Michael Clarke signs for Hampshire

[Neil Pickup]

Anyway, what you seem to me to be doing has one major fault: it counts those who have played a Test or 3, which frankly doesn't make sense, as most would agree you can't fairly judge someone conclusively on 6 innings or less and you can hardly judge at all on 3.

I considered it carefully - and as we're looking at success and failure, the swathe of extremely low averages suggest rapid failure.

Re the stats..

A PMCC of more than 0.707 means there's a statistically significant correlation, and I explained the R-squared.

 

[marc71178]

And there are a few more examples of the latter trend (domestic success, international failure) than the former (international success, domestic failure): Maynard, Key, plus Hick and Knight. However these are offset by Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Crawley, Vaughan increasingly (his First-Class average has been rising fast since he was picked for Tests)

Not sure what you're getting at here, it is a bit unclear, but it ether appears that you're calling Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Vaughan International failures but domestic successes, OR you're saying Crawley and Ramprakash International successes but domestic failures.

Either way you're talking rubbish in grouping those 2 donkeys with the cream of England's batsmen over the last decade.

 

[Craig]

I actually felt Crawley had a good Ashes tour. At least he didnt give his wicket away on most occasions.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not sure what you're getting at here, it is a bit unclear, but it ether appears that you're calling Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Vaughan International failures but domestic successes, OR you're saying Crawley and Ramprakash International successes but domestic failures.

The other way around Marc...

 

[Eclipse]

I actually felt Crawley had a good Ashes tour. At least he didnt give his wicket away on most occasions.

Yeah thats for sure he frustrated the hell out off me.

I think he probably frustrated some of his team mates and selectors as well.

He was just way to slow for International standerd's In the Australia A game he made 50 off somthing like 250 balls. and he was not much better in the test's.

There is no way you can bat that slowly on a regular basis if you are comming in at number 6.

 

[Craig]

The thing is it was some good bowling by Australia that made him score slowly or get out.

 

[Eclipse]

The bowling was good but he never even looked to be positive even when he was given a bad ball.

Brett Lee bowled him a number of half volly's even I could have put away and Crawley just let them go by or pushed them back to the bowler.

 

[Richard]

With the swing Lee was sometimes getting driving could be considered dangerous. Fair enough, Crawley could probably have played a few more shots than he did without any more danger than there was already, but I always prefer slow runs to no runs, and so should anyone with any sense.
We got no runs (or, on occasion, lucky runs) from Trescothick, Butcher and Key; lots of lucky runs from Hussain; a decent effort from Stewart; and one good innings from White. Plus some good runs and some lucky runs from Vaughan.

 

[Richard]

Not sure what you're getting at here, it is a bit unclear, but it ether appears that you're calling Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Vaughan International failures but domestic successes, OR you're saying Crawley and Ramprakash International successes but domestic failures.

Either way you're talking rubbish in grouping those 2 donkeys with the cream of England's batsmen over the last decade.

I'm afraid you simply can't get around the basic fact that Crawley averages 47.10 in his most recent spell in Test-cricket (a reasonable period of 8 matches, 14 innings) and Ramprakash in a similarly timed spell, of 28 matches, 50 innings, averages 37.11 when you take away innings in which he was batting in a totally alien position.
OK, the others have had longer periods of success, but like it or not Ramprakash and Crawley have been successes in their recent Test-careers.

 

[marc71178]

I'm afraid you simply can't get around the basic fact that Crawley averages 47.10 in his most recent spell in Test-cricket (a reasonable period of 8 matches, 14 innings) and Ramprakash in a similarly timed spell, of 28 matches, 50 innings, averages 37.11 when you take away innings in which he was batting in a totally alien position.

I'm afraid you can't get around the fact that Ramprakash played those games, and had been opening prior to those games so it wasn't as alien as you make out.

OK, the others have had longer periods of success, but like it or not Ramprakash and Crawley have been successes in their recent Test-careers.

In which case you are calling them domestic failures - good call.

 

[Richard]

I'm afraid you can't get around the fact that Ramprakash played those games, and had been opening prior to those games so it wasn't as alien as you make out.

So what if he had been opening in First-Class-cricket prior to the Tests in which he opened? The fact that he had experience of opening doesn't mean he's any good at it. Making him open distorted the picture of a fast-improving Test player.
OK, alien was the wrong word. Incorrect is the right one. It was a very poor decision to make him open. He was batting, quite simply, in the wrong position.

In which case you are calling them domestic failures - good call.

How is that, then?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Let's take a look at Mark Ramprakash series avges in Richard's given time (excluding opening the batting)...

SA in England 1998
189 runs @ 31.50
(minus his 67* and scored 122 runs @ 20.33)

SL in England 1998
95 runs @ 47.5

England in Australia 1998/99
379 runs @ 47.37

NZ in England 1999
127 runs @ 25.40
(minus his 69* and he scored 58 runs @ 11.6)

Australia in England 2001
318 runs @ 39.75
(minus his 133 and he scored 185 runs @ 26.42)

England in India 2001/02
159 runs @ 31.80
(minus his 58 and he scored 101 runs in 4 innings @ 25.25)

England in New Zealand 2001/02
77 runs @ 15.40

Mark Ramprahash's domestic stats over that period...

1998 - 635 runs @ 48.84 (4 hundreds)
1999 - 929 runs @ 46.45 (2 hundreds, 6 fifties)
2000 - 1088 runs @ 64 (4 hundreds, 6 fifties)
2001 - 776 runs @ 55.42 (3 hundreds, 4 fifties)
2002 - 1073 runs @ 53.65 (3 hundreds, 6 fifties)

That suggests to me that, bar the odd innings, he's largely inconsistent at Test level while maintaining a healthy domestic average.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bottom line, Mark Ramprakash has 20873 runs outside of Test cricket at 51.66.

He has 64 centuries and 98 fifties in those 488 games.

That a hundred every 7odd innings and a fifty every 4odd innings. A conversion rate of 39.5%.

In Tests, he's scored 2350 runs in 52 games at 27.32 (almost half his FC avge) with 2 hundreds and 12 fifties.

That's a hundred every 46 innings and a fifty every 7odd innings. A conversion rate of 14.28%.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I rate Ramps, but he is too old now to be given another chance at the highest level

 

[marc71178]

How is that, then?

Nobody in their right mind would say Ramprakash is a failure at domestic level.

Then again, almost nobody would say he was a success at Test level.

You claim that he is both of those.

 

[age_master]

i think marc has a point here