Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Mark ramprakash

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    devon
    Posts
    1

    Mark ramprakash

    I am getting frustrated with people saying mark ramprakash is too old to play international cricket!!! i belive the stats show he is better than any other england batsmen at this present time!!! what do you think??
    Last edited by fieldy_17; 13-03-2008 at 11:24 AM.

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    If they believe him to be one of the best batsmen available and will be one of the most productive in next Tests then he should be selected.

    Age shouldnt really have anything to do with it. There is no tomorrow in Test cricket, every Test is special with the next one being the most special.

    Hard to make the stats argument though given his Test record and him being one of the biggest disappointments ever to play for England. Despite his recent CC record the stink of those performances is tough to wash off.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

  3. #3
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Keep in mind though that his purple patch has come after his last Test. Players do improve, even late in their careers. Ramprakash was always a heavy scorer in FC cricket, but in the last few seasons he's taken it to a whole new level. If, in Test cricket at this stage of maturity, he can achieve even a third of what he has at domestic level, he would be better than practically all of the England batting lineup right now.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

    The...er...Twitter[/SIZE][/CENTER]

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    Keep in mind though that his purple patch has come after his last Test. Players do improve, even late in their careers. Ramprakash was always a heavy scorer in FC cricket, but in the last few seasons he's taken it to a whole new level. If, in Test cricket at this stage of maturity, he can achieve even a third of what he has at domestic level, he would be better than practically all of the England batting lineup right now.
    I dont disagree with you. I just think that even if he was selected his previous record would give him a very short leash and he wouldnt have a proper opportunity to perform.

    He would need to score big in his first Test recalled. If he went 2 Tests without a big score he would be cast aside again as people dont like reinforcing failure and would give too much ammunition for the vultures or those that didnt think he should be there.

    Of the reasons not to pick him, age is the least important IMO


  5. #5
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    What annoys me is the assumption people make about if Ramprakash was picked for Tests now (or had he been picked any time in the last 2 years or so) that he'd perform.

    That, not being 37-38, is the biggest reason why I'd be wary of picking him. Now, selection now might be a second career. But equally, all the old problems might still be there.

    As of this moment in time, Owais Shah deserves selection more. The selectors, however, continue to pick the likes of Strauss and Bopara, neither of whom (if Vaughan is to open) have any case to be picked ahead of either Shah or Ramprakash.

    And personally, I've been one of Ramprakash's biggest defenders. I've pointed-out ad nauseum that his Test career (to date?) isn't as bad as some might think. From 1997 onwards, when not opening the batting, he averaged 37, which is pretty good. But even despite this I remain wary of picking him. And for every series he doesn't get picked for, it becomes less and less likely. Even insanely late career surges as this cannot last season after season.

    What lots of people also neglect to mention is that Ramprakash has always been a prolific scorer at domestic-First-Class level. He's scored 2000 runs in a season before 2006 and 2007, the feat is not unprecedented for him.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  6. #6
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    It's hard to fathom that Ramprakash would be any worse than he was in his last few runs at Test cricket. Looking at him bat now he looks a completely superior force. He is more readily confident and has totally dominated domestic cricket. It's not a certainty that he would perform, but it's a logical assumption that he would do better than he did before. He's a better first-class batsman now, so it's not farfetched to think that he'd be a better Test batsman.

    I agree that Shah deserves an opportunity, but Ramprakash is one of the best batsmen in the country and should certainly be in the squad ahead of Andrew Strauss.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I think it might be farfetched to think he will be a better Test batsman.

    His domestic dominance is, while more pronounced than ever in the last 2 seasons, nothing new. He's almost always been better than most batsmen in the country - even Graham Thorpe, Alec Stewart and Michael Atherton.

    This simply says he's doing what he'd always done very well brilliantly now. What needs to happen for good-but-not-quite-good-enough (his most recent stint) Test performances to turn into eminently-good-enough Test performances is a change in temperament. Temperament was always what let him down.

    And while you can guess at whether his temperament might have improved, you can't know. The only way to find-out reliably would be to try. And Ramprakash's career would be even more ignominious had it a horrible little postscript tagged on the end than it is now. Especially if he were to have returned to a World that was nothing like that which he had left. Nothing remains from Ramprakash's final Test. Even Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - mediocre fringe players at that point - are gone now. His fellows Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe are long gone. Ashley Giles, part of the team with him for a very short time but of a similar generation, is gone too. This would make any new failure still worse.

    Keep in mind, though, all I'm trying to consider is whether he'd be successful or not. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if Strauss and Bopara are picked for Test-cricket, Ramprakash should be.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,676
    TBH, if its all about the next 3 match series I think you could prob slot Ramps, Hick and Caddick into the team and have an improved chance.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Not sure about Hick, don't recall his form being terribly impressive recently, but there'd certainly be many bowlers I'd prefer not see picked currently than Caddick. Even though I'm confident he's not the bowler he once was.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    21,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    TBH, if its all about the next 3 match series I think you could prob slot Ramps, Hick and Caddick into the team and have an improved chance.
    Hick, no, but Ramps and Caddick, yes.
    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
    RIP Hughesy 1988-2014. 63* for eternity.

  11. #11
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    65,843
    Morgieb,

    Re your signature, I would move Ponting to 3 in your annoying XI and have G Smith to open
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  12. #12
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    With Ramprakash it's not just about weight of runs, though that is compelling. He's been dominant at domestic level, but not to the extent of consecutive Bradmanesque seasons. This is taking dominance to a brave new level.

    But back to my original point. It's not just about weight of runs. He just looks a better player now. Not sure what it is, but he just looks like he knows he's going to ton up everytime I've seen him bat recently.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    When've you been watching him bat Liam?

    Given that I've seen him bat in a cricket match (ie, not a Twenty20) once since 2001\02, I'm rather surprised you've managed to at all.

    Been to the Rose Bowl to see Hants vs Surrey?

  14. #14
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Especially if he were to have returned to a World that was nothing like that which he had left. Nothing remains from Ramprakash's final Test. Even Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - mediocre fringe players at that point - are gone now. His fellows Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe are long gone. Ashley Giles, part of the team with him for a very short time but of a similar generation, is gone too. This would make any new failure still worse.
    I've seen you bring this up a few times, and while I agree that, if he did indeed fail, it'd make his career look all the more pathetic, selecting Ramprakash wouldn't be about doing him any favours per say. It's up to him to make himself available or unavailable based on what he thinks he has to lose or gain from playing - the selectors have the responsibility of selecting the team they think will give England the most chance of success for any given game, not making careers look as good as possible and protecting players from blips on their radar.

    If anything, I actually think this point is a huge positive on the "Get him the team" side of things. The cricketing world he left - the one he failed in, the one that contains his demons and his nightmares - is gone, and a new international scene awaits him. He is no longer a case of "tried and failed" as the cricketing world has changed so much, and as many have pointed out, it's suiting now more than ever before.

    Personally I think he should be in the team pronto, or at very least the squad with Shah given Strauss's place.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I've seen you bring this up a few times, and while I agree that, if he did indeed fail, it'd make his career look all the more pathetic, selecting Ramprakash wouldn't be about doing him any favours per say. It's up to him to make himself available or unavailable based on what he thinks he has to lose or gain from playing - the selectors have the responsibility of selecting the team they think will give England the most chance of success for any given game, not making careers look as good as possible and protecting players from blips on their radar.
    I know this. I've always made an effort to distance comments about "should Ramprakash be picked?" from comments about "what will happen should Ramprakash be picked?"

    Also, let's not forget that being a selector should maybe be exclusively 100% about picking the side you think has the best chance, but it doesn't always come down completely to that. And I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of this, but the realities. Picking Ramprakash and him failing again would not merely reflect badly on Ramprakash, but the selectors. And they'd be disproportionately criticised, I think, for taking such a decision - or at the very least it'd then be disproportionately brought-up and tried to be used in connection to other (very possibly completely unrelated) mistakes.

    There is and always will be in the minds of those who are interested in their own legacies as well as that of their team's, a keenness to make the least controversial, the least possible-to-backfire-really-badly, decisions. Nasser Hussain (one who was always very devil-may-care on this front) talks a hell of a lot about this in David Graveney (who he says always tried to keep everyone happy in his selections). And while it may be disappointing if selectors shy away from "head-above-the-parapet" decisions purely for fear of excessive criticism, can you really blame them for fearing villification? I can't. I know the fickle ways of the cricketing World (both media and Joe Public) too well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mark Greatbatch
    By Pinkline Jones in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 24-02-2005, 09:51 PM
  2. Mark Nicholas
    By a massive zebra in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 13-09-2004, 03:30 AM
  3. Mark Waugh
    By Ford_GTHO351 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 15-01-2004, 10:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •