***Official*** South Africa in England

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Having had a decent look at Pattinson now I'd have to disagree. He bowls a lot fuller than Tremlett does, whose natural length is just short of a good length. Pattinson's fullness was surprising for a guy of his height, but he consistently pitched the ball up, so I think that, yes, he probably was a horses-for-courses pick. He didn't get much swing as it happened, but then neither did Jimmy either, so one assumes the conditions weren't conducive to it.

 

[GIMH]

Didn't say it was a good idea, just that dropping someone who performed decently in their first game sends out as many bad signals as picking him in the first place, and as EWS said you should, once selected, be picked or dropped based on how you performed rather than whether you should have been there in the first place.

As for pissing half the bowlers in the country off, I don't really see why that is an issue, the side should be picked on the basis of the best team for the match, not whether it will upset the majority of players that aren't picked.

 

[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.

Here
In the end, Anderson was passed fit but Pattinson still played, the selectors wanting the swing option instead of Chris Tremlett's hit-the-deck style.

And the topic of a swing bowler rather than a back of a length bowler was talked about at length.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As for pissing half the bowlers in the country off, I don't really see why that is an issue, the side should be picked on the basis of the best team for the match, not whether it will upset the majority of players that aren't picked.

That's true, but Tremlett was called into the squad for Sid (Pattinson's call was nominally for Jimmy's sore back, although given Anderson's workload this test one suspects a possible ruse, frankly), so as Sidebottom missed out I think Tremmers has a case for being irked as to why he was suddenly passed over. Especially given the unprecedented loyalty shown to the incumbents over the last few tests.

 

[Richard]

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

He certainly bowled far better in these two Tests than I was expecting him to... but again, he didn't break through and knock SA over.

He should undoubtedly play the next game, which as I said is more than I was expecting to be thinking at the start of the series. But I'm now left wondering what's on the way. Will he finally bowl well enough to take a big bag? Or will it be a case of reversion to type and two decent performances being followed by an utter horror-show?

History still leads me to suspect the latter, but I'm far less certain at the moment than I have been at any previous time in Anderson's career.

 

[Richard]

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.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts on the matter, FTR.

 

[Richard]

As for pissing half the bowlers in the country off, I don't really see why that is an issue, the side should be picked on the basis of the best team for the match, not whether it will upset the majority of players that aren't picked.

Thing is, though, if the players who've not been picked have legit reason to feel aggrieved this a) reflects badly on the selection ITFP and b) offers the possibility of affecting these players in future.

 

[GIMH]

That's true, but Tremlett was called into the squad for Sid (Pattinson's call was nominally for Jimmy's sore back, although given Anderson's workload this test one suspects a possible ruse, frankly), so as Sidebottom missed out I think Tremmers has a case for being irked as to why he was suddenly passed over. Especially given the unprecedented loyalty shown to the incumbents over the last few tests.

Yeah, fair enough regarding Tremlett, as 12th man you should reasonably expect to play if someone drops out, and let's not forget that when Pattinson was called up it was as cover for Anderson.

Tremlett actually now seems to be in the same boat Anderson was a couple of years back, whereby he is constantly in the squad but not getting any game time. He was actually 12th man all the way through the Ashes in 05, then when Simon Jones got injured he never made the 13 (Colly and Anderson did instead). I think he'd been in poor form in the counties, but still, he must wonder what he has to do, he is being teased somewhat.

Has only had one series, took 13 at under 30 and I seem to recall us going round the park a couple of times. I do hope he gets another chance tbh.

 

[Goughy]

Didn't say it was a good idea, just that dropping someone who performed decently in their first game sends out as many bad signals as picking him in the first place, and as EWS said you should, once selected, be picked or dropped based on how you performed rather than whether you should have been there in the first place.

As for pissing half the bowlers in the country off, I don't really see why that is an issue, the side should be picked on the basis of the best team for the match, not whether it will upset the majority of players that aren't picked.

Bolded part- And it wasnt. Simple as that.

It doesnt send a bad message to say "We made a mistake and took a risk and it didnt work. Lets move on". That level of maturity and honesty is far better in the long run than playing a player that should not be there. The only reason he will not get dropped is becasue the selectors cant admit to making a mistake. If he is included then its even more sickening as the selectors cant recognise their error and will not try and correct it.

It should be about getting the best England cricket side on the field with the strongest belief in what they are capable of and that they have earned the right to be selected by being the best.

The selection of this guy destroys all this. Im seldom this angry and Im more angry that he may get included for the 2nd Test and people dont mind. There is a reason why English cricket chronically underperforms and this type of lack of logic highlights a reason why.

 

[GIMH]

Thing is, though, if the players who've not been picked have legit reason to feel aggrieved this a) reflects badly on the selection ITFP and b) offers the possibility of affecting these players in future.

Well if it was me it would just spur me on to keep plugging away tbh

 

[zaremba]

Bolded part- And it wasnt. Simple as that.

It doesnt send a bad message to say "We made a mistake and took a risk and it didnt work. Lets move on". That level of maturity and honesty is far better in the long run than playing a player that should not be there. The only reason he will not get dropped is becasue the selectors cant admit to making a mistake. If he is included then its even more sickening as the selectors cant recognise their error and will not try and correct it.

It should be about getting the best England cricket side on the field with the strongest belief in what they are capable of and that they have earned the right to be selected by being the best.

The selection of this guy destroys all this. Im seldom this angry and Im more angry that he may get included for the 2nd Test and people dont mind. There is a reason why English cricket chronically underperforms and this type of lack of logic highlights a reason why.

Three questions need to be kept very separate:

1. What will the selectors do? I think the chances are that they will stick with him for the squad for the 3rd Test.

2. What should the selectors have done in the first place? Was it right to pick DP for this game? Well we've done that one I think and let's not revisit it here because it's history now.

3. What should the selectors do now - should they drop DP after one game? This is not that straightforward an issue. There is obviously force in what Goughy says. But on the other hand DP is part of the set-up now and it would be wrong to pretend that he isn't. Even though he leapfrogged others in the first place, selectors who want to send out a message of loyalty wouldn't be doing that by dumping him after one game when he didn't do any worse than the rest of the bowlers. He did not prove himself as a Test bowler, but at the same time he didn't prove that he wasn't up to it either. So there's something to be said for giving him a fair run, which means more than one innings of bowling in conditions which (for whatever reason) were neither conducive to swing nor seam bowling.

 

[GIMH]

Bolded part- And it wasnt. Simple as that.

It doesnt send a bad message to say "We made a mistake and took a risk and it didnt work. Lets move on". That level of maturity and honesty is far better in the long run than playing a player that should not be there. The only reason he will not get dropped is becasue the selectors cant admit to making a mistake. If he is included then its even more sickening as the selectors cant recognise their error and will not try and correct it.

It should be about getting the best England cricket side on the field with the strongest belief in what they are capable of and that they have earned the right to be selected by being the best.

The selection of this guy destroys all this. Im seldom this angry and Im more angry that he may get included for the 2nd Test and people dont mind. There is a reason why English cricket chronically underperforms and this type of lack of logic highlights a reason why.

My point is, it's not conclusive at this point what kind of job he is capable of doing in a Test match. Might as well give every bowler a chance if you're going to base it on one match.

I am not sure if he'll play next week but I do think he'll get a few more caps in his time

 

[Richard]

What should the selectors do now - should they drop DP after one game? This is not that straightforward an issue. There is obviously force in what Goughy says. But on the other hand DP is part of the set-up now and it would be wrong to pretend that he isn't. Even though he leapfrogged others in the first place, selectors who want to send out a message of loyalty wouldn't be doing that by dumping him after one game when he didn't do any worse than the rest of the bowlers.

Trouble is, they've already blasted this (sending messages of loyalty) to smithereens by picking Pattinson ITFP.

They'll do nothing by dropping him that they haven't done already by picking him. And I don't think it makes it worse to do it twice rather than once - it's as bad as it's bad.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

My point is, it's not conclusive at this point what kind of job he is capable of doing in a Test match. Might as well give every bowler a chance if you're going to base it on one match.

I am not sure if he'll play next week but I do think he'll get a few more caps in his time

He's heading the same way as Mike Smith who was binned after one match at Headingley.

 

[TazzX]

English = DOMINATED!

Its a good day

 

[Richard]

He's heading the same way as Mike Smith who was binned after one match at Headingley.

Difference there was that Smith deserved to be picked. He may not have been someone who worked-out as a long-term Test option, but his record in domestic cricket outstripped most others, including many of his fellow Headingley "specials" like Watkin.

Who knows what might have happened with Smith had Thorpe taken that infamous edge off Elliott.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Difference there was that Smith deserved to be picked. He may not have been someone who worked-out as a long-term Test option, but his record in domestic cricket outstripped most others, including many of his fellow Headingley "specials" like Watkin.

Who knows what might have happened with Smith had Thorpe taken that infamous edge off Elliott.

There might have been different merits in their selection but that doesn't mean they won't end up heading the same way.

 

[zaremba]

Trouble is, they've already blasted this (sending messages of loyalty) to smithereens by picking Pattinson ITFP.

They'll do nothing by dropping him that they haven't done already by picking him. And I don't think it makes it worse to do it twice rather than once - it's as bad as it's bad.

As I said, Goughy's points have a lot of force. All I'm saying is that this is not a straightforward situation and there are other factors to consider. And one of the things to consider is that it is not usually desirable - for a number of reasons - to pick someone for just one game and not to give them a fair run in the team. Particularly when he didn't look entirely out of his depth in the one game he played.

It's wrong to say that they've blasted all ideas of loyalty to smithereens. They may have acted in a "disloyal" way, but that quite obviously doesn't negate all obligations of loyalty in the future.

I felt both Paul Taylor and Mike Smith were treated shabbily. Both were picked on the basis of their ability to swing the ball, consistently, in county cricket. They each played one Test in conditions where it happened not to swing (as sometimes can happen to any bowler), and were then unceremoniously and humiliatingly dumped. I don't think that was good for English cricket - in fact it was emblematic of what was wrong with the England team in the bad old days of the late 80s and 90s - and it was grossly unfair on them.

EDIT: just realised that Paul Taylor played 2 Tests. Smith is a better case in point I suppose (better bowler too).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Three questions need to be kept very separate:

1. What will the selectors do? I think the chances are that they will stick with him for the squad for the 3rd Test.

2. What should the selectors have done in the first place? Was it right to pick DP for this game? Well we've done that one I think and let's not revisit it here because it's history now.

3. What should the selectors do now - should they drop DP after one game? This is not that straightforward an issue. There is obviously force in what Goughy says. But on the other hand DP is part of the set-up now and it would be wrong to pretend that he isn't. Even though he leapfrogged others in the first place, selectors who want to send out a message of loyalty wouldn't be doing that by dumping him after one game when he didn't do any worse than the rest of the bowlers. He did not prove himself as a Test bowler, but at the same time he didn't prove that he wasn't up to it either. So there's something to be said for giving him a fair run, which means more than one innings of bowling in conditions which (for whatever reason) were neither conducive to swing nor seam bowling.

1. Christ knows. As Brearley suggested (quoted in my sig) it looks like they're tired of consistency, so have decided to go for a more random approach.

2. They should've stuck with Tremlett if he was next in line, it suggests some underlying philosophy behind their selections. Failing that, if a swing bowler was required, there's a straw-haired chap I know of with over 200 wickets who's familiar with Headlingley & is centrally-contracted to boot. Whatever Pattinson's merits he doesn't look an egregious enough talent to completely rip the pecking order up for. & that's without commenting on the unseemly haste his "Englishness" was acquired.

3. The selectors didn't show much loyalty to Tremlett (or, by extension, to Hoggard, Jones, Harmison, Onions, Mahmood or Uncle Tom Cobleigh either) so why should Pattinson expect any differently? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but Pattinson looks to have been a replacement pick, so once the incumbent (Sid) is available again he should be recalled in all equity. Pattinson might be deemed worthy of a place in the squad, but he looked only our third best seamer on display.

 

[zaremba]

two wrongs don't make a right

I think this is the point I was trying (less concisely) to make.

Pattinson looks to have been a replacement pick, so once the incumbent (Sid) is available again he should be recalled in all equity.

True - and perhaps this will give the selectors an elegant way out without either them or DP losing too much face.