Sidebottom returns in some style!

[Richard]

I'm not insinuating anything of the kind; now please try to understand before one of us dies: doing something that's unprecedented (that word again) is, by definition, doing something that no-one else has. That's a fact.

Now look at his season-by-season figures: from CricketArchieve

Last 2 seasons stand out, yes? Over 25 runs better than he's managed before?

Of course they stand-out. Ramprakash has done better the last 2 seasons than all but 1 season (1995) before. But (for perhaps the third time) this is not important. He has merely taken his domestic performance from the good to the very good. His problem in his Test career was not that he could not do this: it was that he could not translate poor to good.

Had he done what he's done the last 2 seasons in, say, 1993 and 1994, there's no way on Earth his Test career would've gone any differently. The only way that would have happened would have been if his temperament had improved.

I don't believe his performance the last 2 seasons has anything to do with an improvement in temperament (though I'd certainly not rule-out his temperament having improved should he get another go at Test cricket, because even temperament is not a never-changing thing). He has simply done something he's always done better - he has not neccessarily acquired a new quality which he did not previously have.

I cannot fathom how I could make it any clearer.

 

[Richard]

The word "dominating" doesn't come to my mind when talking about someone who has averaged over 100 for the past two seasons over 16 games.

Well I assure you, Ramprakash did dominate most seasons in domestic cricket in which he has been involved. Not all, but he had a very, very fine record up to 2005.

It seems weird that you insist on saying today's bowling is not in the same class in the 90s and yet you still say that Ramprakash doesn't deserve a call up, contradiction much.

I've never said Ramprakash doesn't deserve a call-up. At any point in Ramprakash's career, 1991 to 2007, I'd not have been unhappy to see him called-up, and wasn't on the many occasions he was.

However, Ramprakash's failures were nothing to do with not having the game to cope with the high calibre of bowling - they were to do with not having the temperament to cope with international cricket. Unless this has changed, he won't be able to cope with Test cricket even against reduced-calibre bowlers.

 

[Jono]

Answer my question Richard *shakes fist*

 

[BoyBrumby]

Of course they stand-out. Ramprakash has done better the last 2 seasons than all but 1 season (1995) before.<snip>

Thank you. I'll take that. It's as close as I'll get to admission that he's wrong.

&, for the record, Ramprakash clearly averages less in 1995, so I don't see how you can say it's equivalent.

 

[Prince EWS]

Answer my question Richard *shakes fist*

I'll answer it for him if he won't.

He's very much in favour in picking batsmen who have consistently scored good runs at a good average in First Class cricket. The same goes for bowlers and wickets. If they're proven failures at Test level, that's obviously another story.

He'd definitely be picking Badrinath ahead of Yuvraj, for example.

 

[Richard]

Thank you. I'll take that. It's as close as I'll get to admission that he's wrong.

Nah, that particular line had nothing to do with anything I said ITFP, at all.

&, for the record, Ramprakash clearly averages less in 1995, so I don't see how you can say it's equivalent.

Because he still scored 2000 runs, which is the "milestone" of particular note the last 2 seasons.

 

[Richard]

Answer my question Richard *shakes fist*

Ooops, sorry, missed that... somehoworother... kind thanks to Master Cribb in the meantime of course.

Richard, one thing I've always been curious about, what is your actual contention with regards to picking players for tests (or ODIs while we're at it) based on their domestic records? Would Badrinath have made your Indian test team ahead of Yuvraj (and Kaif) for example?

TBH, I haven't followed Badrinath's (or Yuvraj Singh's, and certainly not Kaif's) career with enough clarity to know the absolute ins and outs of that case. He's always seemed to me from what I do know to be someone who's been a tad unfortunate not to play, but then again he's been up against Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly for the most part, and not being able to force ahead of them is no great surprise.

Compared to Yuvraj, last time I looked at Yuvraj's First-Class record it was excellent. This might've changed in the last couple of years, but if it hasn't, I'd have picked Yuvraj ahead of S at the start of this season. But before long (maybe now), Yuvraj's poor Test form would compel me to change tack and give Badrinath a go.

Basically, if I'm selecting (hypothetically) for international cricket, I look at: (I'll say "Test" and "First-Class" for simplicity's sake; it would also read exactly the same for "ODI" and "List-A-OD")
First of all, consider the position in question. If a batsman in the Test team has to be dropped, drop him and consider the alternatives. Look at;
Batsman's First-Class record of the previous\current season. If this is poor, forget Test selection;
Of those with good records the previous\current season, look at;
Previous Test career - if this is, say, 15 matches with an average of 20, think long and hard before going there again;
First-Class record in the previous season or two;
Longer-term First-Class records;
4 or 5 occasions you've watched them score in a game and bat in the nets - each.

Obviously, this is idealistic - not everything meets this scenario. Sometimes a batsman's First-Class form is compelling, and someone who was doing an OK job at the Test level might have to be left-out for them the way they wouldn't be if said domestic batsman was merely doing a likewise-OK job.

There's no one hard-and-fast rule, and unfortunately I doubt yourself and myself will both be sufficiently familiar with the cases of any player to be able to offer each other something that means something to both.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Because he still scored 2000 runs, which is the "milestone" of particular note the last 2 seasons.

FFS. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. The "milestone" of particular note is very obviously averaging over 100. You'll notice he played 32 innings in 1995, whereas only 24 & 25 in 2006 & 2007 respectively. This means he's performed better in those seasons. You can argue black is white, but the figures have it.

If Ramprakash is recalled it will be because of his domestic form. That's the beginning middle & end of it. If he goes on to be a success in his possible comeback it will show that domestic form should not be disregarded.

 

[Richard]

FFS. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. The "milestone" of particular note is very obviously averaging over 100. You'll notice he played 32 innings in 1995, whereas only 24 & 25 in 2006 & 2007 respectively. This means he's performed better in those seasons. You can argue black is white, but the figures have it.

2006 and 2007 > 1995. All three remain extraordinarily impressive, because he scored 2000 runs in them. An average over 100 doesn't mean that much.

If Ramprakash is recalled it will be because of his domestic form. That's the beginning middle & end of it. If he goes on to be a success in his possible comeback it will show that domestic form should not be disregarded.

Disagree. If Ramprakash should be recalled, it should be because the selectors believe he has addressed his temperamental issues which held him back at international level. Not because his domestic form has gone from good to superlative.

If he'd averaged 50 or 60 for the last 2 seasons, it'd be exactly the same thing. The change in domestic form from good to superlative should not impact in any way.

It obviously goes without saying, IMO, that lack of good domestic form should equal not being picked.

 

[BoyBrumby]

2006 and 2007 > 1995. All three remain extraordinarily impressive, because he scored 2000 runs in them. An average over 100 doesn't mean that much.

Disagree. If Ramprakash should be recalled, it should be because the selectors believe he has addressed his temperamental issues which held him back at international level. Not because his domestic form has gone from good to superlative.

If he'd averaged 50 or 60 for the last 2 seasons, it'd be exactly the same thing. The change in domestic form from good to superlative should not impact in any way.

It obviously goes without saying, IMO, that lack of good domestic form should equal not being picked.

In your opinion. Not one shared by many people I imagine.

& you can read into the selectors' motives whatever you like. However, if a 38 year old player with a test average of 27 from 52 tests hadn't moved from good to superlative there is no way he'd come into consideration.

 

[Manee]

In your opinion. Not one shared by many people I imagine.

& you can read into the selectors' motives whatever you like. However, if a 38 year old player with a test average of 27 from 52 tests hadn't moved from good to superlative there is no way he'd come into consideration.

AWTA (again).

 

[Goughy]

According to my calculations, Ramprakash has scored 8880 runs @ 83.77 with 37 centuries over the last 5 County seasons.

Wow. I knew the last 2 had been special but that is making a long term step up in production and output. Remarkable figures

 

[Richard]

In your opinion. Not one shared by many people I imagine.

Yes, in my opinion. I wonder, when others seriously consider how much difference there is between, say, 96 and 103, whether they honestly think an average over 100 is such a phenomenal milestone.

& you can read into the selectors' motives whatever you like. However, if a 38 year old player with a test average of 27 from 52 tests hadn't moved from good to superlative there is no way he'd come into consideration.

Purely and simply, there's no way he should come into consideration unless one thinks the cause of the lowness of that Test average (ie, his temperament) has changed.

If Ramprakash were to be recalled purely because of domestic form and not because the selectors believed his temperament had improved, it'd be a terrible decision. However, there are many people (including several on this board) who believe that should he come back, the issues which so bedevilled him might indeed be banished. I myself believe it far from beyond question.

I've said before now that for me Ramprakash would have been a better selection than Ravinder Bopara for Sri Lanka. But that doesn't mean I'd have been confident of his success should he have been picked the way I would had Owais Shah been. I'd have thought it was something worth trying, and that's it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes, in my opinion. I wonder, when others seriously consider how much difference there is between, say, 96 and 103, whether they honestly think an average over 100 is such a phenomenal milestone.

Irrelevant obfuscation; when looking at his career we aren't considering the difference between 96 & 103. The highest he'd managed before 2006 was 77.

Moreover I bet the difference between 99.94 & 100 was most irksome to Bradman.

 

[Richard]

Irrelevant

To the Ramprakash case, yes. The line from which this whole silly business emanated from however was not specific to that, and I've mentioned the issue a few times in recent weeks about how needless stigma is attached to the case of <100 compared to >100.