The Ramprakash conundrum.

[Namak_Halaal]

Mark Ramprakash: Why natural ability did not transfer to Test runs

It remains one of the great enigmas of English cricket - why Mark Ramprakash, who is set to pull down the curtain on one of the most successful county batting careers the game has seen, never really cut it for England. A batsman oozing class and natural ability, Ramprakash bows out with an incredible 35,659 first-class runs at an average of 53.14, including 114 centuries. In 52 Tests over 11 years, however, he scored only two hundreds and averaged a paltry 27.32. Ramprakash in numbers Test career (1991-2002): 52 matches, 2,350 runs at an average of 27.32 (two centuries and 12 fifties), with a highest score of 154 against West Indies in Bridgetown in 1998 One-day internationals (1991-2001): 18 matches, 376 runs at 26.85 (one fifty), with a highest score of 51 First-class career (1987-2012): 461 matches, 35,659 runs at 53.14 (114 centuries and 147 fifties), with a highest score of 301 not out against Northants at The Oval in 2006 Domestic one-day career (1987-2010): 407 matches, 13,273 runs at 40.22 (17 centuries and 85 fifties), with a highest score of 147 not out "The best compliment I can give him is that he's the best technician the English game has had in the past 20 years," former England captain Michael Vaughan told BBC Sport. "He had the best movements at crease. Unfortunately he couldn't mentally get it right in the international game." It is one of the quirks of English cricket that Ramprakash made his debut in the same Test as Graeme Hick, another prolific domestic batsman who struggled to reproduce his best for England. Facing a West Indies attack comprising Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Patrick Patterson, Ramprakash consistently made a solid start but did not post a score higher than 27 in the entire series. The pattern would continue as Ramprakash, often batting as if paralysed by his own desire to succeed and bearing no resemblance to the man who had butchered county attacks, took 16 innings to make a fifty and 38 innings over seven years to finally reach three figures. "When he first got in the England side, he had some outstanding attacks to face," said Vaughan. "I remember watching it and seeing him regularly get starts, 20s, but no more. "Unfortunately, he had a bad start and was almost chasing after that. And, when he came to play against a side where you'd expect him to get a lot of runs, he probably put himself under too much pressure." Such was his talent, Ramprakash was given plenty of chances to redeem himself, frequently forcing his way back into a struggling national team through sheer weight of runs in the county game. An anomaly for England batsmen at the time, Ramprakash managed to save his best for the Ashes, averaging 42 against Australia. Indeed, in his last Test in England, Ramprakash scored 133 at The Oval, but this came when the Ashes had been lost, the pressure having lifted. When England were battling to stay in the series in the third Test at Trent Bridge, Ramprakash's mental frailties were exposed by Australia leg-spinner Shane Warne, the expert sledger talking his prey into being stumped by almost half the track. Failure followed by moderate success - it was Ramprakash's Test career in microcosm. A run of low scores on the subsequent tours of India and New Zealand caused Ramprakash to be jettisoned by Nasser Hussain and Duncan Fletcher as England embarked on a new era of central contracts and a more consistent selection policy. Players like Ian Bell were identified as Test players at a young age and given several series to establish themselves in the side. Alec Stewart, an England team-mate for most of Ramprakash's career, believes Ramprakash would have benefited from knowing he had the faith of the selectors. "He's the best domestic player since Graham Gooch - and his stats underline that," said Stewart. "For such a fine player whose ability and talent I hugely admired it's just a pity he could not show it on the international stage. "If he played with today's set-up of central contracts, of understanding selectors and a more consistent selection policy he would be averaging in excess of fifty in Test cricket. He is that good a player. "It was partly a mental thing so he has to take some responsibility for that, but it was also the set-up. He was dropped so many times, there was no stability. "You could say that was an excuse, but I'll say it was a fact and if you don't feel at home in an environment or you don't always feel wanted, it can affect you and you are not going to show your true colours." Ramprakash remained a phenomenon in county cricket, passing 2,000 runs and averaging more than 100 in the 2006 and 2007 seasons for Surrey. In 2008, he became only the 25th player in history to score 100 first-class centuries and, with limited-overs matches gradually taking over the modern game, he may well be the last. The following year, with England searching for a batsman for the decisive final Ashes Test, Ramprakash was widely championed for a recall. Instead, the selectors plumped for Jonathan Trott, a player with infinitely less style than Ramprakash, but with a level of mental strength that always seemed to elude the Surrey man when it really mattered most. "He just didn't deliver, that is the bare fact," said Vaughan. "But if he'd played in the last five years, in the environment that England have now, on modern batsman-friendly pitches, he'd have been fine." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18710935

Mark Ramprakash used to be a buzzword in cricket circles and fans – shame he didn’t make it big on the international scene but none-the-less Ramprakash is a great Cricketer and a great personality.

Sad to see him retire from the game.

[waqar goraya]

52 tests were more than enough for every excuse to be neglected.....

but still 2 reasons are given...

that a inconsistent selection or perhaps mentally he could not adjust..

but there is one more thing that one needs ...perhaps a lady called LUCK did not shine on him..

[withlovefrom vizag]

yeah,surely he didnt had any luck......
He must be very disappointed for failing to make name in intl cricket.

[Random Aussie]

Never saw him bat in domestic but just wasn't good enough for Test cricket.

No shame in that he is a county legend

[Bullet Drive]

So he had it all, technique talent and temperament. It was just his mental strength that was lacking.

[the Great Khan]

the Umar akmal of england!

[AdidasBeard]

Great player, joy to watch. Mental strength clearly lacking. He has only himself to blame, however I think if Ian Bell had been around the England squad in the 90s his talents would have gone the same way.

[chacha kashmiri]

The english football team seem to have the same problem as does andy murray, who can at least get to semi finals.

The cricket team has been lucky enough to have been perked up and toughened by players with a tough background having left the comfort of their homes to settle in england.

I am a big fan of ramps who will go down as a surrey legend.

[Mohsin]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan the Umar akmal of england!

Please man, he was/is WAAAY better than Umar Akmal...i loved this guy back in the day (when the England team was actually likable and cricket was still shown on channel4! Oh the good old childhood lol)

He had it ALL, but he was unlucky....he played in a crap side, and he played in an era where you the some of the BEST bowlers around. Had Ramps been borns a decade later, and suddenly come into the side nowadays/2003onwards.....he'd have been an international master IMO.

[the Great Khan]

Originally Posted by Mohsin Please man, he was/is WAAAY better than Umar Akmal...i loved this guy back in the day (when the England team was actually likable and cricket was still shown on channel4! Oh the good old childhood lol) He had it ALL, but he was unlucky....he played in a crap side, and he played in an era where you the some of the BEST bowlers around. Had Ramps been borns a decade later, and suddenly come into the side nowadays/2003onwards.....he'd have been an international master IMO.

lol excuse the facetiousness lol..

on serious note if half of the batsmen today had to face the attacks he did they would have been mediocre at best. Bell was useless when some of the greats were around e.g warne and co.

he's just cashing in in an era where he knows he wont face teh ebst spin bowler every 18 mths or the best pacer every 18mths.. basically steyn and ajmal..in those days every team had a steyn type bowler or an ajmal (e.g. warne, mushy, saqlain, murali, kumble)
(wasim ,waqar,donald pollock,mcgrath dizzy,walsh ambrose, cairns dholl, etc etc)

[DeadlyVenom]

Top player. Had it all but unfortunately couldn't hack it at international level. Will still go down as a cricket legend of sorts.

Best of luck to him in the future.

[Mohsin]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan lol excuse the facetiousness lol.. on serious note if half of the batsmen today had to face the attacks he did they would have been mediocre at best. Bell was useless when some of the greats were around e.g warne and co. he's just cashing in in an era where he knows he wont face teh ebst spin bowler every 18 mths or the best pacer every 18mths.. basically steyn and ajmal..in those days every team had a steyn type bowler or an ajmal (e.g. warne, mushy, saqlain, murali, kumble) (wasim ,waqar,donald pollock,mcgrath dizzy,walsh ambrose, cairns dholl, etc etc)

lol so very very...very true...after YouTubing Ramps (and going through all the bloody strictly come dancing clips lol) i found this gem from the (when the stadiums were actually Windies style, before they ruined everything for the 07 WC) Windies



A real youngsta beauty innings (though im assuming by this point, England were 3/4-0 down in the series...but hey-ho!)

[Taurus]

He had some shortcomings mentally, which in a time of great bowlers and cut-throat selection, was a recipe for disaster. He was never fully supported by "Team England" and consequently, never believed in himself. He was technically excellent and potentially a top player. It didn't transfer.

[Saqs]

The Kambli of English Cricket?

[cricketindiafan]

Originally Posted by Saqib S The Kambli of English Cricket?

Naah, more like the Sanjay Manjrekar of Indian cricket. Kambli at least finished with a 50+ test average and had he played longer would have ended up with an avg of around 44-45.

Though Manjrekar did do well in his first 2 years, in the 90s he totally lost his way and despite being a technically sound batsman, ended with a below par test record.

[Pakistanpassion]

Azhar Ali of English team

[Wristy_Shuffler]

Bumble wrote an article on Cricinfo basically saying the same thing but he ended it with a bit less sympathy for Ramps. And it's easy to feel sorry for the guy, because with his stats, it'll always be a wonder how good it could've been to see this guy bring all his skills to the int'l stage but in the end mental weaknesses are just as prone to exposure as physical/technical flaws in a game like cricket and should be overcome in the same way.

I guess it also shows the resilience of some of the other players who have prospered under similar circumstances, I'm thinking mainly Pakistan players as the PCB selectors have always had the most cut-throat selection policies. Mind you, Ramps probably would've been chosen over Trott during '09 Ashes if it were Pakistan! (Or 90's England for that matter).

Legendary First-class player, no doubt.

[khalil1986]

Originally Posted by Pakistanpassion Azhar Ali of English team

DPOTW (dumbest post of the week) reward is yours congratulations.

Azhar Ali is one of the most mentally tough players we have.

[Namak_Halaal]

England's flawed technician

If Mark Ramprakash had taken to the Test arena as he later took to the dance floor then anyone assessing his 25-year playing career would happily follow in the footsteps of television judges Len Goodman, Bruno Tonioli and Co by awarding a perfect ten. But as we are talking strictly cricket, on the day "Ramps" is set to announce his retirement, the jury is likely to agonise long and hard before declaring itself unable to deliver a unanimous verdict. For the uninitiated, Ramprakash swept aside all rivals to win the 2006 edition of the popular British television programme Strictly Come Dancing, earning himself a host of new admirers in the process. He had seemed a most unlikely recruit for a competition that invites those taking part to fall flat on their faces (literally), but by all accounts, people who know their sambas from their salsas said the then 37-year-old was a star turn from the very first rehearsal. Some 15 years earlier, most of us who saw Ramprakash make his Test debut - against West Indies in Leeds - thought precisely the same thing. True, the Headingley were no more substantial than a brace of 27s but the poise he showed at the crease (against a fiery attack containing Curtly Ambrose, Patrick Patterson, Malcolm Marshall and Courtney Walsh) convinced a majority of onlookers that we were witnessing the start of something big. In fact, we were witnessing the beginning of something pretty much unfathomable. Technically and physically, the boy from Bushey, Hertfordshire, had everything and more that was needed to make a huge impression at the highest level. And yet, when England discarded him for the umpteenth and final time after a personally dire tour of New Zealand in 2002, his record reeked of under-achievement: an average of 27 across 52 Tests with just two centuries. Given stats like that, it may seem curious he played as much as he did. But four coaches (Keith Fletcher, Ray Illingworth, David Lloyd and Duncan Fletcher) and four captains (Graham Gooch, Mike Atherton, Alec Stewart and Nasser Hussain) all hoped they might be the one for whom Ramps would bloom, thereby converting consistently excellent county form into a mountain of Test runs. Statistics seldom tell the whole story, of course, and while Ramprakash's overall figures for England make sorry reading, it must be remembered that in 12 Tests against Australia - Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne and the rest - he averaged a far from shabby 42. On top of that, one of his two hundreds was scored against the then all-conquering Aussies (at The Oval, in 2001). But to seize on those last couple of facts while trying to gloss over the others would be an exercise in straw-clutching: as an international cricketer, Ramprakash achieved only a fraction of what should have been. Just look at his domestic achievements, first for Middlesex and then Surrey. He registered 1000 or more first-class runs for a season on 20 occasions, went beyond 2000 three times, and in 2006, when many an unofficial selector wanted him recalled by England, his Championship average for Surrey was a staggering 105.28. That is special; very special. And there is more: his first-class average closes at 53.14 and he hangs up his bat, a couple of months short of his 43rd birthday, with 114 centuries in the bag. We could talk about his limited-overs performances, too, but enough of figures. We should celebrate Ramprakash's achievements and agree with former England captain Michael Vaughan when he says that the man in question is "the best technician the English game has had in the past 20 years". But, sooner or later, we have to return to the subject of why a player with so much going for him produced so little where it matters most of all - on the Test match stage. And that is where members of the jury are likely to disagree. Some will lay a fair proportion of the blame at the feet of various selectors, coaches and supremos who chopped and changed the England team throughout the 1990s, meaning that players like Ramprakash and Graeme Hick - that other obviously unfulfilled talent who made his debut at precisely the same time - seldom felt secure in the side. It is strange to recall that Ramprakash was dropped for, among others, the likes of Chris Adams and Darren Maddy in the days when consistency of selection was hard to find. Others may point out that Ramprakash had more than enough chances to shine and simply did not have what it takes temperamentally to cope with pressure at the highest level. For sure, he beat himself up unmercifully after a failure. By way of just one example, this observer well remembers seeing our subject skipping long and hard under a ferocious sun in South Africa as if to punish himself for a soft dismissal. Dressing-room tantrums were also commonplace as he forever searched for perfection. As well as the most technically accomplished player of his generation, he must also have been the most intense. Sublime technique came with something more restricting. But perhaps, as is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between; maybe Ramprakash was just around at the wrong time, internationally speaking. England were a poor Test outfit for most of the 1990s, and while the likes of Gooch and Atherton managed to flourish in the face of so much adversity, an intense character like Ramprakash became simply too desperate to succeed and too worried about looking over his shoulder. You play the cards you are dealt and Ramprakash could and should have used his hand a lot better. But if he were now 22, rather than 42, and a new member of this current England set-up, where the team is everything and competition for places is accepted as a force for good rather than feared, then we might be looking today at a champion Test batsman in the making. And to hell with the dancing. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine...ry/571127.html

Farwell!

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Bullet Drive So he had it all, technique talent and temperament. It was just his mental strength that was lacking.

What is "mental strength"?

He had a bit of bad luck in that his first series was against WI, and his second against W&W, while his contemporary Atherton got a couple of soft series against NZ and India to ease him into test cricket.

But, he was given fifty test matches... fifty.... and didn't kick on.

I compare him to his old skipper Gatting who also had a tough time to begin with, but then erupted with runs and was England's best batter for three years.

[Savak]

The Mohammad Sami of England actually.

[Bullet Drive]

Originally Posted by Robert What is "mental strength"? He had a bit of bad luck in that his first series was against WI, and his second against W&W, while his contemporary Atherton got a couple of soft series against NZ and India to ease him into test cricket. But, he was given fifty test matches... fifty.... and didn't kick on. I compare him to his old skipper Gatting who also had a tough time to begin with, but then erupted with runs and was England's best batter for three years.

Well come on, what else can you put it down too? 100+ first class centuries in England! He obviously had everything. Talent, technique, temperament. What else do you need as a batsman? It was just performance which was lacking and that was due to his poor mental strength.

[shahrukh619]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan the Umar akmal of england!

that has to be greame hicks

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Bullet Drive Well come on, what else can you put it down too? 100+ first class centuries in England! He obviously had everything. Talent, technique, temperament. What else do you need as a batsman? It was just performance which was lacking and that was due to his poor mental strength.

Same question then - what is "poor mental strength", how did Ramps lose it in tests, and how did it immediately come back when he played for Middlesex and Surrey?

[Zaz]

It was a combination of being mentally weak, playing in a poor england team of the 90s, batting in a tough era where there were several top class bowlers and poor poor management (ecb)

[Bullet Drive]

Originally Posted by Robert Same question then - what is "poor mental strength", how did Ramps lose it in tests, and how did it immediately come back when he played for Middlesex and Surrey?

Well its the transfer from domestic to international cricket. Maybe he couldn't cope with all the pressure of international cricket. Maybe he never felt comfortable in the international team environement but felt well and at home at Middlesex/Surrey, who knows? but it definitely has to go down to mental strength. A batsman with show much ability/talent cannot average 27 in tests over such a long time.

[withlovefrom vizag]

Originally Posted by the Great Khan the Umar akmal of england!

ridiculous,you're comparing a guy with 100+ FC centuries with some exaggerated guy

[Lethalweapon]

Did he ever play India? his bad luck if he didn't

[Random Aussie]

I really dont see any conundrum here, or anything mystifying.

He wasnt good enough for Test cricket, he played 50+ Tests thats more than enough evidence.

Just romanticising from some of the English here, he didnt feel welcome, tough initiation, not enough hugs whatever. Every country has guys who dominate domestic but cant make the step up.

[kungfu90]

Some players are just made to play domestics.

[IndianWillow]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie I really dont see any conundrum here, or anything mystifying. He wasnt good enough for Test cricket, he played 50+ Tests thats more than enough evidence. Just romanticising from some of the English here, he didnt feel welcome, tough initiation, not enough hugs whatever. Every country has guys who dominate domestic but cant make the step up.

Ditto.

I am surprised to see him being compared to Manjrekar. Manjrekar had an audacious start to his career and unlike Mark he did not take seven years to score a test century. His 218 at Lahore against Pakistan was an unusually good knock. Manjrekar's super talent was never in question, and we expected him to outdo Tendulkar when they came together in 1989 - for some reasons, he could not maintain consistancy and fell from grace.