147 - another ton

[marc71178]

Yes, and I did mention that this period of success was Ramprakash's most recent in Test-cricket.
Hick had a good period, no denying that, but sadly it was now 9 years ago. And he's played about 40 Tests since.

20 actually, but never mind.

If you insist on this ludicrous Ramprakash argument, then I will continue to back Hick (who's golden spell included a higher average over more matches)

 

[marc71178]

It's not solid, it's made up of a very poor 1st year and a good 2nd year of belting tired county attacks round from number 7...

That sounds like a certain Kent keeper that has some major supporters on here.

 

[marc71178]

No he must not, because there are many potential reasons for Ramprakash's failures whilst Hick's were plainly obvious. Hick failed many many many times, Ramprakash was badly treated most of the time in my opinion and it translated into inconsistancy thereon.

So you're trying to say that Hick was a failure yet Ramprakash (who averaged less over his career) was merely because he was badly treated?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's not solid, it's made up of a very poor 1st year and a good 2nd year of belting tired county attacks round from number 7...

Further proof that stats can be deceiving.

 

[Salamuddin]

The Tamil Nadu side England A are playing seems rather under strength.

NO Sriram, Ramesh, Badani, Shrinivas, Balaji or Ramkumar.
Are these guys all playing for South Zone in the Duleep Trophy ?


Also is that Krish Srikkanth's son opening for Tamil Nadu ?

 

[Rik]

That sounds like a certain Kent keeper that has some major supporters on here.

Geriant Jones scored more runs at a higher average and hasn't had a bad season yet...

 

[Rik]

So you're trying to say that Hick was a failure yet Ramprakash (who averaged less over his career) was merely because he was badly treated?

No, I was saying that Ramprakash WAS a failed BECAUSE he was treated badly and was never given a set role, shoved all around the order and eventually asked to open. Therefor you cannot include Hick because he knew exactly why he was there, and failed consistantly. Ramprakash was never given a set role. There, hard wasn't it?

 

[Craig]

Further proof that stats can be deceiving.

Have you seen him play?

 

[raju]

No, I was saying that Ramprakash WAS a failed BECAUSE he was treated badly and was never given a set role, shoved all around the order and eventually asked to open. Therefor you cannot include Hick because he knew exactly why he was there, and failed consistantly. Ramprakash was never given a set role. There, hard wasn't it?

Sounds like excuses to me. Other batsmen get moved around the order and still make scores. His set role was to score runs which he didn't do enough of. Besides after a few years of failing Hick was moved around the order as much as Ramps. If either had scored sufficient runs then they would never have been dropped...although Hick was dropped after scoring a century.

 

[Rik]

Sounds like excuses to me. Other batsmen get moved around the order and still make scores. His set role was to score runs which he didn't do enough of. Besides after a few years of failing Hick was moved around the order as much as Ramps. If either had scored sufficient runs then they would never have been dropped...although Hick was dropped after scoring a century.

Hick was given a place in the middle order and given ever oppertunity to score runs. Yes later on he was mis-treated, especially with that 99* declaration, but Ramprakash was never given a set role, he started off being shunted around and the opening experiment was a disgrace. It's not excuses, there is a difference between a reason for something and an excuse.

 

[Richard]

20 actually, but never mind.

20? You having a laugh?:
2 v SL, 2000\01
3 v Pak, 2000\01
4 v WI, 2000
2 v Zim, 2000
1 v NZ, 1999
4 v Aus, 1998\99
1 v SL, 1998
2 v SA, 1998
That's 19 in the 1998-2000\01 period (his only significant runs there were against Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka). He was dropped after a long barren spell in 1996, how many games did that include? IIRR he didn't play again until 1998.
Yes, fair enough 40 is presumably an overestimation, but 30 I reckon would be accurate.

If you insist on this ludicrous Ramprakash argument, then I will continue to back Hick (who's golden spell included a higher average over more matches)

If you wish to continue to back Hick, that's up to you. The fact is, however, Hick's golden spell was many moons ago now (more than 19 Tests, in fact - probably 25 to 30). Ramprakash's was his most recent.
Therefore a slightly higher average over a slightly longer period doesn't really contain much significance.

 

[Richard]

Further proof that stats can be deceiving.

It's not the stats that are deceiving, it's the generalisation - grouping two seasons together, instead of looking at them season-by-season.
One good season doesn't prove much, and it proves even less if there's something before it that was opposite.

 

[Richard]

Sounds like excuses to me. Other batsmen get moved around the order and still make scores. His set role was to score runs which he didn't do enough of. Besides after a few years of failing Hick was moved around the order as much as Ramps. If either had scored sufficient runs then they would never have been dropped...although Hick was dropped after scoring a century.

Ramprakash scored runs in his most recent period in Test-cricket. And he was dropped, three times, once because he was given a role totally unsuited to him, and twice after series against New Zealand in which he scored less runs than normal. I might point-out that in both series there were other batsmen who also underperformed, plenty of them.
The thing is, when you had as bad a start to your Test career as Ramprakash did, you really can't afford even one bad series.
The fact is, though, his failures opening mean nothing when compared to his success from 1998 onwards when placed anywhere in the middle-order.

 

[Rik]

I actually have in my posession a Wisden Cricket Monthly from Febuary 1999, which has the Averages over the year in Test Cricket for England players.

At the top of the bowling is Gus Fraser with 58 wickets at 22.88

At the top of the batting is a certain MR Ramprakash with 989 runs from 14 Tests, 26 innings, at an average of 44.95, HS 154, 1 100 7 50s and only 4 not outs.

AJ Stewart with 1267 runs from 17 Tests at 44.23 and Nasser Hussain with 1049 from 16 at 37.46, are below him. There is even a picture of Ramprakash with the caption: "England's batsman of the year, just don't mention the tail"

 

[Richard]

1998 was Ramprakash's blockbuster year - but 2001 was good, too. Sadly, 1999 and 2002 contained his failures of New Zealand series. And 2000, of course, was the year of the opener.

 

[marc71178]

Geriant Jones scored more runs at a higher average and hasn't had a bad season yet...

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

 

[marc71178]

No, I was saying that Ramprakash WAS a failed BECAUSE he was treated badly and was never given a set role, shoved all around the order and eventually asked to open. Therefor you cannot include Hick because he knew exactly why he was there, and failed consistantly. Ramprakash was never given a set role. There, hard wasn't it?

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.

 

[marc71178]

I might point-out that in both series there were other batsmen who also underperformed, plenty of them.

To the extent of 77 in 3 matches or 127 in 4?

Nope - no batsman who played as many matches as him in either series scored so lowly.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's not the stats that are deceiving, it's the generalisation - grouping two seasons together, instead of looking at them season-by-season.
One good season doesn't prove much, and it proves even less if there's something before it that was opposite.

His overall average is a statistic, and that is deceiving. It doesn't matter how it got there, the fact is that it portrays a picture different from the reality.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Have you seen him play?

Relevance?