***Official*** South Africa in England

[Pup Clarke]

Always thought Anderson isn't that bad with the bat tbh.

 

[Zinzan]

So let me get this straight, Sidebottom was an injury doubt so they brought in Tremlett as cover. Then Anderson was an injury doubt and so they brought Pattinson in as cover.

So where exactly does Pattinson leapfrog Tremlett?

Oh and good idea England in having a poncy flair batting lineup with no guts in it whatsoever. Morkel and Steyn must be loving it.

It does defy Logic. Only thing I can think is that they have seen something in the wicket late in the piece to suggest in may suit Pattinson. But like you, I'm scratching my head.

 

[Richard]

Always thought Anderson isn't that bad with the bat tbh.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Nah, he ain't the worst.

 

[Richard]

Well, he's better than Devon Malcolm, Alan Hurst and Chris Martin. But he's still worth zero consideration where batting ability is concerned. He's less than Andy Caddick or Angus Fraser.

 

[James]

But the selectors obviously know more than you about the matter, I imagine that they've attended most of Notts games and had first-hand knowledge of the type of bowler he is.

As i said- the SA's won't of seen him, he's confident after taking plenty of wickets this season.

Best of luck to the lad.

Just what I was thinking.

He has an impressive record to date in his career, and has a bit of pace about him too it seems:

Despite impressing with his line and length and sometimes clocking more than 145kph...... After picking up 29 wickets at 20.86 midway through the summer,

Source - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/engvrsa/content/current/player/270253.html

All depends what sometimes means though obviously, but he does has a very impressive record this season.

Comes off the back of taking 5-72 against Surrey in his last first class game and 2-39 against Worcestershire in his last List A game too.

He's been picked now and there's nothing that can be done. Time to get behind him for me as Pup Clarke said.

 

[Marius]

I'm surprised England didn't pick Hoggard. He's got a good record against South Africa, and basically won the Test at the Wanderers in 2005. Also, I think South Africa generally struggles against guys who swing. Martin Bicknell played a large part in England's win over SA at the Oval in 2003, and Stuart Clarke has also done well against us.

But who knows, maybe this Pattison will be an inspired selection. But it is a bit of a kick in the face for young English bowlers: "Let's pick a 30-year old roofer from Australia to play in a Test for England."

 

[_Ed_]

Well, he's better than Devon Malcolm, Alan Hurst and Chris Martin. But he's still worth zero consideration where batting ability is concerned. He's less than Andy Caddick or Angus Fraser.

Caddick wasn't too bad, remember his decent innings on the opening day of the Ashes in 2001.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

it should be that a bowling attack needs to have slightly more than one dimension.

Fair enough, but not at the cost of seventy runs a Test...

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised England didn't pick Hoggard. He's got a good record against South Africa, and basically won the Test at the Wanderers in 2005. Also, I think South Africa generally struggles against guys who swing. Martin Bicknell played a large part in England's win over SA at the Oval in 2003, and Stuart Clarke has also done well against us.

But who knows, maybe this Pattison will be an inspired selection. But it is a bit of a kick in the face for young English bowlers: "Let's pick a 30-year old roofer from Australia to play in a Test for England."

Stuart Clark isn't really much of a swing-bowler though is he?

Most people struggle against good swingers, though. The question is is Hoggard good enough any more? Too many people seem to think no.

 

[Richard]

Caddick wasn't too bad, remember his decent innings on the opening day of the Ashes in 2001.

I remember that and several others - Caddick could certainly play, but he didn't do it often enough unfortunately.

 

[Richard]

Start delayed by rain, hopefully not for too long.

Imagine this'll happen quite a bit today.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anyway I hope Ambrose realises that he'll be replaced by Prior if he doesn't score shedloads.

Just when you thought England couldn't get any worse...

 

[wpdavid]

Stuart Clark isn't really much of a swing-bowler though is he?

Most people struggle against good swingers, though. The question is is Hoggard good enough any more? Too many people seem to think no.

You'd have to conclude that his test career is over unless there's a spate of injuries of almost biblical proportions at some point in the near future. Given that we need to replace a current FM swinger, hopefully for only one as-crucial-as-it-gets game, at Headingley then bringing in Hoggard was the obvious solution. You can only think that Moores/Miller didn't want Hoggie to muddy the waters by doing well and giving them a problem next time out. Either that of Miler needs some new material for the after-dinner circuit.

 

[wpdavid]

I remember that and several others - Caddick could certainly play, but he didn't do it often enough unfortunately.

True, but he was never a number 8.

 

[Zinzan]

My credibility is not something you're well-placed to comment on. Do you really think I'd have said what I said about Sidebottom in this thread without checking what I'd said a year ago if I thought there was anything as damning as you're trying to manufacture that there is?

Look, don't be a such a Nancy-boy about this. This is the last I will say on the matter. You came out with a sweeping statement about never calling Sidebottom's selection a bad decision, then someone diggs up an old post showing you weren't happy at the time, (which in anyones language suggest you weren't happy with the selection at the time) thus proving you wrong. Its really quite simple. Accept you were wrong, take it on the chin like a man and stop blubbing like a self-righteous condescending public schoolboy.

 

[Richard]

True, but he was never a number 8.

No, he wasn't. He was best at ten IMO. He was merely one of the best recent examples I can think of of someone who could bat but not extraordinarily.

And they're on the way out.

 

[Richard]

Look, don't be a such a Nancy-boy about this. This is the last I will say on the matter. You came out with a sweeping statement about never calling Sidebottom's selection a bad decision, then someone diggs up an old post showing you weren't happy at the time, (which in anyones language suggest you weren't happy with the selection at the time) thus proving you wrong. Its really quite simple. Accept you were wrong, take it on the chin like a man and stop blubbing like a self-righteous condescending public schoolboy.

I accept I'm wrong if I'm wrong, not because some people want me to. The posts Gelman dug-out showed that I was surprised and less than certain about the Sidebottom selection - which I was. They do not show me saying "WTF are they thinking, he's never going to succeed".

Gelman is not going to deliberately try to make me look foolish, as a) he's not a dickhead like that and b) he's a friend of mine. You're trying to read something into his post that he did not put there.

 

[Richard]

Steyn not lacking for swing early on.

 

[tooextracool]

You'd have to conclude that his test career is over unless there's a spate of injuries of almost biblical proportions at some point in the near future. Given that we need to replace a current FM swinger, hopefully for only one as-crucial-as-it-gets game, at Headingley then bringing in Hoggard was the obvious solution. You can only think that Moores/Miller didn't want Hoggie to muddy the waters by doing well and giving them a problem next time out. Either that of Miler needs some new material for the after-dinner circuit.

Meh Pattinson over Hoggard has to be a mighty poor selection, especially considering that Hoggard has 25 wickets at a decent lick thus far this season and has caused Graeme Smith serious problems in the past. However, I can somewhat accept the Pattinson selection given that it is no worse than some of our past selection blunders. What I cannot accept is the logic behind going in with 5 specialist batsmen at Headingly. Sheer madness. I mean do we really need 5 bowlers in what is predicted to be overcast conditions at Headingly? Boggles the mind. Essentially if we are 2-3 wickets down by lunch, we are likely to be rolled over for very few given the fragility of our lower-middle order and the questionable techniques of our openers.