Ashes - memories

[Richard]

and nor does that make a difference. fact is he was rubbish from 99-02.

No, fact is he was not especially good (averaging 28 mostly on bowler-friendly pitches).

and your point is? how does this change the fact that he was only good enough to play test cricket for 1 year? or that he was rubbish for the next 4?
if you want to make yourself feel better, maybe we should say he was test class for 11 games, about 1/5 of his career?

It'd be more accurate to say he was a very high-class player for those 11 games (24 innings), as averaging 47 mostly against good bowling on bowler-friendly pitches is an extremely good achievement.
And for the next 14 games (26 innings) he was mediocre overall, and still pretty good when not facing NZ.

 

[Swervy]

jeez richard, you are trying just a bit too hard with this one I think

 

[marc71178]

What does it look like?
For posterity...
Ramprakash:
1999: vs NZ, seaming tracks, good attack
2001: vs Aus, mostly seaming tracks, very good attack
2001\02: vs Ind, one seamer, one turner (plus one flattie), Srinath and Kumble capable of (and did) exploit both
2001\02: vs NZ, some of the most seam-friendly tracks you'll see, even though NZ's attack was mostly rubbish, batting still wasn't easy
Hayden:
1999\2000: vs NZ, failed
2000\01: vs WI, failed
2000\01: vs Ind, turning tracks, good attack
2001: vs Eng, failed
2001\02: vs NZ and SA, all flat tracks, not much in any of the attacks; and his average was inflated especially by dropped catches

More importantly than any of that above:

Ramprakash 52 games, 2350 runs @ 27.32 (2 hundreds)
Hayden 67 games, 5721 runs @ 53.46 (20 hundreds)

 

[Richard]

Nope, far less importantly, because overall averages, as I'm increasingly realising, are rarely worth bothering with because they almost invariably conceal some important traits.
In these two examples, it's Ramprakash with times and with opening innings knocked-out; with Hayden it's the split into seam-friendlies and non-seam-friendlies.

 

[Richard]

jeez richard, you are trying just a bit too hard with this one I think

I never try too hard with anything.
I'd have thought you'd be pleased to see me arguing the positive case for someone, given how often you've criticised me for being curmadgeon-ish (not that you're alone, of course).

 

[marc71178]

Nope, far less importantly, because overall averages, as I'm increasingly realising, are rarely worth bothering with because they almost invariably conceal some important traits.

In spite of 1 being double the other, it's not important?

 

[Richard]

Nope, because there are more relevant patterns within.
All things point to Hayden being a far, far bigger success in Test-cricket than Ramprakash, which is something I've not once denied.
All I've said is that the only reason Ramprakash was not a Test-match success was because of a poor temperament, especially early in his career, and that the only reason Hayden's been a success is because quality seam and swing bowlers and seaming pitches have been extremely rare.

 

[badgerhair]

Nope, far less importantly, because overall averages, as I'm increasingly realising, are rarely worth bothering with because they almost invariably conceal some important traits.

Enlightenment dawns, which is always nice to see.

In these two examples, it's Ramprakash with times and with opening innings knocked-out; with Hayden it's the split into seam-friendlies and non-seam-friendlies.

The real difference between Ramprakash and Hayden (or Ramprakash and anyone else who's been a success in Test cricket) is that Ramprakash didn't have the mental strength to cope with Test cricket and Hayden does, and overall averages only measure that indirectly since they show that Ramps failed and Hayden has succeeded.

Figures cannot tell you anything much about Ramprakash, since he is technically excellent and plays all types of bowling on all types of surfaces well. There's some pretty strong evidence that he does best when by doing so he will be the knight in shining armour and does poorly in circumstances where it is likely that someone else will hog the headlines, but you won't find that in averages.

I sort of agree with where you're going on Hayden and seaming pitches, but I'm nowhere near as certain as you are because I don't think there's really enough data to make a solid argument. He did poorly on the last Ashes tour of England, but he's clearly worked since on the technical weakness exposed at that point and he's become a more confident player than in 2001 when he had only just regained his place and was still a bit tentative. I'd assume that England will want to test him out early with the shoulder-high bouncers from over the wicket which were so often his undoing last time here: what I hope is that if that proves fruitless, they will give up and try other tactics - which may actually be possible now that Caddick's out of the side.

There is some other evidence for the proposition that Hayden is weak on seam-friendly pitches, but all in all, the pile is not very high and I don't think it consitutes more than grounds for suspicion.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Figures cannot tell you anything much about Ramprakash, since he is technically excellent and plays all types of bowling on all types of surfaces well.

One would suggest 2 in 52 Tests says a lot.

 

[tooextracool]

2000 shouldn't be included - it should be knocked-out and taken completely on it's own, independent of anything else, as it shows one thing - he's not an opening-batsman. It does not show anything else.

exactly my point, so 2000 cannot be included as part of his "good period", because he was rubbish, opening or not.

The point is just that - in a small time in 1999 and 2002, he only played 1 team - on seaming pitches, and failed..

exactly, so that cannot be included as part of his good period either.

For the rest of the time between 1998 and 2002, he succeeded (averaged 42 if you were to take away the NZ matches).

which again is irrelevant, because you've quite conveniently included the period where he was good and dismissed the period where he was rubbish, which doesnt prove anything. fact is he averaged 23 from 99-02, like it or not, that is very very poor, or in other words, not test class.
and since you like to conveniently pick out anomalies and exceptions, if you take out his 130 odd against australia, since it is clearly an anomaly given what came before and after, please tell me what his average was in 01?

 

[tooextracool]

No, fact is he was not especially good (averaging 28 mostly on bowler-friendly pitches)..

whatever way you want to look at it, averaging 28 means that its not a 'good period'.

I

t'd be more accurate to say he was a very high-class player for those 11 games (24 innings), as averaging 47 mostly against good bowling on bowler-friendly pitches is an extremely good achievement.
And for the next 14 games (26 innings) he was mediocre overall, and still pretty good when not facing NZ.

or rather if you used some grey matter, and take out his 133, which was clearly a fluke of the highest order, his next 14 games against or not against NZ were all rubbish.

 

[badgerhair]

Figures cannot tell you anything much about Ramprakash, since he is technically excellent and plays all types of bowling on all types of surfaces well.

One would suggest 2 in 52 Tests says a lot.

"2 in 52 Tests" doesn't say anything at all. It might say something if you were talking about "two centuries in 52 Tests", but it isn't very enlightening.

The only actual conclusion that you can draw from the figures about Ramprakash is that he didn't succeed at Test cricket, but if you needed to have the figures to demonstrate that, you wouldn't be much of a cricket fan.

What I don't think you can do is dig into the figures and find any clue as to why he didn't succeed. Those centuries, few though they were, serve to head off the accusation that he lacked the concentration to build a long innings, so they're more trouble than not for the Ramps-knocker, but they don't really tell you anything else.

I suppose my challenge to you is to come up with some statement about Ramprakash which is more interesting and enlightening than "Ramprakash didn't succeed in Test cricket" and show that it can be derived from statistical analysis.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[wpdavid]

FWIW my take on Ramps was that the selectors missed the boat when they dropped him for the NZ tests in 1991/92 after he had done better than Atherton, Hick & Lamb combined against WI during the previous summer. IIRC there were non-cricketing issues which made it seem a good idea at the time, but mangers are supposed to manage, and I reckon Stewart & Gooch got it wrong. That was the chance for him to get some confidence from making decent scores against a not very good NZ attack and establish himself in the side. Instead, if memory serves, he spent a couple of years being brought back occasionally in series against Pakistan & Australia and, not suprisingly failed. And the rest, we all know about.

 

[marc71178]

"2 in 52 Tests" doesn't say anything at all. It might say something if you were talking about "two centuries in 52 Tests", but it isn't very enlightening.

I did mean 2 centuries, yes.

 

[Richard]

exactly my point, so 2000 cannot be included as part of his "good period", because he was rubbish, opening or not.

And I never included it - I mentioned Tests played as a middle-order batsman between 1998 and 2001\02.

exactly, so that cannot be included as part of his good period either.

Not if taken on it's own, no.

which again is irrelevant, because you've quite conveniently included the period where he was good and dismissed the period where he was rubbish, which doesnt prove anything. fact is he averaged 23 from 99-02, like it or not, that is very very poor, or in other words, not test class.
and since you like to conveniently pick out anomalies and exceptions, if you take out his 130 odd against australia, since it is clearly an anomaly given what came before and after, please tell me what his average was in 01?

Really? You honestly think it was an anomaly? Anyone watching the series could tell, just as with the Butcher 173*, he was building to that all series.
Fact is he averaged 28 as a middle-order bat from 1999-2001\02, while playing barely more than in 1998. In other words, he had 1 year's worth of good performances and 1 year's worth of mediocre performances - just that the 2nd year's worth was spread-out over 3 seperate years.
And generally if someone has 24 innings averaging 47 and 26 averaging 28 (mostly against good bowling where most didn't do a terrible amount better) they won't receive the sort of vitriol Ramprakash has generally received.

 

[Richard]

whatever way you want to look at it, averaging 28 means that its not a 'good period'.

Depends on what everyone else averaged.

or rather if you used some grey matter, and take out his 133, which was clearly a fluke of the highest order, his next 14 games against or not against NZ were all rubbish.

No, it wasn't clearly a fluke, it was clearly something that was always coming given that he'd batted pretty well several times in the series.

 

[Richard]

FWIW my take on Ramps was that the selectors missed the boat when they dropped him for the NZ tests in 1991/92 after he had done better than Atherton, Hick & Lamb combined against WI during the previous summer. IIRC there were non-cricketing issues which made it seem a good idea at the time, but mangers are supposed to manage, and I reckon Stewart & Gooch got it wrong. That was the chance for him to get some confidence from making decent scores against a not very good NZ attack and establish himself in the side. Instead, if memory serves, he spent a couple of years being brought back occasionally in series against Pakistan & Australia and, not suprisingly failed. And the rest, we all know about.

And not content with that they then ditched him again against SA in 1999\2000... then decided it was a wonderful idea to put him at the top of the order the next summer while a certain Warwickshire opener batted at six.

 

[badgerhair]

And not content with that they then ditched him again against SA in 1999\2000... then decided it was a wonderful idea to put him at the top of the order the next summer while a certain Warwickshire opener batted at six.

"They" may have agreed that it was a wonderful idea for Ramprakash to open, but the original suggestion was made by Ramprakash himself. He was flown out as cover on the 1999-00 tour, and took the opportunity to have a long talk with Nasser. He was made aware that the selectors' view was that the England middle order should be Hussain, Vaughan, Thorpe, and that it was Nasser's wish to see if Hick could be rehabilitated as an England player as successfully as Caddick had been. Ramprakash then suggested that as there seemed to be a vacancy as Atherton's partner, he'd like a go, and as then captain of Middx was able to send himself in as an opener for the matches in early season to get used to it. The selectors were still open to persuasion that there might be a way of unleashing Ramps's obvious talent on the Test stage, and were prepared to let him try. And it didn't work.

Your condemnation of the selectors is therefore only justified if you think they should have been firmer in their original resolve and dropped him completely rather than succumbing to his pleadings to be allowed to come back out of position.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I never try too hard with anything.
I'd have thought you'd be pleased to see me arguing the positive case for someone, given how often you've criticised me for being curmadgeon-ish (not that you're alone, of course).

Yet you choose the most bizarre situation possible imaginable to be positive... defending Ramprakash, of all people.

 

[Richard]

And yet my defence is not that he was a Test-class player, simply that he was nowhere near as bad as some people think.