147 - another ton

[Neil Pickup]

Anyway - Simon Jones took another 5-fer in the Second Innings and England won by a commanding margin.

Come on then Duleep Trophy if you think you're hard enough!

 

[Rik]

But in terms of the overall season, he hasn't really had a good one either.

I'd call averaging 50 a pretty superb season...but then, of course, that's just me.

 

[Rik]

Funny you should say that when you look at where they actually batted in their careers.

Hick 114 innings (35 at 3, 16 at 4, 35 at 5, 29 at 6, 12 at 7, 2 at 8)
Ramprakash 92 innings (7 opening, 11 at 3, 6 at 4, 32 at 5, 29 at 6, 7 at 5)

Now which of those was shunted up and down the order more then and never got a settled spot?

Looks to me like it might be Hick.

Yet again you manipulate stats.

If you look at where Hick batted when he started his career, he was constantly in the middle order. If you look at Ramprakash he was at the lower-middle order often having to shepherd the tail, a lot expected from a young player, or zig-zagged up and down the order to please the selectors.

But of course I can't have a point because you are allways right.

 

[marc71178]

I'd call averaging 50 a pretty superb season...but then, of course, that's just me.

Except he didn't average 50, and for the last third of the season was struggling to buy a run.

 

[marc71178]

Yet again you manipulate stats.

Or maybe not...

If you look at where Hick batted when he started his career, he was constantly in the middle order. If you look at Ramprakash he was at the lower-middle order often having to shepherd the tail, a lot expected from a young player, or zig-zagged up and down the order to please the selectors.

In their first 9 matches, Hick batted either 3 (12 times) or 4 (3 times) and Ramprakash either 5 (9 times) or 6 (6 times).

Both look pretty settled positions to me, and I'd hardly say that by batting where he did Ramprakash was neither shepherding the tail nor being zigzagged around.

One could also argue that baring in mind the quality of the opening bowlers they were facing, Hick's position was harder to play.

But of course I can't have a point because you are allways right.

You said that Ramprakash was constantly moved around by the selectors, yet Hick had a more settled role - I showed that to be complete codswallop...

 

[Rik]

Except he didn't average 50, and for the last third of the season was struggling to buy a run.

Ok then, but are you seriously trying to tell me you class a debut season in which you score 985 runs at 44.77 as just a good year? If so, not only are you exceptionally harsh, but you are making as much sense as those Hungarians in "And Now For Something Completely Different."

If you played county cricket I'm pretty sure you would accept a return of that with open arms. But of course it's easy for you to claim he's over-rated and hasn't done enough because you've never seen him bat. Yet, all safe from the comfort of your arm-chair you slate him.

 

[Rik]

Ramprakash was neither shepherding the tail nor being zigzagged around.

Right, so you class 5 or 6 as top order positions do you? So how come he was often left with the tail? You are even more biased than I 1st thought.

You said that Ramprakash was constantly moved around by the selectors, yet Hick had a more settled role - I showed that to be complete codswallop...

Nope, what you've showed is that Ramprakash was picked in the lower-middle order and asked to shepherd the tail in his early Tests, hardly giving him an easy ride. I wouldn't class their 1st 9 Tests as giving a full view, since they were shunted in and out of the side.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not saying it's bad, just was comparing his season with Prior (similar scenario , even if Priors is a second season)

Either way, I would wait to see how he performs in 04 before pushing for him to play Internationally.

 

[Rik]

I'm not saying it's bad, just was comparing his season with Prior (similar scenario , even if Priors is a second season)

Either way, I would wait to see how he performs in 04 before pushing for him to play Internationally.

Seems that England have decided differently. Prior has got the rub of the green with his figures, he was usually coming in against tired bowlers since Sussex were piling on the runs and it was their CC winnings campagne. Ambrose is a much better keeper batsman. Jones scored a fair few of his runs coming in at a decent position and helped Kent push on. When he dropped off at the end, Kent weren't really troubled, they still scored pretty well.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, what you've showed is that Ramprakash was picked in the lower-middle order and asked to shepherd the tail in his early Tests, hardly giving him an easy ride. I wouldn't class their 1st 9 Tests as giving a full view, since they were shunted in and out of the side.

Number 5 is not what I'd call lower-middle order. If he's left with the tail that's because the numbers 6 and 7 were not up to the job.

Also, looking through his early games, the first 3 he never batted past the 5th wicket to fall. In his 4th he did, but with Chris Lewis at 10, that's not what you'd call a typical tail IMO. In the next 5 Tests he again never got past the 5th wicket to fall. So hardly a young inexperienced player having to bat with the tail there.

You said "when they started their careers" - and since they each only occupied 2 spots in their first 9 games, I used that. Either way, the "zigzagging" comment is way off the mark.

 

[marc71178]

Seems that England have decided differently. Prior has got the rub of the green with his figures, he was usually coming in against tired bowlers since Sussex were piling on the runs and it was their CC winnings campagne. Ambrose is a much better keeper batsman. Jones scored a fair few of his runs coming in at a decent position and helped Kent push on. When he dropped off at the end, Kent weren't really troubled, they still scored pretty well.

So Jones came in at 7 on decent platforms - hardly the hardest of situations...

 

[Rik]

Number 5 is not what I'd call lower-middle order. If he's left with the tail that's because the numbers 6 and 7 were not up to the job.

Also, looking through his early games, the first 3 he never batted past the 5th wicket to fall. In his 4th he did, but with Chris Lewis at 10, that's not what you'd call a typical tail IMO. In the next 5 Tests he again never got past the 5th wicket to fall. So hardly a young inexperienced player having to bat with the tail there.

You said "when they started their careers" - and since they each only occupied 2 spots in their first 9 games, I used that. Either way, the "zigzagging" comment is way off the mark.

You just keep believing that and maybe you'll make PM

Seriously Marc, I've seen enough of your posts and when your on a roll like this you would even argue that black is white...

 

[marc71178]

You just keep believing that and maybe you'll make PM

What, no response? Wonder why that would be?

The Zigzagging has been proved wrong.

Likewise the shepherding the tail.

At least Richard posts things with some basis.

 

[Rik]

So Jones came in at 7 on decent platforms - hardly the hardest of situations...

At with the scoreboard at 200 or so, compared to Prior at 300-400. Interisting how Prior only started scoring consistantly in the season when Sussex kept on piling up huge top-order platforms...when he was actually Tested the season before he failed.

 

[marc71178]

Seriously Marc, I've seen enough of your posts and when your on a roll like this you would even argue that black is white...

Oh the irony...

I stand by my backing of Hick as not a failure if Ramprakash is not to be called one.

 

[Rik]

What, no response? Wonder why that would be?

1/The opening savlo

The Zigzagging has been proved wrong.

2/The "Proof"

Likewise the shepherding the tail.

2/ (again) The "Proof"

At least Richard posts things with some basis.

3/ The cutting final remark designed to wind me up

Well done Marc, another "I'm right your wrong" post by numbers. Interistingly you haven't even proven anything yet you decide to post it. Interisting.

Oh and by the way, how can you claim that "he just ends up with the tail because numbers 6 and 7 didn't do their job" means that he's not shepherding the tail? Batting with the tail and shepherding the tail are the same thing, and you've just admitted he did.

 

[Rik]

Oh the irony...

1/ The opening savlo

I stand by my backing of Hick as not a failure if Ramprakash is not to be called one.

Oh a new one:

4/ The patented Marc "I stand by my..."

Ramprakash was a success for a period, over his career it's not been so, but for a few periods he has. But of course, all basis has gone since it's got personal now, it's not about weather Hick was a success or a failure, it's that burning desire to have to try and win the arguement. Well I'm afraid you can't, because, in many people's views, Hick was more of a failure than Ramprakash.

 

[marc71178]

At with the scoreboard at 200 or so, compared to Prior at 300-400. Interisting how Prior only started scoring consistantly in the season when Sussex kept on piling up huge top-order platforms...when he was actually Tested the season before he failed.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post - I read decent position as being better than 200-5.

 

[marc71178]

Batting with the tail and shepherding the tail are the same thing, and you've just admitted he did.

Right, because in 1 of his first 9 matches he lasted beyond the 5th wicket (having come in at either 3 or 4 down)

Now try telling me that that is a young player being left shepherding the tail (which is hardly a tail if Chirs Lewis is batting at 10 after Defreitas and Pringle)

Also, please explain how he was "zigzagged" in his early career when he only ever batted at 5 or 6, and most of those were at 5.

 

[marc71178]

Well I'm afraid you can't, because, in many people's views, Hick was more of a failure than Ramprakash.

I'd like to know on what basis - is it the averaging more over longer?