5th Test: England vs Australia at the Brit Oval

[Cricketdude]

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.

That's why we have Watson and North.

 

[Leicester Fox]

True, Fred drinks Aussie blood mainly though.

I'm gonna get my stepdad to stick 20 quid on Fred to get all 20 wickets if there doing it.

 

[Hooper]

I reckon the selectors wont play him and have Panesar come into the side.

His batting more valuable then Fred's and his bowling's just as good.

 

[evertonfan]

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

This is why crims are bad. They judge everything on stats. English fans aren't all "OMFGZZZ HE AVERAGES 70 AND HAD 20 FIVE FORS HES AWESOME!!"

No, we love him because he's one of the most charismatic sportsmen we've ever produced. He's a legend. Deal with it. In our eyes and that's all that matters. As mentioned, a crims opinion accounts for not very much. All they do is beat their wives anyway.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Your a corvette inspired cockpit I'm afraid.

Fred on the other hand is the real deal. What with the 3 test 5fers and all

 

[Hooper]

This is why crims are bad. They judge everything on stats. English fans aren't all "OMFGZZZ HE AVERAGES 70 AND HAD 20 FIVE FORS HES AWESOME!!"

No, we love him because he's one of the most charismatic sportsmen we've ever produced. He's a legend. Deal with it. In our eyes and that's all that matters. As mentioned, a crims opinion accounts for not very much. All they do is beat their wives anyway.

LOL... LOL... LOL...

Had to laugh at that one evo. That is far from what Aussies are known for, just look at KP A.K.A Dan. He is the biggest stats whore on here.

In our eyes? Yeah, in your eyes. Your big one eye. One eyed English supporters who think their sportsmen are greats when in fact they are hacks. a la Panesar 2006/07.

Sidenote, we don't beat our wives. They are called de factos.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Don't go all Rafa Benitez on us.

Fred is a legend. That is a fact. Well technically it isn't but he is a legend.

 

[Will_NA]

If Ramprakash did get picked for the Oval, I could see him doing well. He knows the score. He knows exactly what he has been brought in to do. Score runs. I think he'll get at least 70 in the first innings and maybe a fifty in the second. One thing's certain, Ravi Bopara's gone. That leaves Bell and Ramprakash fighting it our for 3 as Trott definitely won't play there.

The thing is, Ramprakash would be the definition of a horses-for-courses selection but is he a lame one? (Like what I did there? With the analogy...) It's a lose-lose situation for the selectors. If they pick him and he fails, they're to blame. If they don't and Bell/Bopara/Trott fails, they're to blame. If he does well but isn't seen again, the selectors are seen as sending mixed signals to young batsmen waiting in the wings.

Most likely, they will take the lowest risk option to save their own asses and leave Ramps out which is fair enough as long as Bopara goes. That leaves a spot for Trott so the batting line-up will look.

1.
2. Strauss
3. Bell
4. Trott
5. Collingwood
6. Prior
7. Flintoff

The question is should Cook keep his place? He has obvious faults outside the off-stump and he could easily be worked over by Johnson and Clark. Plus, someone like Rob Key is far more likely to increase the tempo than Cooky. I would still keep Cook though. You can't drop him for the final Test when he's been as bad as the batsmen around him save for Strauss and Freddie.

One thing is certain - Bopara has to go and so does Harmison while they're at it.

Cook
Strauss
Bell
Trott
Collingwood
Prior
Caveman
Broad
Swann
Jimmeh
Onions

Sidey misses out because Onions is our most reliable stump to stump seamer and Broad is improving as his 6-for suggests and Australian women smell like monkey testicles. If you want to know how I know what monkey testicles smell like, ask your mother.

 

[Skater]

Mark Ramprakash set to be overlooked for Sarf Laandan test - Joanathan Trott to replace Ravi Bopara.

BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | Uncapped Trott to replace Bopara

 

[manee]

Sarf Laandan test

That is not how we talk!

 

[Owzat]

Not to mention the failure that is Ramps averages over 40 against better Australian sides than this.

He hasn't got the freedom of knowing there's plenty of chances left like he had years ago, he hasn't played for England for seven years and knows his past will ALWAYS hang over his head. Will he play his natural game? I doubt it.

Sure he averages just over 40 against the aussies, doesn't make him the right choice for picking in 2009.

Ramprakash vs Australia in England

1993 6 & 64 (35.00 average)
1997 4 & 48 (26.00 average)
2001 14, 40, 14, 26, 40, 32, 133 & 19 (average 39.75)

Total : 440 runs @ 36.67

But notice that when playing just once in a home series against the aussies he scored most of 70 runs in a Test, ok but not the impact is being sought here. Even when he averaged well in 2001 he had a run of poor scores before that 133 made up 1/3 of his runs and average, the rest of his scores were 185 runs @ 26.43.

He does have a good record in the 5th Test of a series, 646 runs @ 40.38. But again that includes two hundreds which again make up around 1/3 of his average. So if he doesn't score a hundred or two fifties in the Test then we're screwed. He did improve in his career but even that was fragmented.

Ramprakash 97/98-1999 (18 consecutive Tests)

Tests 01-02 : 2 Tests, 252 runs @ 126.00
Tests 03-09 : 7 Tests, 358 runs @ 29.83
Tests 10-14 : 5 Tests, 379 runs @ 47.38
Tests 15-18 : 4 Tests, 127 runs @ 25.40

So basically he had two good Tests against the West Indies, and a good series against the aussies. His recalls to the side in 2000 saw him average 25.00 vs Zimbabwe and 5.00 in two Tests vs Windies. Then he played out in India and New Zealand and averaged 31.80 and 15.40 respectively and has been (rightly) left out. He made his debut in 1991, if he couldn't produce form reasonably quickly TEN YEARS later in his umpteenth chance then it was viewed he never will. His county form has always been good, that should be deemed irrelevant this late in his career. Even in his good series against Australia in 2001 he scored only the one hundred (or fifty) and his next highest score was 40. He averaged well down under in 98/99 but that average was sustained by two not outs, four fifties and he scored 14 on FOUR occaisions. The point being it seems when it goes right he scores well, but what are the odds it will go right in ONE opportunity and I don't doubt the aussies will give him a hard time to humiliate him and England for picking him.

MOVE ON PEOPLE, he's a bad memory from the past and picking him on the premise of a good county average, good record against the aussies, scoring well in the 5th Test of a series etc isn't good enough. He could be picked and make a ton, win the game for England, but then the chances are Trott could, Key could, Bopara could, almost anyone could. Those that will inevitably say "told you so" if he is picked and succeeds won't be proved right, we all know there is a chance he could do well, but the point is more that he is the wrong selection. Does a man who backs a 100/1 shot in a horse race know more than other people or is it just his longshot paid off? The fact is that same horse could run a hundred races and not come off, it isn't the best horse in the race it just had a good race. I could compare it with a woman who knows nothing about football picking a player who's never scored before in his career on the basis she likes the colour of his boots, his hairstyle or his name.................. :sarcasm

Go gramps go :happy :happy :happy

(there's your chearleading section, the girls on this forum )

 

[King Pietersen]

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

But so is playing in a vital deciding 5th Ashes Test match. Maybe not quite as much of an event in an individuals career, but it's not far off.

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.

I admit, the Oval comment was abit of a silly point, and I suppose it should favour his selection. But there are other factors that would stop me picking him.

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.

I happen to disagree. I know it's the pinnacle and understand that the future of English cricket shouldn't be the main consideration, but I just don't believe Ramprakash is the right man to come in. As I've mentioned previously, I'd go for Rob Key to open, with Cook moving to 3, with Trott slotting in at 4. I personally believe that gives us a better chance than seeing Ramps in the side.

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.

And I believe that the batsmen most likely to help us win a Test match are Rob Key and Jonathan Trott

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.

The main focus of my argument hasn't be the flatness of The Oval pitch though, it has been his proven lack of bottle at the highest level in his Test career.

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.

I don't think he's shown a lack of mental toughness at all, he's shown technical issues, which mainly stem from not being positive enough in defence. Not an issue with mental toughness. He did bully the Windies attack, and gave chances, but he still scored runs, which at Lords was more than most of our batsmen did. He scored a hundred, at 3, at Lords whilst we were collapsing. Think that shows something positive in his favour.

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.

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.

But I don't believe he's done that well against them. He's played 2 innings of note against them which have boosted his average. England didn't make a big score, but they should have done. Australia made a massive score, with 3 hundreds and all the batsmen bar Gilchrist making half centuries. I think Ramps just cashed in on a flat track, with his innings made to look better by a typical England collapse in the 2nd innings. I am basing that on reading the scorecard though, and knowing what a good surface The Oval is, so I could very well be wrong, and the ball could have been moving around. Just a presumption based on the sheer runs Australia made in the 1st innings.

 

[Ollie_H]

Can I just say on this point of the 'future', most of us English always talk about this so called 'future' but when we get to this 'future' point in time, even then we will be selecting players for the 'future'.

It's just a never ending circle of picking players that might do well in the future but not players that will do well in the present. So in this thought process we're not actually picking players for this series, we're picking them for next year. Which gives them a year to perform, then in that year thay haven't performed and get dropped. This is exactly what has happened with Broad.

This is why we have to deal with such mediocrity. We need to stop all this future rubbish and play the test series we are win, yes we can have future prospects, but they shouldn't be being carried in Test Cricket, just for the fact they might peform next year.

 

[Skater]

That is not how we talk!

So? People think that we say 'Naarich' but no one ever does here.

 

[evertonfan]

Hooper, he's a legend to us. Deal with it. Don't go having your period over it.

Manee, that is how you talk and Lee, that's how you talk too.

evertonfan added 13 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

Btw, Ashes gone;

England drop Ravi Bopara and bring in Jonathan Trott for Ashes finale | Sport | The Guardian

I'm more inclined to believe the Guardian than any other news rag.