• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mark ramprakash

fieldy_17

Cricket Spectator
I am getting frustrated with people saying mark ramprakash is too old to play international cricket!!! i belive the stats show he is better than any other england batsmen at this present time!!! what do you think??
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
If they believe him to be one of the best batsmen available and will be one of the most productive in next Tests then he should be selected.

Age shouldnt really have anything to do with it. There is no tomorrow in Test cricket, every Test is special with the next one being the most special.

Hard to make the stats argument though given his Test record and him being one of the biggest disappointments ever to play for England. Despite his recent CC record the stink of those performances is tough to wash off.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Keep in mind though that his purple patch has come after his last Test. Players do improve, even late in their careers. Ramprakash was always a heavy scorer in FC cricket, but in the last few seasons he's taken it to a whole new level. If, in Test cricket at this stage of maturity, he can achieve even a third of what he has at domestic level, he would be better than practically all of the England batting lineup right now.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Keep in mind though that his purple patch has come after his last Test. Players do improve, even late in their careers. Ramprakash was always a heavy scorer in FC cricket, but in the last few seasons he's taken it to a whole new level. If, in Test cricket at this stage of maturity, he can achieve even a third of what he has at domestic level, he would be better than practically all of the England batting lineup right now.
I dont disagree with you. I just think that even if he was selected his previous record would give him a very short leash and he wouldnt have a proper opportunity to perform.

He would need to score big in his first Test recalled. If he went 2 Tests without a big score he would be cast aside again as people dont like reinforcing failure and would give too much ammunition for the vultures or those that didnt think he should be there.

Of the reasons not to pick him, age is the least important IMO
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
What annoys me is the assumption people make about if Ramprakash was picked for Tests now (or had he been picked any time in the last 2 years or so) that he'd perform.

That, not being 37-38, is the biggest reason why I'd be wary of picking him. Now, selection now might be a second career. But equally, all the old problems might still be there.

As of this moment in time, Owais Shah deserves selection more. The selectors, however, continue to pick the likes of Strauss and Bopara, neither of whom (if Vaughan is to open) have any case to be picked ahead of either Shah or Ramprakash.

And personally, I've been one of Ramprakash's biggest defenders. I've pointed-out ad nauseum that his Test career (to date?) isn't as bad as some might think. From 1997 onwards, when not opening the batting, he averaged 37, which is pretty good. But even despite this I remain wary of picking him. And for every series he doesn't get picked for, it becomes less and less likely. Even insanely late career surges as this cannot last season after season.

What lots of people also neglect to mention is that Ramprakash has always been a prolific scorer at domestic-First-Class level. He's scored 2000 runs in a season before 2006 and 2007, the feat is not unprecedented for him.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's hard to fathom that Ramprakash would be any worse than he was in his last few runs at Test cricket. Looking at him bat now he looks a completely superior force. He is more readily confident and has totally dominated domestic cricket. It's not a certainty that he would perform, but it's a logical assumption that he would do better than he did before. He's a better first-class batsman now, so it's not farfetched to think that he'd be a better Test batsman.

I agree that Shah deserves an opportunity, but Ramprakash is one of the best batsmen in the country and should certainly be in the squad ahead of Andrew Strauss.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think it might be farfetched to think he will be a better Test batsman.

His domestic dominance is, while more pronounced than ever in the last 2 seasons, nothing new. He's almost always been better than most batsmen in the country - even Graham Thorpe, Alec Stewart and Michael Atherton.

This simply says he's doing what he'd always done very well brilliantly now. What needs to happen for good-but-not-quite-good-enough (his most recent stint) Test performances to turn into eminently-good-enough Test performances is a change in temperament. Temperament was always what let him down.

And while you can guess at whether his temperament might have improved, you can't know. The only way to find-out reliably would be to try. And Ramprakash's career would be even more ignominious had it a horrible little postscript tagged on the end than it is now. Especially if he were to have returned to a World that was nothing like that which he had left. Nothing remains from Ramprakash's final Test. Even Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - mediocre fringe players at that point - are gone now. His fellows Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe are long gone. Ashley Giles, part of the team with him for a very short time but of a similar generation, is gone too. This would make any new failure still worse.

Keep in mind, though, all I'm trying to consider is whether he'd be successful or not. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if Strauss and Bopara are picked for Test-cricket, Ramprakash should be.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
TBH, if its all about the next 3 match series I think you could prob slot Ramps, Hick and Caddick into the team and have an improved chance.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not sure about Hick, don't recall his form being terribly impressive recently, but there'd certainly be many bowlers I'd prefer not see picked currently than Caddick. Even though I'm confident he's not the bowler he once was.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Morgieb,

Re your signature, I would move Ponting to 3 in your annoying XI and have G Smith to open
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
With Ramprakash it's not just about weight of runs, though that is compelling. He's been dominant at domestic level, but not to the extent of consecutive Bradmanesque seasons. This is taking dominance to a brave new level.

But back to my original point. It's not just about weight of runs. He just looks a better player now. Not sure what it is, but he just looks like he knows he's going to ton up everytime I've seen him bat recently.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
When've you been watching him bat Liam?

Given that I've seen him bat in a cricket match (ie, not a Twenty20) once since 2001\02, I'm rather surprised you've managed to at all.

Been to the Rose Bowl to see Hants vs Surrey?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Especially if he were to have returned to a World that was nothing like that which he had left. Nothing remains from Ramprakash's final Test. Even Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard - mediocre fringe players at that point - are gone now. His fellows Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe are long gone. Ashley Giles, part of the team with him for a very short time but of a similar generation, is gone too. This would make any new failure still worse.
I've seen you bring this up a few times, and while I agree that, if he did indeed fail, it'd make his career look all the more pathetic, selecting Ramprakash wouldn't be about doing him any favours per say. It's up to him to make himself available or unavailable based on what he thinks he has to lose or gain from playing - the selectors have the responsibility of selecting the team they think will give England the most chance of success for any given game, not making careers look as good as possible and protecting players from blips on their radar.

If anything, I actually think this point is a huge positive on the "Get him the team" side of things. The cricketing world he left - the one he failed in, the one that contains his demons and his nightmares - is gone, and a new international scene awaits him. He is no longer a case of "tried and failed" as the cricketing world has changed so much, and as many have pointed out, it's suiting now more than ever before.

Personally I think he should be in the team pronto, or at very least the squad with Shah given Strauss's place.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I've seen you bring this up a few times, and while I agree that, if he did indeed fail, it'd make his career look all the more pathetic, selecting Ramprakash wouldn't be about doing him any favours per say. It's up to him to make himself available or unavailable based on what he thinks he has to lose or gain from playing - the selectors have the responsibility of selecting the team they think will give England the most chance of success for any given game, not making careers look as good as possible and protecting players from blips on their radar.
I know this. I've always made an effort to distance comments about "should Ramprakash be picked?" from comments about "what will happen should Ramprakash be picked?"

Also, let's not forget that being a selector should maybe be exclusively 100% about picking the side you think has the best chance, but it doesn't always come down completely to that. And I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of this, but the realities. Picking Ramprakash and him failing again would not merely reflect badly on Ramprakash, but the selectors. And they'd be disproportionately criticised, I think, for taking such a decision - or at the very least it'd then be disproportionately brought-up and tried to be used in connection to other (very possibly completely unrelated) mistakes.

There is and always will be in the minds of those who are interested in their own legacies as well as that of their team's, a keenness to make the least controversial, the least possible-to-backfire-really-badly, decisions. Nasser Hussain (one who was always very devil-may-care on this front) talks a hell of a lot about this in David Graveney (who he says always tried to keep everyone happy in his selections). And while it may be disappointing if selectors shy away from "head-above-the-parapet" decisions purely for fear of excessive criticism, can you really blame them for fearing villification? I can't. I know the fickle ways of the cricketing World (both media and Joe Public) too well.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I know this. I've always made an effort to distance comments about "should Ramprakash be picked?" from comments about "what will happen should Ramprakash be picked?"

Also, let's not forget that being a selector should maybe be exclusively 100% about picking the side you think has the best chance, but it doesn't always come down completely to that. And I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of this, but the realities. Picking Ramprakash and him failing again would not merely reflect badly on Ramprakash, but the selectors. And they'd be disproportionately criticised, I think, for taking such a decision - or at the very least it'd then be disproportionately brought-up and tried to be used in connection to other (very possibly completely unrelated) mistakes.

There is and always will be in the minds of those who are interested in their own legacies as well as that of their team's, a keenness to make the least controversial, the least possible-to-backfire-really-badly, decisions. Nasser Hussain (one who was always very devil-may-care on this front) talks a hell of a lot about this in David Graveney (who he says always tried to keep everyone happy in his selections). And while it may be disappointing if selectors shy away from "head-above-the-parapet" decisions purely for fear of excessive criticism, can you really blame them for fearing villification? I can't. I know the fickle ways of the cricketing World (both media and Joe Public) too well.
To be fair to the current batch of selectors, if they were overly worried about making difficult decisons they wouldn't have dropped Hoggard for this current test. It was certainly not a decision that'd been called for in any section of the cricket media that I'd seen & it had to potential to blow up in their faces if Jimmy tanked.

I don't think too many posters on CW at least have made any assumptions about Ramprakash being a definite success should he return either. Most have just pointed out that his county form is such that he very possibly deserves another chance.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
To be fair to the current batch of selectors, if they were overly worried about making difficult decisons they wouldn't have dropped Hoggard for this current test. It was certainly not a decision that'd been called for in any section of the cricket media that I'd seen & it had to potential to blow up in their faces if Jimmy tanked.
No, certainly. However, the current lot of selectors have been in-office for all of, what, 3 weeks? The Ramprakash decisions to date have been taken by a different panel. It'll be interesting to see how he's treated next summer should the run-spree continue.

On the Hoggard-Ramprakash thing, BTW - not strictly relevant, but I maintain and always will that Hoggard's axing was a shocking decision. On Ramprakash's recall, though, I think it'd be quite fair enough to go either way. And I won't criticise if they recall him and he fails, nor if they don't (even if Strauss continues to flounder).
I don't think too many posters on CW at least have made any assumptions about Ramprakash being a definite success should he return either. Most have just pointed out that his county form is such that he very possibly deserves another chance.
Not that many have, but Liam and Kev have offered suggestions, and not just in this thread either.
 

Top