5th Test: England vs Australia at the Brit Oval

[Ollie_H]

But why Bell over Ramps? Bell may average more in Career but Ramps averages more against Australia.

Would you take a batsmen that averages 50 against all nations apart from the Aussies where he averaged only 20?

 

[King Pietersen]

Yes. Because if he'd been playing against every other country, the Australia he would have faced would have included Warne and McGrath, who aren't there anymore. I think you're playing a dangerous game if you're going to start picking players purely due to how many runs they've scored against a certain nation. You going to advocate dropping Pietersen in favour of Bell in games against Pakistan?

Even if we are going down that route, I'd take Bell ahead of Ramprakash. Ramprakash's average is boosted immensely because of 1 innings on a very flat track, where Australia made a massive score. Sure he played well, but he's only really played 2 innings of note against the Australian's. Bell's been far more consistent, not made a century, but he's made a very solid number of half centuries. Sure he failed in 2005 against them, but it was his 2nd Test series, batting 4 against Warne and McGrath, you'd have to be one hell of a player to come through that with good figures. He performed solidly in Australia, and made a solid half century in his 1st Test back in this series. I don't 100% know why, but I'd feel more confident with Bell in the side ahead of Ramprakash. Not that I'd have Bell in the side of course, but I'd just prefer to have him in there, possibly because I enjoy watching him bat so much, and feel that with his talent (I believe he's more talented than Ramprakash) he's almost certain to come good soon enough.

 

[Ollie_H]

Yes. Because if he'd been playing against every other country, the Australia he would have faced would have included Warne and McGrath, who aren't there anymore.

That isn't the point in my question, forget all the discussion about players we have just had and players in other teams, my question is would you take a player who averaged 50 against all the other teams but only averaged 20 against Australia?

Fair point in the second part, but it's still not really my question.

Are you not playing a risky game if your bringing in someone who has only ever played 2 T20I's and made single figure scores in both against a team who Bopara scored 3 hundreds against. For this guy's debut in a must win test match or else we lose the ashes?

EDIT: I do share your views on that Bell is a lovely player to watch and does have some big talent, but I am just so bored with him bottling it time after time after time.

 

[manee]

You know for a fact he's changed as a player do you? What about mentally? Is he any stronger? He seemed to bottle it quite badly when he was 1 century away from his 100th FC ton.

Bottle it?! Of course nearing your 100th FC ton will play on your mind and interrupt your confidence, it is a historic feat.

He's averaging over 100, in Division 2, at The Oval, one of the flattest grounds in the country.

He didn't seem to show any signs of being troubled by the level when he played in Division One for the past few years. Moreover, he doesn't solely play at the Oval, Surrey have away games too and he has done fine. That being said, the fact that he has scored runs so freely at the Oval is surely more in his favour for his selection. I know you will come back and say the Oval is a flat track but that doesn't mean that you cannot get used to the track moreso than a batsman who has not batted there so often.

Jonathan Trott's averaging 89.20 in the 1st Division with his home ground at Edgbaston, with Bell averaging 64.50. Not to take anything away from Ramprakash's stats, as he's batting exceptionally well, and has done for a while, but as far as I'm concerned, if they were going to bring him in, they should have brought him in in 2006, and given him a chance to prove himself over a long period of time. If he comes in for 1 match and 1 match only, before being dumped again, then it does no good for England and it'll do no good for Ramprakash. I'd much rather see Jonathan Trott come in personally.

The mentality that it is not worth it for just this one match is rubbish. The Ashes is, on the line, the future of English cricket can take a backseat as this is the pinnacle of all cricket for England. Trott should come in, but so should Ramprakash, in for Bell.

If the selectors do go for him, and he comes in and makes a hundred, and we win the game, I'll hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. But I'm just making the point that I wouldn't select him, as I don't believe he's developed a great deal as a player since 2001/2002 whenever it was when he made his last Test appearance.

I know it would seem as if I am disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but this is a horrid point, imo. If he scores a hundred, it doesn't prove anything. We all know that Bell, Trott, Bopara, Ramprakash, Key, and so on, are all capable of scoring hundreds in the fifth Test but the correct selection is the batsman who is most likely of doing so.

You should be praising the man for getting to 100 hundred's not slagging him off because he didn't get there quick enough.

Wholeheartedly agree with this.

Ramprakash averaged 77 in 1995, 49 in 96 and 55 in 97, so when he was really in contention for England he was still hitting big runs, maybe not on the same level as he is now, but pitches have been getting steadily flatter into the 2000's. So it's not like he was an average cricketer when he was playing for England and has just peaked now, he's always been making FC runs, but not had the mental toughness to do it consistently at the highest level.

The run scoring is exponentially greater in the 2000s and this cannot simply by attributed to the flatness of wickets. The mere concentration to turn 30s into 50s and 50s into 100s, even on flat wickets, is a sign of concentration which is a component of mental toughness!

But that's because selectors are picking on more than just stats. Cricketman said I'm blinded by the stats, but I think it's the opposite. I'm the one looking beyond the stats and looking at the man himself, and the reasoning behind me not including him. If we were going by stats and stats alone, then of course Ramprakash would be in the side. But I'm not convinced he's advanced as a player mentally since his last struggles at Test level. That's my reasoning for not picking him. Also why I wouldn't want Bell in the XI. I'd much rather see Rob Key in the side.

I disagree that you are looking beyond stats if you readily discount Ramps' runs because they are at the Oval and overlook the fact that the Test is being played there.

Ravi was picked on potential, his talent and his mental toughness. It takes tremendous mental toughness to come back from an incredibly difficult first away tour to Sri Lanka where he failed miserably, score a hundred with Jet Lag in a tour game in the Windies, follow that with a Test hundred after being hit in the head, and then he followed that with 2 more hundreds against the Windies, one of which came when everyone else was falling around him at Lords. Sure he's been awful in this series, but I'm convinced he'll be back and better. Even Warne was praising his talent, saying how he's one of the most talented batsmen in the country. That's why he was picked, not on averages.

Perhaps but I don't think he has shown massive mental toughness at all. He has shown a distinctly disappointing lack of fight in this series, as in Sri Lanka. It would seem he merely 'bullied' the poor West Indies attack. Moreover, he offered countless chances in that West Indies series which were squandered either due to lackluster field placing or lackluster fielding/

Playing on one of the flattest pitches in the country surely some thought needs to be put into the bowling attack I cant see why we are blanking Sidebottom although granted he ended up (in his last first class game) with 4-130 or so he managed to get Trott LBW and was the best bowler in a good Notts side,

I do hate the treatment that Sidebottom has recieved from the English media and selectors for performances he put out while unfit. He was England's best bowler a few summers back but that is all forgotten because, while unfit, he lacked pace - ridicuclous! However, that being said, I don't think you could bring him in for the fifth Test, as there is simply not an open spot. Broad may be a poor Test bowler, but his batting will be crucial at eight and coming off 6 wickets in the last game, it would be irrational to drop him now.

Yes. Because if he'd been playing against every other country, the Australia he would have faced would have included Warne and McGrath, who aren't there anymore. I think you're playing a dangerous game if you're going to start picking players purely due to how many runs they've scored against a certain nation. You going to advocate dropping Pietersen in favour of Bell in games against Pakistan?

Australia provide an immediate mental Test. They are the strongest team, they are in-your-face, they sledge and they are the highest level of competition - Ramps doing well against them has shown mental toughness (which I am beginning to hate the evaluation of as you can simply ignore factors such as this, as you have done, since it is such a flakey subject) and proficiency against extremely high level opposition.

Even if we are going down that route, I'd take Bell ahead of Ramprakash. Ramprakash's average is boosted immensely because of 1 innings on a very flat track, where Australia made a massive score.

England didn't make a massive score though, they were bowled out once and then once again after following on. This was not a bore draw, that could have been a match saving innings if he had any sort of sustained support from the other end. Moreover, the pitch may have been flat but Mcgrath and Warne provided enough pressure that day to provide enough of a Test for the batsmen.

For the record, this is my XI...

1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Trott
4. Ramprakash
5. Collingwood
6. Prior
7. Flintoff
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Onions

 

[woodzy]

Yes. Because if he'd been playing against every other country, the Australia he would have faced would have included Warne and McGrath, who aren't there anymore. I think you're playing a dangerous game if you're going to start picking players purely due to how many runs they've scored against a certain nation. You going to advocate dropping Pietersen in favour of Bell in games against Pakistan?

Even if we are going down that route, I'd take Bell ahead of Ramprakash. Ramprakash's average is boosted immensely because of 1 innings on a very flat track, where Australia made a massive score. Sure he played well, but he's only really played 2 innings of note against the Australian's. Bell's been far more consistent, not made a century, but he's made a very solid number of half centuries. Sure he failed in 2005 against them, but it was his 2nd Test series, batting 4 against Warne and McGrath, you'd have to be one hell of a player to come through that with good figures. He performed solidly in Australia, and made a solid half century in his 1st Test back in this series. I don't 100% know why, but I'd feel more confident with Bell in the side ahead of Ramprakash. Not that I'd have Bell in the side of course, but I'd just prefer to have him in there, possibly because I enjoy watching him bat so much, and feel that with his talent (I believe he's more talented than Ramprakash) he's almost certain to come good soon enough.

I just dont think Bell is the answer for England. I mean hes been tried and test over and over again and its a tad ironic because Ian Bell is a Mark Ramprakash of 1998 - plenty of 50s but no 100s when it matters most. Whats even more ironic is that Bell's played 50 something tests - roughly the same amount of tests as Ramprakash. So I think its not worth picking him at test level unless he goes back to county cricket and proves hes changed as a player and can pile on the runs.

Ramprakash isnt merely being reccomended because of the runs hes scored at county cricket. Its almost universally acknowledged by all those who know him and who have seen him, that he is a different player to the one that played test cricket 7-8 years ago and therefore would be like selecting a totally different player.

Just on that, Ramprakash has played exceptionally consistently against Australia. His average is probably a pretty accurate reflection against the scores hes made against us. On the 1998-1999 tour of Australia he was arguably England's best batsman. Although he didnt make a century, he got plenty of 50s. Without checking I think may have been around 5 or 6; he played well.

woodzy added 3 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Murray Goodwin made some comments a little while ago regarding Ramprakash, saying how he gave him abit of sledging in a County game, and Ramprakash threw his wicket away a little while later. Ramprakash averaged 77 in 1995, 49 in 96 and 55 in 97, so when he was really in contention for England he was still hitting big runs, maybe not on the same level as he is now, but pitches have been getting steadily flatter into the 2000's.

What I find amusing about that is, if it is true, then why havent more county teams done that to him and employed it on a regular basis. I mean its not secret that Ramprakash has been susceptible to sledging, confidence and mental issues in the past. Surely to god in county cricket all his opposition are going to test him on his biggest weakness?

 

[Leicester Fox]

My new team

Cook
Strauss
Trott
Colly
Prior
Fred
Rashid
Broad
Swann
Jim
Onions

If that happpens though I'll post a picture of me kissing a picture of Steven Gerrard

 

[Hooper]

Fox, you do realize you guys can't win the Ashes now?

We are going to thump you, but in case that doesn't go to plan and we play Hauritz (, then the draw is what we are going to be pleased with...Which means the Ashes are ours and MasterBlaster has to have a Ricky Ponting avatar.

I cannot beleive you think that a one legged Amputate Flintoff is going to win you the Ashes...

 

[Leicester Fox]

I fail to see how we can lose when we have the mighty

FREDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

In his last ever test.

This man is going to kill you.

 

[Hooper]

Watson>Freddit tbh

 

[evertonfan]

Watson is not even half the man freddie is.

FREDDEH!!

 

[Leicester Fox]

Shane Watson wishes he was Fred. Then again, don't we all.

Leicester Fox added 0 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

Fred drinks Corona, top lad!

 

[evertonfan]

Joe, Fred drinks everything.

 

[Hooper]

Fred goes alright. Past his use by date though and was never as good as the English media made out to be.

Hopefully his final test is a shamble.

 

[evertonfan]

Who honestly cares about an Australian's opinion? He's Fred. Who cares if he didn't fulfill he's potential, he's a twatting great big legend.

 

[Hooper]

2 Test five fers aye? Yeah, pure legendary aint it?