He averages well against the aussies at the oval and over 50 (might even be 60+) at the Oval. Worth a recall if we're going down the past "failures" and "never too old" route.
I wouldn't pick Ramprakash for several reasons :-
- no future in it, even if he succeeds.
- what message does it send out to England prospects?
- he may be TOO conscious of making a mistake and thus make one. Will he dance down the pitch to a spinner or play shots like he does with such freedom at Surrey knowing his place there is secure and zero pressure?
- he is getting on a bit, and 2nd division championship and four day games are somewhat different to five day Tests against the best team in the world
- he failed previously, on all the evidence he averaged well in county cricket and failed in Tests so why should we think his averaging well now in county cricket will mean a different result in Tests?
As for the argument I've read and been contemplating re being dropped before given a lengthy time in the side. Why should he get more chances to fail? Has it helped Broad, 6/92 and 61 when the game was nearly lost aside? It simply adds pressure to the rest of the side so when the likes of Strauss and Collingwood do go for cheap scores there is noone to pick up the pieces.
And what law of logic suggests that someone who fails in say 4 Tests will succeed if given 5,6,7,8..................... Surely if they have any ability they can score at least one score if not two in those early Tests, they don't have to fail miserably in six or more innings. I am working on a file on Ramps and his successive Tests and the influence of sustained retention, but it proves what you could conclude from logic which is a player will have a higher average if they play 10-15 consecutive Tests as they must have done something right to survive 10-15 consecutive Tests.................
1. This is a here and now situation for England. The future at the moment is reclaiming the Ashes for England, simple as that. The future of English cricket can come after the Oval test. Even so, there is possibly a future for Ramprakash in test cricket. If I were the selectors id sit him down and Id ask him "How long are you going to be around for?" If he says something along the lines of "Ive only got a year or so left in me" Then The Oval test is probably the last test he'll play. On the other hand if he says "I want to play a few years test cricket, I want to prove myself a test match batsman etc, etc" then it would be worth picking him for future tests and even building the batting order around him and Pietersen. Now as ive said, its unorthodox and unfair to ask a player to justify his future like that, but given his age I think its something that has to be done.
2. As for England's prospects, it should send the message "Play well and your chance for England". It should also send the message to players in England who has struggled with various aspects their game, that if they work hard and make runs than there is always hope. His selection is not a 'selection policy' in itself; it does not say we're picking veterans now and young kids are going to have to wait until their 39. Ramprakash selection is in no way slating England's youngsters or is a reflection of the lack of faith in playing kids in crucial test matches. If Ramprakash was 21 he surely be in contention; in fact if he was 21 we wouldnt be having this discussion because he would have been picked without hesitation.
3. Ive heard that argument about him being under pressure in a test match situation and getting out and how theres no pressure on him at Surrey etc, etc. Thats the only valid argument that ive heard for not playing him. My response to this is that there is a certain element of risk in every single selection you make when it comes to picking players for test matches. Very rarely are their safe options when it comes to dropping players and picking new ones and alternatively, leaving the same ones in. I mean people are calling for Jonathan Trott and Robert Key to be picked. Risks are involved in both of those selections. Jonathan Trott is just a kid, the quality of bowling is going to be better than anything he's faced at county cricket; lets see how confident he is then. With Key, I think the Aussie got under he collar the last time hes picked; whats not to say that hes not going to be intimidated by Ricky Ponting fielding in at short cover. What im trying to say is that yes there is a possibility Ramprakash may find himself under a bit of pressure and yes that is a risk, but there are going to be risks in every selection you make.
3. He made runs in both divisions. I hate that argument because its first class cricket. If you are a player trying to get back into your national side, there is no other form of the game to justify your case for national selection other than first class cricket.
4. Many experts agree that hes a different player to the one who last played county cricket 7-8 years ago. Ive gone over this in the 5th test thread. This change is not just in the form of runs but in terms of mental development. I, along with others believe he is a mentally tougher player than the player he was 7-8 years ago.
woodzy added 8 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...
As for the argument I've read and been contemplating re being dropped before given a lengthy time in the side. Why should he get more chances to fail? Has it helped Broad, 6/92 and 61 when the game was nearly lost aside? It simply adds pressure to the rest of the side so when the likes of Strauss and Collingwood do go for cheap scores there is noone to pick up the pieces.
And what law of logic suggests that someone who fails in say 4 Tests will succeed if given 5,6,7,8..................... Surely if they have any ability they can score at least one score if not two in those early Tests, they don't have to fail miserably in six or more innings. I am working on a file on Ramps and his successive Tests and the influence of sustained retention, but it proves what you could conclude from logic which is a player will have a higher average if they play 10-15 consecutive Tests as they must have done something right to survive 10-15 consecutive Tests.................
He has earned the right to play test cricket again due to the amount of runs hes played at county cricket. The response that 'oh why would you pick him, hes only going to fail again' is just so cynical and doesn't sit well. I mean look at Australia in this series! We could have easily have dropped Johnson - we stuck with him hes no taking wickets. Could have dropped Siddle - picked up 5 in the first innings at Headingley. Even before the series, Could have dropped Hauritz - hes done a wonderful job and being one of the big success stories out of this tour for Australia. Even look at the great Shane Warne. In the early part of his career it took him ages to get started and he failed many times, we picked him again after being dropped and he did well.
I know what your saying in the second part of your argument and I kind of agree with it. That sort of thinking is part of Australian cricket culture and is part of the reason why Australia have done so well. The thing is England selectors want that big score to be in that 5th test that they play. Your saying that this middle order are due for a score. Like I was saying before, there is risk involved and its pretty obvious what it is; that the score might not just come and they'll collapse.
