***Official*** South Africa in England

[Langeveldt]

Anyone who didn't?

Beginning to feel less conspicuous here...

I think it's safe to say my dad hasn't..


He, unfortunatly was in hospital at the time..

 

[Richard]

Richard to reply in 10...9...8.

Seriously, Patel isn't the worst, but nor should he be anywhere near a Test spot right now.

Much as batsmen being able to bowl is a bonus, it should make very, very little impact. If you're declining a notably superior batsman because he can't bowl as well as someone else, you're treading on very dodgy ground.

 

[Prince EWS]

Collingwood, Bopara... struggling after that. Certainly no spinner, which would probably be a bigger advantage - someone in the Jayasuriya mould. Yardy would be the closest to a spin-bowling batsman, and he is only a spinner by default classification.

I may have missed names though.

Vaughan perhaps?

It'd probably put strain on his knee if he had to bowl more often though.

 

[zaremba]

Haha, Bell has a lower First-Class bowling-average than Flintoff? Atrocious.

Exactly.

But seriously, can anyone explain why he isn't asked to bowl more in Tests and ODIs? He's only bowled in 6 Test innings, and never since the 1st Ashes Test in November 2006.

I'm not pretending he's Malcolm Marshall but he certainly could do a Collingwood-type job.

 

[Goughy]

Seriously, Patel isn't the worst, but nor should he be anywhere near a Test spot right now.

Much as batsmen being able to bowl is a bonus, it should make very, very little impact. If you're declining a notably superior batsman because he can't bowl as well as someone else, you're treading on very dodgy ground.

Absolutely, its only a bonus or a tiebreaker for players judged to be of a similar standard.

However, it does certainly help the team and I have no doubt it helps Collingwood gets selected.

 

[zaremba]

Much as batsmen being able to bowl is a bonus, it should make very, very little impact. If you're declining a notably superior batsman because he can't bowl as well as someone else, you're treading on very dodgy ground.

Spot-on. Patel clearly has promise with the bat (FC average of 46 marks him out as maybe having the required potential) and if in due course he's selected in the top 6 it should be on that basis and not on the basis of a little bit of filthy SLA.

 

[GIMH]

Absolutely, its only a bonus or a tiebreaker for players judged to be of a similar standard.

However, it does certainly help the team and I have no doubt it helps Collingwood gets selected.

Yeah, I don't think he'd have been picked ahead of Anderson for the 5th Ashes Test in 2005 if he couldn't bowl. And I think he's only missed one game since, could be wrong though, but that was basically the launchpad for his Test career

Poor Jimmy could have already had an MBE oh well I guess he will have to wait for the knighthood.

Serious point on Anderson though, do people think the signs are there this summer that he is finally becoming a consistent Test bowler? He bowled so well yesterday and really has only gone round the park once this summer

 

[nexxus]

Anybody think Pattinson will survive the chop. He may not have set the world alight, but wasn't particularly bad either, could easily have had a couple more wickets. Seems a bit harsh to cut him loose after a one-off.

Broad isn't going anywhere, you don't drop someone who top scored for you very often. Anderson might end up in the same boat as Sidebottom and be injured, which'd make room for Sidebottom to come back. Vaughan isn't going to be dropped, let's not kid anyone. Strauss has been in good enough nick to warrant a couple of chances & his average against SA is quite high.

England are in the same boat as SA when it comes to spinners. Monty's the best of a really bad lot. Despite the stick that Harris has been given, I don't think he's much worse than Panesar. He really gave the Indians a shock on some surprisingly friendly SA wickets on debut.

I don't really see many changes to the England team.

 

[GIMH]

When asked if he was happy about the selection, Vaughan was very diplomatic. That being said, he did give Pattinson a fair chance, and you have to think that if Sidebottom couldn't return then Pattinson should probably keep his place, on the basis that it wasn't a bad enough performance to see him dropped. If that makes any sense.

 

[Goughy]

UIMM, Broad now averages 40+ with both bat and ball.

Wonder how often this has hapeded for a guy picked as a specialist bowler.

Well he didnt then but does now.

41 with the bat and 50 with the ball

 

[Prince EWS]

I was just thinking, who is the best English bastman that can also bowl. Ie help out as 5th bowler

Is it as obvious as Collingwood? Are there other contenders?

Broad?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Broad?

Not a good enough bowler imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

When asked if he was happy about the selection, Vaughan was very diplomatic. That being said, he did give Pattinson a fair chance, and you have to think that if Sidebottom couldn't return then Pattinson should probably keep his place, on the basis that it wasn't a bad enough performance to see him dropped. If that makes any sense.

Yeah, you should never drop someone "because they shouldn't have been selected in the first place." You should only drop them out of the reckoning if they fail to perform their role over an extended period or team balance dictates their role is no longer of great value.

Pattinson could still indeed be dropped if Sidebottom returns or even if England decide they want the extra batsman, which would be fine, but as much as I think they're better bowlers, he shouldn't be dropped for Tremlett, Jones, Hoggard or Harmison at the current time.

 

[Goughy]

When asked if he was happy about the selection, Vaughan was very diplomatic. That being said, he did give Pattinson a fair chance, and you have to think that if Sidebottom couldn't return then Pattinson should probably keep his place, on the basis that it wasn't a bad enough performance to see him dropped. If that makes any sense.

One of the basic rules of business and military strategy is "don't reinforce failure" .

Giving him a second cap is taking a bad pick and replicating the bad decision. It was a wrong pick to supposedly suit the conditions. Lets move on. Instead we have a left field, horses for courses, selection that didn't work being talked about for the next game.

Well that is hardly horses for courses is it? If he gets selected then it is purely about the ego of the selectors and ego is what leads decision makers to break the rule I list above.

 

[Beleg]

english bowling attack should be,

Flintoff
Jones
Harmisson
Anderson
Sidebottom

if they want to win the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

One of the basic rules of business and military strategy is "don't reinforce failure" .

Giving him a second cap is taking a bad pick and replicating the bad decision. It was a wrong pick to supposedly suit the conditions. Lets move on. Instead we have a left field, horses for courses, selection that didn't work being talked about for the next game.

Well that is hardly horses for courses is it? If he gets selected then it is purely about the ego of the selectors and ego is what leads decision makers to break the rule I list above.

Was it really horses for courses though? As I said before the game, I've seen Pattinson play a few times for Victoria and he never looked like someone who was going to get huge swing; he looked like a poor man's Tremlett. The same was true in the Test match really.

If he was selected specifically as a Leeds bowler then he should be dropped without question, but I have a feeling the selectors just decided he was the next best bowler.

 

[zaremba]

Anybody think Pattinson will survive the chop. He may not have set the world alight, but wasn't particularly bad either, could easily have had a couple more wickets. Seems a bit harsh to cut him loose after a one-off.

Broad isn't going anywhere, you don't drop someone who top scored for you very often. Anderson might end up in the same boat as Sidebottom and be injured, which'd make room for Sidebottom to come back. Vaughan isn't going to be dropped, let's not kid anyone. Strauss has been in good enough nick to warrant a couple of chances & his average against SA is quite high.

England are in the same boat as SA when it comes to spinners. Monty's the best of a really bad lot. Despite the stick that Harris has been given, I don't think he's much worse than Panesar. He really gave the Indians a shock on some surprisingly friendly SA wickets on debut.

I don't really see many changes to the England team.

Agree with much of that. Pattinson looked competent and just as likely as the other England to take wickets. I wouldn't be surprised if he retains his place. Apart from anything else I think that the selectors would want to avoid creating another one-cap wonder because it makes them look foolish.

More broadly I would be surprised if there's more than one or at most two changes to the squad.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, look I am not saying it is what I would do but I hate the one-cap culture that has dogged our cricket over the years. If you pick someone and he doesn't do too badly, and the injured party doesn't come back, then give him another chance.

A lot of people on this board seemed to want him to fail, I don't think he did do that and as such there aren't grounds for dropping him yet

Reckon he will stay around the international scene btw, fully expect him to break into the ODI side

 

[Goughy]

Was it really horses for courses though? As I said before the game, I've seen Pattinson play a few times for Victoria and he never looked like someone who was going to get huge swing; he looked like a poor man's Tremlett. The same was true in the Test match really.

If he was selected specifically as a Leeds bowler then he should be dropped without question, but I have a feeling the selectors just decided he was the next best bowler.

Yes they stated his inclusion was as they wanted a swing bowler.

Its the reason Sky Sports have been going on about al the different 'horses for courses' selections over the years.

Im amazed, the guy didnt deserve to be there, did nothing in the game of any note, his captain clearly doesnt rate him, its pissed off half the bowlers in the country, England get destroyed in the Test and yet people think its a good idea to keep him

Madness.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes they stated his inclusion was as they wanted a swing bowler.

That makes the whole thing even more strange. He should certainly be dropped if that is the case, as I suspect he will be.