Ashes - memories

[tooextracool]

Really?
Because Habibul has clearly been such a wonderful Test-match batsman, hasn't he?
Aside from a very short spell he's often batted as irresponsibly woefully as he has this Test.

you know whats quite hilarious?
if you replaced 'habibul' with 'ramps' in your post, it would make no difference.
and wait for it......
habibul bashar averages more than ramprakash at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

Somehow I doubt it.
Unlike Ramprakash in that innings he hadn't been batting wholly competantly for an hour and a quarter previously.

and it made his dismissal look even more ridiculous. but of course we all knew that ramprakash and batting competently dont go together for too long.

 

[badgerhair]

Charging Warne is never the best idea in The World, no, and it was a very poor shot.
But the pitch wasn't getting any better and if he'd somehow managed to hit the ball you never know, he might have played a match-turning innings.

He got the idea of charging Warne from Warne himself. Warne had been making remarks along the lines of "Go on, hit me, you know you want to" for some time, and in the end Ramprakash succumbed to temptation. Which is what makes Warne such a great bowler.

Getting caught in such an obvious trap wasn't very impressive, though, so your attempted defence of him doesn't work. There are no defences of Ramprakash which successfully counter the basic thrust that he was not up to it mentally despite being technically the finest player in the land. I know there aren't, because I've tried them all. Many times over, and for years before you started watching cricket seriously, as I was a fan from the first time I saw him in 1987. (I admit to having rather abruptly stopped being a fan in 2000, and still treasure the wonderful captain's column in Middlesex Matters ["no it doesn't" being the obvious rejoinder] in which Gus Fraser expressed his great regret that Richard Johnson was leaving but fully understood his reasons and wished him well, in stark contrast to players who left because they thought they had more of a chance of being picked for England at another club: it was one of the most vicious things I've read written by one player about another in an official club magazine. But I'd actually given up on Ramps's Test career before he left Middx, and its revival in 2001 was a great shame.)

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Really?
Because Habibul has clearly been such a wonderful Test-match batsman, hasn't he?

Better than Ramprakash.

 

[Richard]

habibul bashar averages more than ramprakash at the international level.

Mostly as a result of the very short period where he presumably batted far better than he has most of the rest of the time.
And wait for it... if you take Ramprakash 1998-2002 (excluding opening innings) Ramprakash averages more.

 

[Richard]

and it made his dismissal look even more ridiculous. but of course we all knew that ramprakash and batting competently dont go together for too long.

Except at The Oval later that season...

 

[Richard]

He got the idea of charging Warne from Warne himself. Warne had been making remarks along the lines of "Go on, hit me, you know you want to" for some time, and in the end Ramprakash succumbed to temptation. Which is what makes Warne such a great bowler.

You think I haven't heard about that?
It was very, very well publicised.

Getting caught in such an obvious trap wasn't very impressive, though, so your attempted defence of him doesn't work.

Where have I said he wasn't silly to get caught in an obvious trap? Just that Hussain in 1998\99 (and countless other examples, I might add) have fallen into similar traps.

There are no defences of Ramprakash which successfully counter the basic thrust that he was not up to it mentally despite being technically the finest player in the land. I know there aren't, because I've tried them all. Many times over, and for years before you started watching cricket seriously, as I was a fan from the first time I saw him in 1987. (I admit to having rather abruptly stopped being a fan in 2000, and still treasure the wonderful captain's column in Middlesex Matters ["no it doesn't" being the obvious rejoinder] in which Gus Fraser expressed his great regret that Richard Johnson was leaving but fully understood his reasons and wished him well, in stark contrast to players who left because they thought they had more of a chance of being picked for England at another club: it was one of the most vicious things I've read written by one player about another in an official club magazine. But I'd actually given up on Ramps's Test career before he left Middx, and its revival in 2001 was a great shame.)

Rather odd to give-up on him in 2000, when he'd just had a wholly predictable failure opening the batting.
Especially given that, from 1998 onwards, he was a far, far more successful Test-batsman than he had been previously when you remove those opening innings. Indeed, his only serious failures were against New Zealand, both of which led me to give-up on him. No, 4 years averaging 37 doesn't make-up, at all, for 6 years averaging 16, but nonetheless the ascertation that Ramprakash was equally useless throughout his Test-match career is a very stupid one indeed.

 

[Richard]

Better than Ramprakash.

Hahaha, yeah, that's a good one!
Maybe his record looks better if you take it simply at face-value - similarly Vinod Kambli's looks far, far better than Michael Atherton, Alec Stewart or Nasser Hussain's.
Habibul Bashar in the year between April 2003 and June 2004 averaged 47.09 in 11 Tests; in his other 16 Tests against teams other than Zimbabwe, in 4 years, he averaged 22.71.
Which is a mere 6 runs better than Ramprakash in his most abysmal time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Okay Richard, I want to hear it... tell us that Ramprakash is a better batsman than Hayden and Gilchrist. Go on, you know you want to.

 

[Richard]

No, I don't.
I do wish to tell you that he's better against the seaming ball than Hayden, and it's quite true. Sadly he just didn't have the temperament to prove it.
To suggest that he's better than Gilchrist at the Test-level, while he might be a better player of spin, would frankly be a logic-baffling ascertation.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So, out of curiosity, why is he better against the seaming ball than Hayden? In previous discussions, you have asserted that Hayden's awesome first class record in seaming conditions is irrelevant, because of his percieved failures at test level. So, since Ramprakash was a consistent failure in all conditions at test level, how is he a better player in seaming conditions than Hayden?

Ditto Gilchrist and spin, given that Gilchrist has scored four noteworthy centuries against spinners on turning pitches.

 

[marc71178]

Mostly as a result of the very short period where he presumably batted far better than he has most of the rest of the time.
And wait for it... if you take Ramprakash 1998-2002 (excluding opening innings) Ramprakash averages more.

And if you take out all innings Bashar has scored less than 50 in, he averages more

 

[Richard]

And if you take their top Test score only Ramprakash averages more.
You have to realise that there are reasonable breakdowns and unreasonable ones, and I used a perfectly reasonable one.

 

[Richard]

So, out of curiosity, why is he better against the seaming ball than Hayden? In previous discussions, you have asserted that Hayden's awesome first class record in seaming conditions is irrelevant, because of his percieved failures at test level. So, since Ramprakash was a consistent failure in all conditions at test level, how is he a better player in seaming conditions than Hayden?

Ditto Gilchrist and spin, given that Gilchrist has scored four noteworthy centuries against spinners on turning pitches.

Except that Ramprakash isn't a constant failure in all conditions at Test-level. Ramprakash from 1998 onwards (when not opening the batting) had a sufficiently good temperament (while not good enough to do well enough to make-up for his past abysmalness) to prove his worth in both seaming and turning conditions, such as most of his home Test-matches where he made decent scores and his Tests in Australia and at home to Sri Lanka with the turning ball.
Likewise, if you are so keen on using Hayden's domestic record, I can give you countless occasions on which Ramprakash has played well against the seaming and turning ball on the domestic circuit.

 

[marc71178]

You have to realise that there are reasonable breakdowns and unreasonable ones, and I used a perfectly reasonable one.

In your opinion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Likewise, if you are so keen on using Hayden's domestic record, I can give you countless occasions on which Ramprakash has played well against the seaming and turning ball on the domestic circuit.

That's exactly my point, though. If Hayden's domestic record in seaming conditions is dismissed in favour of a couple of matches at test level, Ramprakash's domestic record (which is quite excellent) has to be dismissed as well, and given that he scored 2 centuries in 52 tests and never really did well consistently at all at test level in any conditions, to suggest he is a good player in seaming conditions is ludicrous. Ramprakash had one good period in his whole test career, with good tours of the West Indies and Australia, before decending back into shocking mediocrity. He never proved himself in any conditions at all. And given that he averaged under 25 in three of the five years he played post-1998, he was hardly an excellent player then, either.

Not that it surprises me that the man who rates Craig White ahead of Glenn McGrath on flat pitches also thinks that Ramprakash is better than Hayden on seamers.

 

[tooextracool]

Mostly as a result of the very short period where he presumably batted far better than he has most of the rest of the time.

ditto ramprakash.

And wait for it... if you take Ramprakash 1998-2002 (excluding opening innings) Ramprakash averages more.

and habibul after his first 10 tests was averaging more......

 

[tooextracool]

Except at The Oval later that season...

and good to see that it lasted for a whole 1 inning.

 

[Richard]

In your opinion.

So tell me - how is a 4-year period with innings where he batted completely out of position an unreasonable selection?
And, of course, you don't really believe that removing the worst innings of a career, regardless of time patterns, is worth anything.

 

[Richard]

That's exactly my point, though. If Hayden's domestic record in seaming conditions is dismissed in favour of a couple of matches at test level, Ramprakash's domestic record (which is quite excellent) has to be dismissed as well, and given that he scored 2 centuries in 52 tests and never really did well consistently at all at test level in any conditions, to suggest he is a good player in seaming conditions is ludicrous. Ramprakash had one good period in his whole test career, with good tours of the West Indies and Australia, before decending back into shocking mediocrity. He never proved himself in any conditions at all. And given that he averaged under 25 in three of the five years he played post-1998, he was hardly an excellent player then, either.

Yes, he did. But even from 1999 onwards, he still averaged 29.61, which is far, far better than his early career where he averaged 16.27. His average in 2000 is utterly meaningless, because he was opening in all his Tests that year.
Difference is, the only reason Ramprakash wasn't a Test-standard batsman is because his temperament wasn't, especially early on, up to it. Not because of any glaring technical weakness - simply because, when on the big stage, he couldn't find the shot-selection that made him such a brilliant domestic batsman.
Simply put, Hayden proved himself against seamers at a lower level. Ramprakash proved himself at both levels, on the rare occasions his temperament didn't let him down.
Neither domestic record has to be "dismissed" - Hayden's has to be taken in the context that it's a lower standard than Test-matches; Ramprakash's that it didn't test his Test-match temperament.

Not that it surprises me that the man who rates Craig White ahead of Glenn McGrath on flat pitches also thinks that Ramprakash is better than Hayden on seamers.

Please tell me - where have I said White was the better bowler? Maybe I said he potentially could have been, but that he has, when he barely bowled at his best for 10 Test-matches? No, no way.