The Ramprakash Conundrum

[91Jmay]

What do you do with a player who fails at Test level but continually smashes your domestic game? Are they given repeated chances? Is it fair to ignore them because they fail once (or more) if they continually dominate?

Obviously England have had many notable examples, I am not sure of other countries but I'd assume the same holds true.

Gary Ballance recent form got me thinking about it. He has 934 runs in 12 innings across red and white ball formats, so should he get another chance?

Are there any good Test players who took 3 attempts before being successful?

 

[srbhkshk]

Marvan Attapattu I think, kept failing whenever they gave him a place in the international side. He did well eventually.

In the end though, it's a case by case thing, you need to see why the guy is failing at international level - can/has he remove/removed that deficiency at domestic stage? If not, can it be removed in some way?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think that Ballance should be in the mix BUT only after players like Livingstone and Clarke have been tried. If he is still scoring heavily once they have had a chance and possibly not taken it he would deserve the opportunity to return to the side but personally I don't think he should play against South Africa at least. I would probably leave him out of the reckoning until after the ashes and if he deserves a chance then would certainly give it to him but I would not be surprised at all if he plays this summer and goes to Australia.

 

[Bijed]

In the case of Ballance, for me: yes, he should get another chance, although I think his situation is a bit different - his first run in the test side was initially very, very successful, then he went downhill fast as was dropped. He went back to the counties and continued to be somewhat ordinary and had not gone back to dominating or at least doing well when he was randomly recalled, so now he may be 'back' I think it'd be entirely fair to give him another chance in test side - especially as his current levels of dominance are, for him, unprecedented (I think). ODIs he never really did so well at anyway, but if he continues to do well in the domestic one-day stuff I wouldn't really have a problem with him getting back in.

In general, I think it's fair to give repeated chances if there are signs that even if they've dominated the domestic game but failed internationally before, they might just be a better player. Bairstow, for example, was sort of in and out of the test side whilst all the while doing (I believe) pretty impressively in the county matches but eventually disappeared from the selectors' minds because it appeared he was a proven failure (or at best thoroughly mediocre) at international level and wasn't really mentioned for the next year or so, but then he had that insanely good 2015 season and was recalled. Now, admittedly, he wasn't immediately much better (if at all) than he had been previously, but before too long he started doing good stuff and has been definitely test standard ever since.

I suppose if he'd been older at the time of his 2015 purple patch and had a longer history of test inadequacy, I'd have been more dubious about him getting a recall, but that would quite probably have been wrong of me.

Fwiw, I think Hick and Ramprakash were lucky to play as many tests as they did, Ramprakash notably more so for me.

Marvan Attapattu I think, kept failing whenever they gave him a place in the international side. He did well eventually.

Good example, and also relatively extreme - 1 run in his first 6 test innings combined!

 

[fredfertang]

I think Ballance should get another chance - Graham Gooch didn't get a century until around his twentieth Test and Mike Gatting took even longer - obviously repeated failure at the highest level should make selectors cautious, but imo weight of runs at First Class level should always be a relevant consideration

 

[Tom Flint]

Yes, of course Ballance should be playing test cricket.
For zimbabwe.

 

[ImpatientLime]

ballance's issues are purely technical though, right? i mean it should be clearer to a selector who goes to watch him if those problems are being ironed out.

ramps seemed 100% mental as technically he was very rounded.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Imo, if a player is dominating domestics, he should definitely atleast be in the frame for selection, whether he's had 1 chance for the national team or 5.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

JP Duminy - his First Class stats are supberb. His Test stats not so much.

 

[BoyBrumby]

From the evidence I've seen Ballance has a very clear issue with his trigger movement; he moves back and across so is always going to find it hard to get on the front foot. Plays loosely outside off too, so is always going to keep the slips interested.

He has a good eye and a good temperament, but I think he's always going to struggle when not in absolutely prime nick.

 

[Pothas]

Said in the county thread that it was a shame that Ballance got recalled before he started making runs again. If he had not come back last summer then I don't think many of us would have many doubts about bringing him back now given that we know he can score Test hundreds.

Lots of people have said before on here and elsewhere that if Ramprakash had come through 10-15 years later then he would have had a successful international career and I have always gone along with that. You look at the sort of time and support that Vince got last summer, if Ramps had got that then I reckon he would have had at least a half decent career.

 

[mackembhoy]

Had they just picked in form Borthwick rather than balance/Vince. Maybe I'd be in favour of his return.

I saw nowt last summer to bring Ballance back in against messrs vernon, kagiso and perhaps dale.

In form or not he'd be a walking wicket against that attack.

 

[marc71178]

All well and good if weren't for the fact that as soon as his name got linked to being called up, Borthwick's form took a nosedive so that by the time the next squad was selected there was no way on earth that he deserved a call-up as he wasn't the in-form option you're trying to make out.

 

[mackembhoy]

All well and good if weren't for the fact that as soon as his name got linked to being called up, Borthwick's form took a nosedive so that by the time the next squad was selected there was no way on earth that he deserved a call-up as he wasn't the in-form option you're trying to make out.

He should have been picked for Sri Lanka we went for Vince.

Agreed by the time Pakistan came around.

 

[Red]

If they're dominating at domestics but failing in tests it's usually because of a flaw that four test level bowlers can exploit but can be gotten away with at FC level.

So selectors have to be smart enough to work out that flaw and see if they've rectified at FC level, which isn't an easy science.

It's to the detriment of test cricket that hardly any test cricketers ever play domestic FC cricket any more.

 

[Midwinter]

Matthew Hayden is an Oz example

 

[cnerd123]

There are significant differences between Domestic and International cricket. Different conditions, different schedules, in some cases different balls too. Success in one doesn't necessarily mean success in the other. So while you could make a general argument that the best performers Domestically will be the best players to represent the country, this won't always be the case.

Since the job of an International selector is to pick the best side possible to play International​ cricket, I don't think dominating domestic cricket should be 'rewarded' with an international call up. You should only be called up to the side of your skillset is good enough, and sometimes to prove this you need to score a ton of runs, but not always.

 

[91Jmay]

There are significant differences between Domestic and International cricket. Different conditions, different schedules, in some cases different balls too. Success in one doesn't necessarily mean success in the other. So while you could make a general argument that the best performers Domestically will be the best players to represent the country, this won't always be the case.

Since the job of an International selector is to pick the best side possible to play International​ cricket, I don't think dominating domestic cricket should be 'rewarded' with an international call up. You should only be called up to the side of your skillset is good enough, and sometimes to prove this you need to score a ton of runs, but not always.

Yeah I think this is where I am. I only know of England examples (but I am fairly sure others exist) where players who had fairly meh first class records ended up pretty good test players. Trescothick's first class average before selected for England wasn't that good. Might have been sub 40, but Fletcher saw him as international calibre. Whilst we all love records because we are no life nerds who obsess over stats, there is more to the game.

 

[Top_Cat]

Technical faults are overblown. If you're smashing FC bowlers, you're solid technically. Wouldn't be there otherwise. I know the magnification of replays, pundits and analysis blow up the feel of some technical faults but a lot of the time it's millimetres and microseconds.

The mental stuff is what matters and why guys with meh FC stats get picked above those with stellar records. With regards Ramprakash, it fits even if he always seemed to be entering teams in crisis. It wasn't a lack of ticker with him, more like game sense. He came into the England side a few times in prime nick but looked like he got so wrapped up in making this chance count in terms of his career, didn't notice what was happening in the game and with this team. When he had a rash of 50+ not-outs, many said at the time that was indicative of his mental strength but really it was the opposite, whilst he was figuring out what to do, guys at the other end were nicking out trying to move the game. Didn't surprise me at all he was generally dropped as soon as his form dipped a bit.

 

[Furball]

Are there any good Test players who took 3 attempts before being successful?

Bairstow.