Mark Ramprakash was never going to be a great Test cricketer. Steve Waugh was.

Mark Ramprakash eventually fell short of a triple century last week, but it was still a whopping innings and journalists up and down the land dusted off their ‘Ramprakash could have been an England Great’ stories. Well we’ve had it. Mark Ramprakash couldn’t have been one of England’s Greats. How do we know that? Because he wasn’t one. It stands to reason.

That’s simplistic (not for the first time). Given better support by selectors and management Mark Ramprakash could have been a better Test player, but not a great one. It’s indicative of an ‘if only’ mentality which has no place in top level sport. The ingredients of a Test class batsmen aren’t just technique and timing. More than either of those it’s mentality and determination.

Take Steve and Mark Waugh. Mark had all the shots (and then some). On his day he made batting look easier than sighing at your own worthlessness. Steve on the other hand looked borderline ugly at the crease. Who was the better batsman? It was Steve, unquestionably. He scored more runs at a greater average and inevitably scored them when they were most needed. He made no excuses and he made sure he made the most of every opportunity.

Steve didn’t need the support of anyone because he made bloody certain that everyone else needed him. People say that he made the most of what he had, which is tantamount to patronising him. In reality, making the most of what you have is an absolute necessity as an international batsman.

To say: ‘If only Ramprakash had made more of what he had, because he had the talent,’ is akin to saying: ‘If only Matthew Hoggard had more natural batting talent, because he makes the most of what he has’. Mark Ramprakash made the least of what he had. He wasn’t an underachiever. What happened in Mark Ramprakash’s Test career happened for a reason.

Steve Waugh v England, 157 not out - 10 Great Innings

During the Trent Bridge Test, Steve Waugh had been stretchered from the field with a torn calf muscle. Three weeks later, he was playing at The Oval. As you might expect, the muscle stiffened up a touch.

Australia were hardly in trouble when he started struggling, early in his innings. Waugh had arrived at the crease with Australia 489-3 having opted to bat first. No-one would have held it against him if he'd have retired hurt, but that wasn't really Steve Waugh's style.

Instead, he limped around like a pensioner who's been forced to sit cross-legged for nine hours. He stood in front of his stumps and worked the ball onto the leg side. He threw the bat and clobbered ugly, ugly fours through the covers. It was hideous and unnecessary and he hit 157 not out.

This sums up why we like Steve Waugh for two reasons. One, he was patently as hard as a battalion of adamantium sharks. Two, why give an opponent a chance?

We love that sporting mentality. Why the hell should he make anything any easier for England just because Australia were already crushing them easily? Why give them even the slimmest chance when you can keep them down where they've no chance of winning? He was injured, so fate had already handed England something on a plate. Why add to that?

We once ran a half-marathon with a torn calf muscle. We couldn't do anything for ages afterwards. It bloody killed.

10 Great Innings