Mark Rampymple

[braguvaran]

No, There is no bias there in selection... The bottom point is that these playas are simply not good enough... Jus check them in detail!!! They are jus failed cricketers!!!.... England is a good multicultural country

[goose]

Still doubt he'll make the cut. It's the English way - they don't like outsiders or mavericks. They'd rather pick guys that give it their all and fail than be embarrassed by a troubleshooter.

[goose]

No, There is no bias there in selection... The bottom point is that these playas are simply not good enough... Jus check them in detail!!! They are jus failed cricketers!!!.... England is a good multicultural country

but why are they failing? they clearly had something about them to get that far. why do they stumble thereafter?

[Sooda]

Genuine lack of ability in most cases. In some- like Solanki imho- maybe a little more application required. Its all relative of course these guys have played international cricket- so players of the highest calibre. And im sure being a county pro is a decent enough living

[Mr. Wicket]

I disagree with your opening post. Certainly raises a lot of very good, interesting points, but I feel that you give a lot of these players too much credit and praise, and I think England have actually been rather kind to them. My thoughts on them and why they certainly got plenty of rope (if not far too much):

Monty Panesar

Good player, but very overrated as you said. The media blew him up massively, and aside from a couple of good performances (v. Pakistan at Old Trafford and Aus at Perth on day 1), he's been generally bland and average. That said I think he was given a slightly longer rope than he deserved with Swann doing quite well in domestics and deserving a place a LONG time before he eventually got his shot.

Sajid Mahmood

Again massively overrated, had some speed but a true loose cannon. Like Devon Malcolm but lacking the express pace, bounce, odd unplayable delivery, ability to threaten batsmen and any sort of effectiveness. Basically a Mohanty with more pace. Why he even got picked is beyond me when there were a handful of better guys out on the domestic circuit at the time who had to wait a lot longer (like Sidebottom for one, Davies another).

Kabir Ali

Another mediocre player who got far more chances than he deserved and blew one of his best opportunities on test debut at Leeds. Remember him having very good bowling conditions, South Africa reeling at 116/5 and later 142/7 on the opening day, then bowling a pile of tripe to Zondeki and Kirsten and allowing both to stage a dramatic recovery? And then getting pummelled around in the 2nd innings with a bunch of bland, thoughtless bowling that Hall carted all over Leeds? He's had one or two decent performances, he's an honest trier who can swing it but really nothing much more. And the fact that he was picked before Martin Bicknell... :headshake:

Usman Afzaal Mark Ramprakash Vikram Solanki

IMO here's where your theory breaks. Afzaal has a F/C average under 40 with a tendency for soft dismissals and a bit loose against the short ball. IMO the fact he even got picked is surprising. There were some other fine players like the very solid Rob Key and the much maligned Nick Knight who should have been picked long ahead of him (and Knight did just fine in ODIs at the time and had a far superior domestic f/c record). Ramps came into the national side with major hype and expectations as part of a batch of young cricketers who had done a lot in the youth and domestic scene, and got a ton of chances. Not many people get to play 50 tests when they cannot even average 30. Ramps got chance after chance back then, picked for a few games, failed, dropped, picked again the first sign he was showing domestic form and again failed and disappointed. There are a number of other very good England players like Martin Bicknell, Caddick, Jack Russell, Knight, Jason Gallian, Mark Butcher who never got the sort of support and constant encouragement/lifelines from the selectors that Ramps did. In contrast to your comment that "These guys literally needed their bats (or balls) do the talking." - Ramprakash's bat kept shut for most of his career bar a couple of good knocks in 50 games, and yet the selectors kept giving him chance after chance while shutting out more reliable performers. Solanki at the end of it was the classic Asian wristy stereotype batsman - lovely flashy strokes, but only really good for a pretty 30 or 40 or so. Looks great at the crease but no substance or staying power, and a mediocre f/c record as well - an average of around 36/37. Again I felt he was quite lucky to be picked when he was considering there were many better players around the domestic circuit at most points of his career.

Owais Shah Adil Rashid Nasser Hussain

I think Shah's the only one on that entire list who fits the billing of 'talented guy who never got the rope he should have received', and given that it was an issue for a lot of other players (Read, Swann) due to the Fletcher/Vaughan "closed shop" mentality I wouldn't put it down to being British-Asian. That said he did have a great start to his career, got discarded very soon after and very unfairly given the English obsession then with sticking to the old loyal bunch, and he's kept making f/c runs on a regular basis and only 6 tests to show for it in 3 years is dismal. Rashid IMO is highly overrated, another product of the English hype machine. I have seen this kid bowl a handful of times and he's a decent county bowler, no better than guys like Jason Brown or Chris Schofield. At international level he will be chewed up and shat out. Hussain as you say is an exception to every rule.

Ashish Giles and Paul Collingpath would have been sidelined many moons ago. The side is clearly not averse to including white players of foreign descent e.g. A. Lamb, G. Hick, R. Smith, K. Peitersen. Mark Rampymple, English mother notwithstanding, has a far better chance than Mark Ramprakash of selection in the 5th Ashes test.

The difference between those players you mention and the Asian-origin players is that many of them are simply better. Pietersen as much as I hate his guts is an outstanding bat. Lamb was a brilliant talent. Hick like Ramprakash was a destroyer at domestic level and hence got a lot of rope. Robin Smith was one of the best players of pace I have ever seen and a brutal back foot player. Could cut Marshall and Ambrose like few others in his day. Strauss is another who has done very well consistently through his career. Nothing to do with being of foreign descent or white, but these are just superior cricketers. I'd take a Robin Smith or a Lamb over an Afzaal, Solanki or Ramprakash any day. Re. the persistence with Giles, I'd put that down to partly being the best of a bad lot at the time, and enjoying the largesse from the Fletcher closed shop mentality. As for Paul Collingwobble, it's notable that his career record was still miles better than any of the Brit-Asian folk (bar Hussain) that you mention. After 6 tests his average was above 40, it's gone into the mid 40s at points but aside from a brief 2-test period vs. Sri Lanka it's never gone below 40. Quite different giving extra rope to a guy consistently averaging over 40 over a good stretch of time to a guy averaging <30 for an age or never-will-be types like Solanki and Mahmood.

[goose]

Appreciate the thorough reply. I don't have the catalogue of facts and numbers to back up my assertions. The step up from domestic English county to international is tough and it is to be expected that most players, including Asian ones, will at some point be made to look ordinary as they find their feet. Jimmy Anderson had to sit out after his initial honeymoon - but was persevered with. You think an Asian Harmison would have been given so many chances after his pathetic ramblings about feeling homesick? I'm not so sure.

[Mr. Wicket]

An Asian Harmison would, just because Harmison had a set of attributes about him that very few other bowlers have. For every Kabir Ali and Sajid Mahmood that's been discarded rightly or wrongly, there've been plenty of white Englishmen - think of Martin Bicknell (a tragic case if there ever was one), Ed Gillins, Alan Mullaly, Neil Smith, etc. Lots of other whites who played a couple of games and then got tossed away. Harmison was set aside as a special case as most of those bowlers were either 'typical' swing bowlers or slightly quicker, but Harmison was a genuinely quick paceman with a different trajectory and steeping bounce and consequently a far greater threat to batsmen. The likes of Anderson and Harmison got several chances as they showed those examples of truly special talent, Anderson being able to produce some truly stunning swinging deliveries that would have been the envy of a lot of swing bowlers. Same reason why Ramps has been given so many chances in test cricket (50+ tests with a <30 average is truly generous) as he and Hick showed themselves to be exceptional players on the domestic and youth circuits. For that reason I don't think you can draw that sort of parallel between such players receiving umpteen chances and others getting one or two games. The likes of Ali, Mahmood, Afzaal, etc are hardly special players and their like are a dime a dozen around the county scene. Someone like a Harmison or a Simon Jones who show themselves as truly rare, special matchwinning players are afforded a different level of rope automatically.

[goose]

http://www.cricinfo.com/rsaveng09/content/story/428839.html Owais Shah axed for Eng tour to South Africa.

[vvvslaxman]

Most of them are crap players.

[Gambit]

Owais Shah continues to be treated very shabbily by the ECB. I thought after this blistering knock v RSA in the ICCCT that he would be a permanent fixture in their ODI squad atleast, but the ECB overlooked him yet again. Must be something personal.

[Temujin Khaghan]

owais shah makes stupid faces while batting. regarding his technique - is it just me or does anyone else think his footwork (sudden jerky movements) is influenced by watching pietersen's style maybe? tell me if iam wrong.

[Sachinism]

Agree with Gambit, they haven't treated him right. He has one or 2 failures and he's head is on the chopping block again, where as there are other players who fail over and over and still remain in the team. They need to decide whether they think he is good enough or not. It seems like the England selectors only recognise form and fail to see whether a player will last in the long-term

[msb1991]

Monty Panesar - had a very long chance before getting dropped in both forms of the game Sajid Mahmood - Terrible Kabir Ali - Underrated, but due to failing in the chance he was given in England colours Usman Afzaal - Good player, nothing more Mark Ramprakash - Had absolutely loads of chances Nasser Hussain - Was England captain! Owais Shah - Possibly unfairly treated, but had a fair share of opportunties Vikram Solanki - Maybe slightly underplayed, but not a superb player Adil Rashid - Still young and has been shown favouritism by the selectors, if anything.

[Master Blaster]

Monty Panesar aka butterfingers cant field to save his own life. Call me racist but I'd rather have a alien playing on the field than that clown. Hes not coming back, swann is better than him in every aspect of the game.

[Jersey #10]

I particularly liked Sajid Mahmood's bowling skills having watched him bowl couple of times. I can't recall why he was dropped.

[goose]

I hate to find myself in agreement with Atherton but have a read of this. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/mike_atherton/article7040027.ece Time to end depressing culture of failure among British Asian players. You did not have to be a mind-reader to know to whom Clive Rice, the former South African all-rounder, was referring six years ago when he claimed that his country’s cricket team were being ruined by a policy of “apartheid in reverse”. Hashim Amla, an unlikely looking sort, had just made his debut and Rice did not think much of his chances. Amla still looks an unlikely sort, what with his W. G.-like whiskers, an idiosyncratic technique that has more moving parts than a Swiss watch and a backlift that does a 360-degree rotation before miraculously coming down straight. But no matter, he is now ranked the second-best batsman in the world after two Test matches in India during which he put in one of the greatest performances by any South Africa batsman. In those two Tests Amla scored 490 runs for once out; a Zen-like occupation of the crease that took up more than 23 hours. You could argue that his performance in the first Test, when he scored an unbeaten double hundred, was bettered by Dale Steyn, who took ten wickets — as rare a sight on the sub-continent as a guilt-ridden banker is here. But Steyn’s capacity to succeed will have come as no surprise to those who lauded his selection to the national team just a couple of weeks after Amla in December 2004. Related Links * Mike Atherton says Panesar's turn will come * What Tendulkar has that Bradman didn’t Amla’s career is partly a triumph for the “transformation” policies pursued by South Africa, partly for the inclusiveness of the team, but more so for his strength of character, given the doubts that were expressed when he was first selected. His success, then, is interesting when placed in the context of the relative failure of recent British Asian cricketers to establish themselves in the England team. If Amla can do it, given all the barriers he has had to overcome, why can’t the myriad British Asians who have come and gone succeed? Is Amla simply better or mentally stronger? Has he been treated more sympathetically — and, by extension, has the England cricket team failed to integrate British Asian players — or is each “failure” a product of his own peculiar circumstances? Can we attribute a pattern to the present absences of Ravi Bopara, Monty Panesar, Owais Shah, Adil Rashid, Sajid Mahmood and Samit Patel? Is there any cultural explanation? If so, what does that say for the chances of the lone British Asian voice on the Bangladesh tour, Ajmal Shahzad? Patel and Mahmood are the easiest cases with which to refute any claim against English cricket, the first being not fit enough and the second not good enough. There is no question that Patel would be in England’s one-day team, and possibly the Test side, but for an up-yours attitude to fitness and to the England selectors (although it could be argued that others, such as Stephen Harmison, have been given more leeway). As an aggressive, skilful batsman who bowls more than useful left-arm spin, Patel would be a perfect fit in conditions, such as those in Bangladesh, that demand two spinners. More fool him. Let’s hope a professed new attitude and a stint at Darren Lehmann’s academy are sending the scales the right way. Mahmood’s potential has excited wise observers such as Duncan Fletcher for some time. But, to my mind, he is neither fish nor fowl: neither quick enough to cause top-quality batsmen real problems, nor accurate enough to starve them of easy pickings. He is a terrific athlete, but an athlete who bowls rather than the other way round. Rashid’s problem is not one of opportunity; if anything, he has been overpromoted. If his selection was not quite as foolhardy as that of Chris Schofield, another precocious leg spinner reduced to promoting card tricks on the internet, then it is hard to argue that his recent travels as drinks waiter-cum-net bowler have done his development much good. Rashid’s involvement with England last summer reduced his LV County Championship quota to seven matches and 242 overs. “I’m not going to criticise England,” Martyn Moxon, his coach at Yorkshire, said in the latest Wisden Cricketer before doing precisely that, “but this is a crucial stage of his development. Adil is not really bowling the number of overs he needs to develop.” The whispers in South Africa were that Rashid is a slow learner; and back to county cricket he goes. The idea that some kind of cultural divide is to blame finds credence, perhaps, in the failure of Panesar to kick on. In these pages yesterday the spinner was quick to blame himself for listening to others instead of his instincts. There is an echo here of his failure to impose his ideas upon the England captain he played under mostly, Michael Vaughan. Vaughan always set Panesar’s fields for him, yet Andrew Flintoff has recounted how Panesar, before his debut in India, came to his room full of ideas about his field placings. Panesar’s deference to authority could be explained by something called the power-distance index, designed by a sociologist, Geert Hofstede, to measure how different cultures relate to authority. A high power-distance rating (India, for example, is high with 77) indicates a society with great deference to authority; a low rating (the United Kingdom is 35) reflects a society whose organisations are more democratic and where authority is more easily challenged. Although born in England, Panesar, through his strong familial network, remains rooted, culturally, in northern India (his recent wedding was a full-blown Indian affair). Does that explain his unwillingness to challenge authority, to impose his ideas and take responsibility for his career? Or is that too fanciful; is his demotion simply because Graeme Swann is a better bowler? Neither Shah nor Bopara could be criticised for his deference. If anything, Shah is anti-authority, something that has not endeared him to the England management, who have viewed his cockiness suspiciously and his fielding peccadilloes dimly. In part, Shah has only himself to blame, having taken some odd decisions — he put the Indian Premier League before Middlesex when his England place was hanging by a thread, for example — but the suspicion lingers that less talented players have been given more chances. Bopara is probably the most naturally gifted of all and, having scored three consecutive Test hundreds, can hardly be said to be a failure. Yet his winter has been spent in isolation in New Zealand and twice in his short Test career he has had to be removed from the line of fire because he was mentally shot. It could be argued that England have treated him inconsiderately: shunted up and down the order in one-day cricket, dropped immediately after making his first Test hundred and being asked to take on the No 3 position while more senior players have been protected down the order. Wisely, Bopara has never fallen back on such lame excuses. To do so would be to set off on the same road as Mark Ramprakash, forever looking elsewhere to mitigate his own failings at international level. And so to Shahzad, the first British-born Asian to play for Yorkshire and now England’s latest recruit. Early reports suggest that he has, in cricket-speak, “good wheels” (bowls quickly) and bats usefully. I am looking forward to watching him next week in Bangladesh. In accounting for his success, Shahzad has obliquely referred to some of the problems faced by cricketers from Asian backgrounds. He says that he no longer eats his mother’s curries and chapatis (does Patel?) and so has dropped from 15 to 12½ stone, and he argues that his private-school upbringing has helped him to integrate faster than Rashid, who, like many in Yorkshire, is a product of a more insular, Asian-orientated background. Success for Shahzad would strike a double blow for English cricket: it would help to refute any suggestion that somehow British Asian cricketers cannot hack it at the highest level, or that the England team is anything other than an inclusive place. It would also play well in Yorkshire, a county with huge untapped potential within its Asian community. A county, too, that in the past has viewed non-white players with Rice-like suspicion.

[Rajma Chawal]

Ramprakash was never given a fair chance. OK, people will say he had 52 tests but was never given a proper run in the team. In his first series against the mighty West Indiies, he did better than the other English batsmen but was dropped straight after. England lost a true world class batsman in him.

[Serani]

I wouldnt say the England asian players get poorly treated, its more at junior level when an Asian/black player has to be extra special to grab coaches attention away from the rich private school white kids. Once the players get to the county scene its down to them.

[goose]

Monty's handling on this tour has been an absolute scandal. If England come knocking again I hope he tells them to f%ck right off.

[Ram]

Monty's handling on this tour has been an absolute scandal. If England come knocking again I hope he tells them to f%ck right off.

More scandalous than the handling of Finn+Rankin+Tremlett, who were all dropped for Perth. With his bowling the way it is now, he should not have even been picked for the tour in the first place.