He may actually be a decent bowler, but I really hope that his selection was made based on the selectors actually watching him bowl and not on his figures entirely. What worries me is not his own bowling ability but the selection of 5 bowlers with Ambrose at 6.
Fair point. But...
Where do you get that idea from?
Well if you've seen him you've an advantage over most of the people who seem to be writing him off!
Because at the start of the season when he played 2 or 3 games no-one would have watched him because he was just some Australian grade player who no-one had heard of. He's only played, what, 7 games tops (?) this season, and they can't have watched more than the last 3 or 4 of them. And that's if they've watched every game, which not that many do.
Oh, certainly. But I don't think anyone can have seen enough of him to really know anything of great significance. Therefore, to trust that you know enough to pick him for a Test is, well, mad TBH.
Left-field = bad in cricket, as a rule, for mine. Cricket is by nature a game based in conservativism.
Bowling short at Headingley = bad idea, as a rule.
For one thing, hes only played 6 games this season. Unless the selectors were expecting a 29 year old so and so with barely any FC cricket experience in Australia to come in and set the world alight in his first few games in CC, its highly unlikely that they have seen him in any more than a couple of games. Given sthe credentials and capabilities of our selectors, I think I would have little hesitation is saying that I very much doubt they have ever watched him bowl.
Oh come on.
There have been plenty. Too many to boringly recite. I may however do so if the rain comes in the Test match.
Of course it's possible (though I dread to think that they were thinking of picking Tredwell and Shreck for England, and I thought McLaren was still a SAfrican). Frankly, I'd just like to know how many times they've watched him though. Not something we can know, unless their presence at Ground X was logged, though, so we'll just have to suffice with that even if they've seen every game, it's really not enough.
Please do it somewhere, I'd love to hear them.
Id much rather Pattinson than Tremlett on this ground tbh. You can already identify that bang it in bowlers are going to have to rethink their bowling strategy a litlle bit and in Flintoff and Broad in the side, the last thing England need is another bowler in a similar mold. It makes perfect sense to pick a swing bowler in these conditions, Im just a little stunned that it wasnt Hoggard or Simon Jones.Why on earth did they not just give Tremlett the gig?
I never thought that would happen. Ever.
I'm struggling to understand this logic. Surely if the selectors pick a player who contributes strongly to the team's cause it can't be anything other than a good piece of selection.
If anyone predicted Pattinson to play they deserved to be shot.
