guy in that Bangladeshi team is 23.

Read lbw b Anwar Hossain Monir 43 - sole highlight.

Pathetic! Now let's knock them over for sub-100 and prove that it's just the pitch and outfield.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

OK, here's some more for you:
In Ramprakash's first 35 Test-innings, he averaged 17.20. In his next 50 (excluding opening, where he reached 20 once in 7 innings and proved fairly conclusively that he is not suited to that position) he averaged over 37.
Now, some people would hold the first 35 against him, but personally I'd say there's ample evidence that the corner has been turned.

If 35 innings isn't enough to 'turn the corner' at Test level...

 

[Richard]

Although this is the wrong place, I have to say I'm firmly of the belief that FC average means nothing when it comes to Tests.

Look at the number of bowlers with superb FC records called up by England in recent times.

If you went on average, our middle order would be Hick, Crawley and Ramprakash...

What I suspect you mean is "if we went on COUNTY averages" that would be our middle-order.
As for bowlers with good First-Class averages called into the Test side recently, well, what a sorry tale that is. No recent debutants have had GOOD county records, the best have been Johnson and Kirtley (averaging just under 27), and not surprisingly they have done better than the like of Harmison, Jones and Dawson, who were picked when there was nothing in their FC records to merit their selection. Dawson might have had mental strength but there are more important aspects of cricketing skill - in the case of bowlers the ability to move the ball - and Dawson decidedly can't turn the ball except on extravagant surfaces (not many of them outside subcontinent and WI) and he certainly can't get loop or drift.
His was one of the worst selections in recent memory, and that's saying something.

 

[Richard]

If 35 innings isn't enough to 'turn the corner' at Test level...

Yes, I agree, he was most disappointing in his first 19 Tests (he actually scored what turned-out to be a vital 48 in the last of those 35 innings).
However, he was given another chance. It is perfectly fair to say that 33 innings is more than enough opportunity (and but for the 48 in the final innings of '97 he probably wouldn't have gone to West Indies) and that he didn't deserve any more chances, but the fact is he was given those chances and he took them.
Heaven knows, I was saying non-stop for four years that Flintoff was rubbish and he didn't merit his place in the Test-side, and it was quite true. But last series he averaged 52 with the bat. Quite simply, you're only as good or bad as your last knock or series of knocks. If someone has scored a half-century in their most recent innings, they have every right to feel aggrieved are they not selected in the next match at that level, and if they have averaged over 35 they have a similar right if not selected for the next series.
Always, of course, barring extenuating circumstances. If someone has had disciplinary problems, they can't argue with being dropped if they've got a Test-average of 50.

 

[Richard]

I too am lost for words at Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe and Clarke all being out on the same score.
Thank God we've got two tour-matches. Maybe conditions aren't as easy to adapt to as we thought.

 

[marc71178]

OK, here's some more for you:
In Ramprakash's first 35 Test-innings, he averaged 17.20. In his next 50 (excluding opening, where he reached 20 once in 7 innings and proved fairly conclusively that he is not suited to that position) he averaged over 37.
Now, some people would hold the first 35 against him, but personally I'd say there's ample evidence that the corner has been turned.

Nice manipulation there. He may not have been suited, but he did it in CC as well, so he had the practise.

For me, he's a worse Test than Hick, and he wasn't the best!

No matter what anyone says, 35 Test innings is a lot more than a lot of others have had, and he failed in them.

 

[marc71178]

England 181/2 vs Bangladesh CB President's XI

ME Trescothick c Aftab Ahmed b Enamul Haque 90
181/3
GP Thorpe c Anwar Hossain b Enamul Haque 0
181/4
N Hussain lbw b Gazi Alamgir 17
181/5
R Clarke c Aftab Ahmed b Enamul Haque 0
181/6

Words fail me, once more...

Rikki Clarke, the saviour of English Cricket...

 

[marc71178]

What I suspect you mean is "if we went on COUNTY averages" that would be our middle-order.

Yes, and look at their Test records...

As for bowlers with good First-Class averages called into the Test side recently, well, what a sorry tale that is. No recent debutants have had GOOD county records, the best have been Johnson and Kirtley (averaging just under 27)

I presume you forget the likes of Mike Smith, James Ormond, Alex Tudor, Simon Brown?

 

[marc71178]

I too am lost for words at Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe and Clarke all being out on the same score.
Thank God we've got two tour-matches. Maybe conditions aren't as easy to adapt to as we thought.

Or maybe, as 46-6 overnight shows, it's not a good wicket?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hoggard 3/11 [8]
Harmison 1/12 [8]
Saggers 2/6 [6]
Clarke 0/5 [3]
Giles 0/4 [1]

Not a good wicket.

 

[Richard]

Thank God it's not a First-Class match!

 

[Rich2001]

As for bowlers with good First-Class averages called into the Test side recently, well, what a sorry tale that is. No recent debutants have had GOOD county records, the best have been Johnson and Kirtley (averaging just under 27), and not surprisingly they have done better than the like of Harmison, Jones and Dawson, who were picked when there was nothing in their FC records to merit their selection.

M.Saggers has 301 wickets @ 22.88 - Is that not Good?

 

[Richard]

Nice manipulation there. He may not have been suited, but he did it in CC as well, so he had the practise.

For me, he's a worse Test than Hick, and he wasn't the best!

No matter what anyone says, 35 Test innings is a lot more than a lot of others have had, and he failed in them.

Manipulation? Come on! So pointing-out a simple difference between one set of series and another is manipulation.
Manipulation is picking-out a series here, a series there (or an innings here and an innings there) and saying THAT proves something.
But surely you do not disagree that something which has happened pretty much solidly over nearly 4 years is conclusive evidence? (I say pretty much solidly as he has actually had 2 bad series out of 8, both against New Zealand)
I have said; yes, 34 innings is a lot more than most people get, and he didn't deserve any more chances than he got then.
But he got selected for the Sixth Test against Australia in 1997 and rarely looked back.
As for Hick, he failed because he has a technical fault, just like Michael Bevan, against the short-ball. Ramprakash, like Blewett, has no obvious technical problem that is not exposed at domestic-First-Class level and is in Tests, but has a worse Test record than he should have because of a suspect temperament when playing New Zealand.

 

[Richard]

M.Saggers has 301 wickets @ 22.88 - Is that not Good?

Yes, and Saggers hasn't played Test-cricket yet, so there is no evidence to judge the comparison on!

 

[Neil Pickup]

A suspect temperament when playing New Zealand.

Just New Zealand?

 

[Richard]

Yes, and look at their Test records...

I presume you forget the likes of Mike Smith, James Ormond, Alex Tudor, Simon Brown?

My point exactly about their Test averages - so don't look at their domestic averages. Look at their Test ones, and do your selection on the Test ones, not the domestic ones. Crawley and Ramprakash have been much better in their most recent series', but Hick - far too many chances.
As for the bowlers:
Mike Smith, who played one Test, and on his way to dreadful figures had Matt Elliott dropped in his 1st over (and as we all know Elliott went on to a rather big score)?
Simon Brown, who likewise played just 1 Test?
James Ormond (who played just 2 Tests anyway, both in unhelpful conditions), who has averaged over 30 in both the last 2 Championship seasons?
And Alex Tudor, who has been about as inconsistent as ever in both Test and domestic-First-Class-cricket? Usually it depends on the pitches he's playing on - in green conditions he's lethal, in dry conditions useless. And not often that accurate.