Gosh how exciting, let's play 'cherry pick the stats game' and see how much fun we can have.

So, how do you explain this -

v Zimbabwe 2 3 0 75 56 15 4 25.00 0 1 0

or this -

v Pakistan 3 5 1 31 17 12* 2 7.75 0 0 2

or this -

v New Zealand 7 11 1 204 69* 31 30 20.40 0 1 2

I could go on but it's boring isn't it? It doesn't mean anything just pulling stats out and holding them up as an example to prove what is an extremely tenuous point.

In answer to your question, I have no doubt that Ramprakash raised his game against Australia and showed glimpses of the potential that he clearly had, but sadly wasn't able to reproduce consistently enough against all opposition to realistically maintain a place in the Test side, but as far as you're concerned you would have selected him regardless because of his returns against Australia, did I get that right?

You do not select players because they 'happen' to have good returns against specific countries, you select them produce consistent performances against all opposition - home and away and that should continue to be the criteria for selection in my opinion, and that's precisely the reason Ramprakash was not persisted with, regardless of his returns against Australia.

Mark Ramprakash is a wonderfully fluid and elegant strokemaker with excellent technique, as his returns in Country Cricket demonstrate, it's a great shame he wasn't able to reproduce that kind of form on the Test stage consistently enough to hold his place.

It doesn't matter that Ramps was 'elegant', at the end of the day he's judged on his returns and an average from 52 games of just above the mid twenties simply isn't good enough in International Test Cricket.

I know why our perspectives and opinions on cricket are so diverse - we look at it from totally different perspectives. You appear to enjoy the technical and skill aspect to the game whereas I look at it from a results orientated perspective. That's why I like gritty street fighters like Hussain and Collingwood who may not be the most elegant players around but they grit it out and dig deep when it matters to grind out results, which is presumably why you dislike them so much - they're not always nice to look at and watch but they get results - and that's what really matters at the end of the day.