Ramps sulking

I think you'd have to be a bit daft not to see the correlation between, his own thoughts on him getting a recall diminishing and his form in FCC increasing due to relaxing and enjoying playing for Surrey, subconsciously anyway.

I think what has happened here, based on all the media reports I've seen, is that Graveney and Miller wanted to recall Ramps; Vaughan didn't, and the captain got his way. So Ramps, who was talking to Miller, got misled a bit perhaps.

Anyway, Ramps has every right to feel murderous after being left out in favour of Bopara. Disgraceful decision.

I agree with the decision. There would be some case for recalling him if we were going to face Australia but we aren't.

It amuses me that they teased him into thinking he would get the nod - serves him right for throwing his wicket away all those countless times in the 20s when playing for England.

At the start of last season he couldnt honestly have thought that he was still a chance at the age of 37-38 being recalled to the England team. Even if he still wanted to play for England, it doesnt mean he thought he was going to again.

I really cant understand why some people think it was a disgraceful decision that he was left out of the squad. Is he suddenly going to come back into the England team having somehow forgotten of his previous dismal record in test cricket and score a truckload of runs against Murali and co on their home patch? Was he honestly not going to be gripping his bat just a little tighter and chewing his gum a little faster as that old fear of failure he had back in the 90's slowly started to return? England fans who thought that he would be a good selection are a bit like the abused wife who keeps agreeing to give her drunken husband 'one more chance'.

He was dropped and recalled about 12 times in his test career. He was given plenty of chances. It's a bit rich of him, with an average of 27 in test cricket, to start publically criticising people indirectly for not picking him at the age of 38. All this talk of him being recalled to the England team at 38 was a nice story that the media built up a bit, but he should really now just be shrugging his shoulders, smiling, and moving on.

Leo wrote:I think what has happened here, based on all the media reports I've seen, is that Graveney and Miller wanted to recall Ramps; Vaughan didn't, and the captain got his way. So Ramps, who was talking to Miller, got misled a bit perhaps.

Anyway, Ramps has every right to feel murderous after being left out in favour of Bopara. Disgraceful decision.

He's the new Flintoff don't you know. We MUST play with an allrounder!

THICKEDGE wrote:I agree with the decision. There would be some case for recalling him if we were going to face Australia but we aren't.

It amuses me that they teased him into thinking he would get the nod - serves him right for throwing his wicket away all those countless times in the 20s when playing for England.

Only because you can't get your knickers in a twist over anyone over the age of 26!!!!!

holcs wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:I agree with the decision. There would be some case for recalling him if we were going to face Australia but we aren't.

It amuses me that they teased him into thinking he would get the nod - serves him right for throwing his wicket away all those countless times in the 20s when playing for England.

Only because you can't get your knickers in a twist over anyone over the age of 26!!!!!

A proven 38 year old I wouldn't have a problem with, such as when Stewart was still playing. I personally do have a problem with recalling a 38 year old who was a proven failure at Test level.

Stewart kept producing the goods to the end and probably could have carried on longer. Fletch's recent going over the entrails of the Jones/Read and later on Nixon/Prior decisions just emphasises what a special player Alec was.

My problem is with recalling or giving a debut to anyone over the age of lets say 26... At this age as an athlete half your careeris behind you.

Henry wrote:
I really cant understand why some people think it was a disgraceful decision that he was left out of the squad. Is he suddenly going to come back into the England team having somehow forgotten of his previous dismal record in test cricket and score a truckload of runs against Murali and co on their home patch? Was he honestly not going to be gripping his bat just a little tighter and chewing his gum a little faster as that old fear of failure he had back in the 90's slowly started to return? England fans who thought that he would be a good selection are a bit like the abused wife who keeps agreeing to give her drunken husband 'one more chance'.

He was dropped and recalled about 12 times in his test career. He was given plenty of chances. It's a bit rich of him, with an average of 27 in test cricket, to start publically criticising people indirectly for not picking him at the age of 38. All this talk of him being recalled to the England team at 38 was a nice story that the media built up a bit, but he should really now just be shrugging his shoulders, smiling, and moving on.

I don't think it was necessarily a disgraceful descision. I'm glad it's Bopara and Shah(if it wasn't going[and it wasn't] to be David Sales). There've been plenty of others that I just don't rate getting in ahead of the people I do. I rate them. Especially Shah.

However, I cannot see how it would've been a bad pick. I CGAF about 'the future'... certain batsmen hadn't covered themselves in glory in the last year/18 months and personally, f**k his past 12 chances. The bloke is on a different level ATM. Pretty much batting twice as good as most others around, like the Don - in relative terms obviously. I personally think it's undeniable form and to say he'd fail again holds equally as much weight as me saying he'd be a top world performer. He's set a big precedent to fail but conversely he's never batted like this, as has been mooted by many a pundit.

Leo wrote:
Anyway, Ramps has every right to feel murderous after being left out in favour of Bopara. Disgraceful decision.

What's disgraceful about picking someone with a career ahead of him in place of a 38 year-old who did not cut it after 52 tests?

THICKEDGE wrote:...
My problem is with recalling or giving a debut to anyone over the age of lets say 26... At this age as an athlete half your careeris behind you.

That would leave a few Aussie players out of their national team.

furriner wrote:

THICKEDGE wrote:...
My problem is with recalling or giving a debut to anyone over the age of lets say 26... At this age as an athlete half your careeris behind you.

That would leave a few Aussie players out of their national team.

Indeed... of the current Test squad:

Hayden: recalled at 28
Jaques: debut at 26
Hussey: debut at 30
Gilchrist: debut at 28
Symonds: debut at 28
Clark: debut at 30
Hogg: debut at 26, recalled at 32

One of the reasons for the success of the Aus team in recent years has been the maturity of many players when they make their Test debut.

Not every teen prodigy will cut the mustard at international level, so having only one or two youngsters in the side is nto a bad thing IMO.

Strange how the wheel has turned. It used to be England who had the reputaion for fielding more "mature" sides.

Shoeshine wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Henry, Shoeshine... please find me the link of an interview with Ramprakash where he said he's been playing well because he hasn't been thinking of an England recall. Or just as good would be a link to an interview where he says he hasn't been thinking of an England recall.

I have no recollection of such a statement by him ever.

Couldn't possibly mate. I just recall him saying as much when interviewed on either radio or telly. Now could I have got that wrong? Of course. But I just remember him saying that. You can either believe me or not, that's up to you. I've hardly got some kind of agenda on this {shrugs}

I remember him saying it.

Why is age relevant when picking the best team? Do the rules deduct runs if the team is above a certain age?

Is anyone sugesting Ramprakash has to be hidden in the field?

People change and develop so Ramps' failings in the 1990s are not relevant now. There is no reason why he shouldn't play at test level for the next 4 years and that is surely enough forward planning for anyone.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

How many players have been tried/stuck around?

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

Ramps?

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

Boycott, Gooch and Graveney were proven Test performers with excellent records. Ramprakash is a proven failure.

Let's get this absolutely clear. He's been tried time and time again, and he's always been found wanting. Bloody hell, how often does he have to show he can't cut it before people accept that?

We all know that Ramprakash SHOULD have been a good test player, but he wasn't. Sad, but accept it.

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

I could have named those three myself - but as a proportion of batsmen who have played post-war? And I would echo Shoeshine's comments - they were all proven test players, Ramps isn't.

Bopara is rubbish. Ramps is class.

Ergo, it was a disgraceful decision.

Basil wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Basil wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ramps could still cut the mustard at 42? How many players (post-war) have been consistently succesful at that age?

Boycott, Gooch and Tom Graveney are examples of players who were succesful at that age. Given improved fitness of modern players this should really not be an issue.

Test selection should be 80% picking the best team now and 20% looking after the future, not the other way around. Leaving out the best batsmen in the world on current form just because of his age is not good policy IMO.

I could have named those three myself - but as a proportion of batsmen who have played post-war? And I would echo Shoeshine's comments - they were all proven test players, Ramps isn't.

What proportion of post war test players have averaged 100 in two English county seasons?

Either Ramprakash has proven that he is worth test selection or County Cricket is so useless it may as well be flushed down the gurgler. Its as simple as that.

England can hold its own against all opposition apart from Australia. The Aussies tour again in 2009. If Ramprakash really is in Bradman-like touch then he needs to play in that series. England needs to find out before then whether this is true or not. It will only do so by playing him in test matches.

Leo wrote:Bopara is rubbish. Ramps is class.

I bet Ravi ends up with the better test average of the two.