See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...6/scbrig16.xml

In a sports age of scientific measure of bat speed, eye/hand/reflex reaction, weight distribution/transference and body fat-muscle ratios. His theory sounds romantically home spun I wonder wether he actualy put it into practice totally without the scientific or statistical indicators

If Ramprakash had had Pietersen's temperament to go with his wonderful technique we would have had one of the finest players ever.Sadly Ramps didn't have it where it mattered most,between the ears.

greg I don't think that's fair comment over Ramp's, for one reason he was always under pressure for his place, every game must have seemed like he was playing for his place.

Do you think he would have faired better with Fletcher as coach?, he keeps faith with his players - except for Read.

__________________
Ern

Cricket is a sport played mostly in the mind. Technique is vital, as talent, but if you are not up to mentally you won't achieve at the very highest level, as proved by Hick and Ramps...

KP does not have the best technique, he is not even the most talented, he just has supreme confidence and the ability to forget about the previous ball, and concentrate on the next. In the latest Cricketer he talks about training the brain to switch on and off. It was a mental technique that Fletcher taught him, and arent we grateful he did. After that Warne drop, he was able to re-focus and score a big hundred at just the right time..

These two names get lumped together time and again... but wrongly in my view: their difficulties were VERY different... not least because Hick was perhaps never up to Test class on a technical front, at least against seamers (perhaps warranting the flat-track-bully label) whilst Ramprakash actually excelled against the toughest opponents (averaging 42.4 against the Aussies and nearly 50 in Australia).

Ramps did struggle when not getting much of the strike... and it's no co-incidence, to my mind, that his best moments generally came when batting with the tail. He was certainly liable to let his mind wander and get distracted when batting with guys who didn't look to rotate the strike... and his perfectionist streak didn't always help either (as he was occasionally more concerned with why a shot didn't work as intended than with the batting partner shouting "run").

As far as I know.. none of this applied to Hick.

Hick also seemed immune to the bigger problem in Ramps' game: he never seemed to struggle, as Ramps did, to find that fine line between batting responsibly and taking the initiative: I don't recall Hick trying to imitate Atherton for an hour to prove to critics he could be responsible... or dancing down the track to slog a a fast bowler back over his head in response to team-management requests that he look to dominate and demoralise opposition bowlers.

Hick perhaps felt the pressure of the bigger stage... and that may have got in the way of his instinctive game.... but let's not overlook the fact that Hick was to Ramps what Pietersen is to Bell: the one had a game based entirely around hand-eye co-ordination (needing to back himself, thriving on improvisational ability and putting bat to ball) where the other was more classical (and far more capable of winning duels when the bowlers were on top).

Put this all another way: I think Hick would have thrived ten years later.... as Hayden has... simply because flat tracks, weak attacks and a successful team would have suited him just nicely... but Ramps would have thrived even in his own era had the management been more satisfactory, but might well have fared no better today than in the past because Fletcher is no better than those who went before him when it comes to working with players who don't fit his profile of the mentally-tough player.

He had plenty of chances under Fletcher and still didn't produce.Make of that what you want.

Hick clearly suffered from the immense expectation heaped upon him as being England's Bradman, brought on by the qualification wait. Ambrose (the best bowler he ever faced) worked him over in his debut series and he was then (along with many other England players) never sure of his place again. Gatting was ever bought back for the 93 Ashes. However, the facts are unquestionable. When given a true run in the team (and not just three tests here and there followed by being dropped) he was cearly up to test cricket. Under Atherton, he was clearly one of our best cricketers. The big hundred in India was the catalyst. His performance against the West Indies (home and away) mid 90s was impressive, he had a very good tour of Australia in 94 (unfortunately once again having to see Gatting and a very poor Gooch in the side). Best of all was his century in the first test at Durban. Between the period of 93 and 96 he was clearly Test class, given the chance to show what he was about without the pressure of success.

Had he played for Zimbabwe he would have had 10000 runs at a very good average. The problem is he was a huge Test mercenary. He would have played for New Zealand (and actually tried to qualify for them) had he been able to do so before 1991. I was never sure how much he really cared about playing for England. Great one day cricketer though.

His problem with pace was noted the year before in County Cricket when Akram worked him over. Apparently he became leaden footed and seemed unable to dominate as he had done with other bowlers. Is that technique or talent, no, it was an issue in his head.

Ramps, great batter, but his battles with his own expectations are well documented. If he got out it would be a personal disaster, he would over analyse it. Is that technique or talent, no, the problem was in his head.

So they are not so dissimilar. Cricket is a game played as much in the mind as anything else. The best players in the world have learnt to shut off the previous ball and focus on the next.

Rachael, you often talk about Richardson, (and the same could be said about Boycott) he was not the most talented, and had a very average technique, but he was very successful at opening the batting for New Zealand, why, because he had an mental ability that allowed him the play that role.