Ramps tipped for recall...

[feverpitch]

Actually it doesn't. Averaging more than ANYONE ELSE for two seasons in a row. Averaging 100 for two consecutive English seasons - an unprecedented achievement. Scoring tons of the likes of Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and (last year) Asif.

He is a different batsman to when he failed before. It would be mad not to select him.

[greg]

No it would be mad to select him,he is 38 and a failure.So what if he is having an Indian summer in the twilight of his career,we moved on 5 years ago and shouldn't go back now.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by feverpitch

He is a different batsman to when he failed before. It would be mad not to select him.

I agree for the simple reason that Flintoff now joins the other injured England senior players, so England can't keep playing greenhorns, ramp's IMO should be played to do a job, up to 2009 if he succedes.

[pie_chucker]

But what happens if we pick Ramps for the Sri Lanka tests and (as predicted) he fails again??

Do we then drop him? Do we keep playing him?

If we do drop him its then going to mean picking a player for the future who has missed out on 3 games experience.

[Milo]

Three games experience? That's really not going to make any difference by the time the 2009 Ashes come along. My problem with all this discussion (as I showed with Gooch's career and has been talked about in Tom Graveney's recall at 40 odd, where he went on and averaged 45 for five years) is that we have no idea when someone's career is over. Some players could be like Atherton and Holding in that their career is pretty much over by 33. If this is the case for Flintoff (then we should surely never reslect him - what the point, he's at the end of his career). Others go on well into their 40s. Nobody knows whether Ramprakash is at the end of his career. He is scoring more runs than ever (even in county cricket - he never averaged 100 in any of his previous seasons, let alone twice on the trot). Yes, he has failed in the past. But answer me one question. How many consecutive test matches did he get in his 52 test failure. I'm sure most English players would have failed under these circumstances. I seem to remember he was wheeled out everytime we played the West Indies. Did everyone else score heavily in these test matches? The only time I remember him playing regular test matches for a good spell was after during 1997-98 where he ended up scoring 1000 runs at 48 (this included tours to WI and Australia). It wasn't long after this that England were dropping him again (I seem to remember he didn't tour SA in 99 because Fletcher decided to take Gavin Hamilton and Chris Adams) and then asked him to open the innings against Ambrose and Walsh in 2000.

No other England player has EVER been treated so shabbily. And that is a fact. He was once picked to replace an injured player at the eleventh hour only because he was playing county cricket in London and could get to the test match (also in London) on time - and he was told this. What type of message was this giving him.

[greg]

Well he had one run of 18 matches in a row and another of 10 before being dropped for the final time.

In the 18 match run he scored 1116 runs at an average of 41.33 with 1 century and 8 50's.

In the 10 match run he scored 554 runs at an average of 30.77 with 1 century and 1 50.

Looking at those stats he was harshly dropped in 1999 but deserved to be dropped in 2002 and why go back to a player with only 2 centuries in 52 matches after 5 and a half years in the wilderness.

Also if giving somebody 52 tests to prove their worth is treating someone shabbily then i wonder how many games a player would get if they were treated well?

[Speedboy Salesman]

It's fair enough saying "he's done much [insert stat] here in the domestic season" but the difference as I've said, is massive between county and international cricket. Ramprakash yes, is excellent at the county level, but international level, he's a proven failure, age is against him...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

But what happens if we pick Ramps for the Sri Lanka tests and (as predicted) he fails again??[...]Do we then drop him? Do we keep playing him?

England give him a chance to get back in the side, it should be made clear that he is in for 2 years, and take it from there.

The last thing Ramp's or for that matter England need, is to put Ramp's BACK under pressure always playing for his place.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Ernest

England give him a chance to get back in the side, it should be made clear that he is in for 2 years, and take it from there.

Does any player actually get a two year probation period where they cannot get dropped? I doubt it. What if he does get that, and fails, and fails again, then we get 2009 with the Ashes in sight and he is just not worth a place in the team?

Meanwhile a player like Shah will have missed out on two years worth of Test cricket?

Sorry Ern, I believe in giving guys a chance, but two years is way too long, particularly with Ramps track record Internationally.

[Notts Exile]

I can see why they might select him. His form over the past two years has been phenomenal. Far better than anything he ever did when he was either in the England side or being considered by all. If age is no barrier then he should be close to selection. However, we all know what he did when he last played and it wasn't pretty. We also know that he's not getting younger and that the likes of Shah and Bopara also have good claims to that squad place.

If he does get selected then we'll never know what Shah or Bopara might have done. On the flip side, we'll never know what the man in form might have done. Who'd be a selector?