*Official* England in Bangladesh Thread

[Richard]

Just New Zealand?

Yes, in the last 4 years of his Test-career, just New Zealand. In the first 6 years, against everyone.
Since 1998, the only times Ramps has failed in Tests have been against New Zealand (except when he was forced to open).

 

[Andre]

IMO, the one thing taht stops Hick, Ramprakash and Blewett from being top Test players is that they cannot 'bat ugly'.

In batting ugly, I mean when they are out of form they can't just scratch around, bat for an hour and start middling a few. They are out of the change rooms and before the gate shuts they are back there.

This is certainly the case for guys like Blewett, Hick and Slater - maybe it could be argues Ramps just batted ugly all the time!

 

[Richard]

IMO, the one thing taht stops Hick, Ramprakash and Blewett from being top Test players is that they cannot 'bat ugly'.

In batting ugly, I mean when they are out of form they can't just scratch around, bat for an hour and start middling a few. They are out of the change rooms and before the gate shuts they are back there.

This is certainly the case for guys like Blewett, Hick and Slater - maybe it could be argues Ramps just batted ugly all the time!

In Hick's case, I honestly think that's overcomplicating things - Hick simply cannot play well-pitched short-balls at pace.
In Slater's case, he didn't need to bat ugly, as he batted beautifully often enough. Just a shame he suffered the crises he did when he did.
As for Ramps, he mightn't have been the fastest of scorers, but he sure made the shots he played worth waiting for. If you ask me, anyway.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Slater?

ahem...Blewett, i think you mean

 

[Richard]

Slater?

ahem...Blewett, i think you mean

Blewett hardly had a sustained period of success. He played just about non-stop from the West Indies series that was drawn 2-2 to the first two New Zealand Tests the same time the following year.
He had some success during that period but nowhere near as much as Slater enjoyed for about 7 years.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You're saying that shot against Australia wasn't suspect temperament?

Andre has a great point, the guys just do not have that "X factor" about them which splits the great from the good.

 

[Richard]

You're saying that shot against Australia wasn't suspect temperament?

Andre has a great point, the guys just do not have that "X factor" about them which splits the great from the good.

That shot was nothing to do with a suspect temperament if you ask me.
He went down the wicket. Early. An early movement down the wicket is always a pre-meditated shot. The only explanation for that shot was a moment of total insanity that cricketers experience every now and then. Bowlers sometimes get it and just lose control completely, usually because they're just running in and trying to hurl everything down as quick as they can (note the difference to the famed "yips", caused by nerves, often big-occasion nerves like Scott Boswell in 2001).
He would have decided before the ball was bowled that he was going down the wicket. And everyone knew why. Because Warne had been baiting him. There is something about Warne especially that can make batsmen (especially English batsmen) lose their heads. Hussain (albeit in a one-day international) did a similar thing in the C&U Series of 1998\99, charged down the wicket with a victory in sight, was stumped by Gilchrist and England stumbled in sight of an upset. Because Warne had been baiting him.
It was totally different to the problems Ramps clearly experienced in 2002 in New Zealand, where twice he dragged-on and once chased a very wide ball. Just nervy-looking, impulsive, jerky shots. Then there was one incorrect decision and one bowled by a brilliant slower-ball when he was injured and had just heard of the death of a former team-mate who was apparently quite a close friend.
In no way am I attempting to make an excuse, poor cricket is poor cricket, but simply to find reasons for things.
However, the shots in the Second and first-innings of the Third Test can be put-down to nothing but poor concentration, which could have been caused by nothing but the return of the old temperament problems.

 

[marc71178]

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.

You discounted a series of low scores from your stats you quoted.

Like it or not, those scores happened.

 

[marc71178]

My point exactly about their Test averages - so don't look at their domestic averages.

Changing your tune aren't you? Earlier you said that you "disagree very strongly with the notion that county records are not a good indicator of international potential."

Now you're saying don't look at them?

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.

Ramprakash too many chances as well:

Hick 31
Crawley 35
Ramprakash 27

These are the best 3 English County batsmen currently playing.

 

[marc71178]

That shot was nothing to do with a suspect temperament if you ask me.

He would have decided before the ball was bowled that he was going down the wicket. And everyone knew why. Because Warne had been baiting him.

So, by falling for the bait, what is it he's showing then.

He couldn't cope with Warne so he threw his wicket away!

 

[Richard]

So, by falling for the bait, what is it he's showing then.

He couldn't cope with Warne so he threw his wicket away!

My point is that he's not the first and he probably won't be the last.

 

[Richard]

You discounted a series of low scores from your stats you quoted.
Like it or not, those scores happened.

Yes, I know they happened, but wouldn't you say that opening the batting is rather different to batting at five and six? Because I would. And that is why I exclude them.

 

[Richard]

Changing your tune aren't you? Earlier you said that you "disagree very strongly with the notion that county records are not a good indicator of international potential."
Now you're saying don't look at them?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm saying select your Test players on Test averages.
Simple as. Generally domestic averages are 4 or 5 higher than international ones. But inevitably there are anomalies and you suggested that if you went on averages Crawley, Hick, Ramps would be our middle-order. I was just pointing-out that it depended on what averages you were talking about.

 

[PY]

I'm saying select your Test players on Test averages.

They have to play Test matches to get these averages that you want people to be picked from. To get in the side you either have to get a decent domestic average (which you don't agree with) or be noticed by the selectors for being someone who has 'class' (which you also don't agree with).

We're going to go in a never ending circle of Crawley, Ramps, Hick, McGrath in the 5 and 6 positions and quite frankly I'd rather drink toilet water. 8D

 

[Richard]

They have to play Test matches to get these averages that you want people to be picked from. To get in the side you either have to get a decent domestic average (which you don't agree with) or be noticed by the selectors for being someone who has 'class' (which you also don't agree with).

We're going to go in a never ending circle of Crawley, Ramps, Hick, McGrath in the 5 and 6 positions and quite frankly I'd rather drink toilet water. 8D

Oh, for crying-out loud: I never said selection should be done on anything other than domestic average. I simply said that to KEEP selecting someone who KEEPS failing (it doesn't happen very often) is a bad idea even if they've got a good domestic record.
Cherry-picking players is unlikely to work as few people are better judges of the game than the game itself, no matter whether you're selector, professional journalist or amateur cricket supporter.
And quite where McGrath comes into it I don't know - I presume you mean Anthony - and he should never have come close to selection because his domestic record is rubbish. Yet another example of selecting on a "hunch" rather than decent evidence and having it blow-up in your face.

 

[Craig]

Absolutely spot on Richard.

 

[PY]

I'm saying select your Test players on Test averages.

Oh, for crying-out loud: I never said selection should be done on anything other than domestic average.

Sorry I mis-understood :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

Sorry I mis-understood :rolleyes:

OK, fair enough, I didn't phrase it especially well.
The best I can do is:
You select UNCAPPED players (or those that haven't played recently) on their domestic records. You select players who have RECENTLY played Test-cricket on their recent Test records.
Yes, you will get the odd player who has a good domestic FC record and fails at the Test level, but the point I wish people would observe is that they're rare when you look at the grand scheme of things.

 

[marc71178]

Thing is, I for one am not so sure that these failures are so rare though.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, I for one am not so sure that these failures are so rare though.

Well, who (apart from Hick) has consistently and clearly failed against top-quality Test bowling having done consistently well (at least 2 consecutive seasons) against county bowling?
I can't think of many. Fairbrother is another (fairly) recent example (and interestingly he, like Hick, was a brilliant ODI player).