***Official*** South Africa in England

[SpaceMonkey]

Flintoff 317 no balls (68 Tests)
Hoggard 214 (67)
Harmison 119 (57)
Anderson 7 (27)
Jones 43 (18)
Sidebottom 7 (17)
Plunkett 28 (9)
Mahmood 6 (8)

That's 53 extra overs Flintoff has had to bowl because of his no balls.

Impressive self control from Anderson there. Was expecting that to be much much higher. Almost 1 NB every 4 Tests only.

 

[Zinzan]

Can't help but feel sorry for this Pattinson fellow, a jobbing bowler who has just run in and taken some wickets by bowling well, got a random call-up, and suddenly seems to be a bit of a figure of hatred.. Especially irked at everyone having a go at him for his Aussie heritage.. England's best batsman being about as English as a Potjie kos op die strand.. Pretty much everyone in England who is young and can bowl a bit of legspin is of recent Asian extraction, and English cricket pretty much survives on foreign help.. A very nasty case of double standards from a lot of well respected pundits.. England's entire cricketing setup is tailor made for foreigners, so it's a shame that everyone comes crying when a mediocre one makes his way into the England team..

..

On your point, Its always amazed me that England's had so many overseas born internationals over the years. I do understand that many foreigners do gravitate to England for British citzenship and the like, but the numbers of overseas born players for England does seem relatively high in terms of representation at the top level. Any thoughts? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that "generally speaking" British-born players aren't quite as naturally athletic or skilled as many of their colonial cousins? Certainly, I'm not convinced either way, but interested in your thoughts & opinions on how this westernized country that invented the game and has over 50 million people remains so mediocre overall...and not just at cricket, but pretty much most sports

 

[FBU]

Impressive self control from Anderson there. Was expecting that to be much much higher. Almost 1 NB every 4 Tests only.

Most of them were when he played for the first time at Lords and had to get used to the slope.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Most of them were when he played for the first time at Lords and had to get used to the slope.

4 in 26 Tests aside from the first innings of that match. Astounding!

 

[pasag]

Yeah Flintoff is a horrible no-baller, Lee must be pretty close a well.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Agnew said that the difference was that Pattinson, unlike Pietersen and Ambrose (using as examples two men who came to England by their own choice rather than because their parents moved here, like Strauss and Prior), had no intention of making a life in England- he simply used his passport to come and play some county cricket. I think that is a fair distinction.

Personally, I don't passionately care if England want to select Pattinson, and my objection to it is not based on his background but on the fact that he is not a proven performer at all, and it harks back to the old pull-em-out-of-the-hat selections I remember from my childhood, like Simon Brown. If he'd played several seasons of cricket in England and had good results, I could understand, but Tremlett did little wrong during his spell in the side and should have been the one to come in for Sidebottom- he'd probably have done better on this pitch.

Agree with this 100%.

Pattinson considers himself Australian and had no intention of wanting to live here on a permenant basis. Unlike the likes of Pietersen / Hick / Lamb etc who commited 100% to not only playing for England but also to live here. You cant really compare the two situations and you surely know it. Thats not to say i put any blame on Pattinson. The chance to play Test cricket must be huge! and that Test wicket he now has will never be taken away from him and is something he can be proud off. Its the selectors fault for picking him. English or Australian he shouldnt have come anywhere near this side.

 

[Langeveldt]

On your point, Its always amazed me that England's had so many overseas born internationals over the years. I do understand that many foreigners do gravitate to England for British citzenship and the like, but the numbers of overseas born players for England does seem relatively high in terms of representation at the top level. Any thoughts? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that "generally speaking" British-born players aren't quite as naturally athletic or skilled as many of their colonial cousins? Certainly, I'm not convinced either way, but interested in your thoughts & opinions on how this westernized country that invented the game and has over 50 million people remains so mediocre overall...and not just at cricket, but pretty much most sports

Agreed, having lived both in Britain and it's colonies it's pretty obvious to see why.. Feel so much more inclined to join a club and play sport when I'm not sat in the pissing rain, and SA fits the bill ideally, such a better climate and a tougher attitude towards sport. I'd play in a 7-net complex with a cricket ball growing up in South Africa, and with a windball in a car park full of cars in the rain in the UK. You only have to look at the standard of sport in schools to see where we get our youngsters from.. They show school rugby on TV which I've mentioned before..

Assuming historically we have still drawn mainly from our white population, we compete on a fairly even footing with a catchment of about 5 million.. Compared to 50 million in the UK.. Same with Aussie, just a culture more condusive to cricket in general

 

[Langeveldt]

Agree with this 100%.

Pattinson considers himself Australian and had no intention of wanting to live here on a permenant basis. Unlike the likes of Pietersen / Hick / Lamb etc who commited 100% to not only playing for England but also to live here. You cant really compare the two situations and you surely know it. Thats not to say i put any blame on Pattinson. The chance to play Test cricket must be huge! and that Test wicket he now has will never be taken away from him and is something he can be proud off. Its the selectors fault for picking him. English or Australian he shouldnt have come anywhere near this side.

Yeah agreed, despite being eligible, I couldn't think about playing for England as to be honest, that wouldn't be fair.. You can't play for someone who you aren't 110% behind.. I think players should be made to get a tatoo on their tricep..

 

[Flem274*]

Personally, I can't find it in me to hate Pattersons selection. It was a dumb choice, but can't blame the guy for taking the chance and tbh, its hilarious they've picked a random bloke nobody has ever heard of before now. The guy is a complete gun imo.

 

[_Ed_]

tbh, its hilarious they've picked a random bloke nobody has ever heard of before now. The guy is a complete gun imo.

AWTA

 

[Flem274*]

I can't even remember his first name, what is it? Grant? Peter? Tulip? I'm not being smart here, I've just never heard of him on here before and as a result will have to resort to calling him Pat. Makes him more awesome imo.

 

[Zinzan]

Agreed, having lived both in Britain and it's colonies it's pretty obvious to see why.. Feel so much more inclined to join a club and play sport when I'm not sat in the pissing rain, and SA fits the bill ideally, such a better climate and a tougher attitude towards sport. I'd play in a 7-net complex with a cricket ball growing up in South Africa, and with a windball in a car park full of cars in the rain in the UK. You only have to look at the standard of sport in schools to see where we get our youngsters from.. They show school rugby on TV which I've mentioned before..

Assuming historically we have still drawn mainly from our white population, we compete on a fairly even footing with a catchment of about 5 million.. Compared to 50 million in the UK.. Same with Aussie, just a culture more condusive to cricket in general

Yeah, I would have thought the weather, the lack of open public spaces to run around & play sport (compared to Aus, SA & NZ anyways) and also the pie & pub culture may all be factors. And as I said, its not just cricket that they are decidedly average at, its pretty much all sports.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah, I would have thought the weather, the lack of open public spaces to run around & play sport (compared to Aus, SA & NZ anyways) and also the pie & pub culture may all be factors. And as I said, its not just cricket that they are decidedly average at, its pretty much all sports.

Please let Scaly see this.

 

[Zinzan]

Please let Scaly see this.

TBH, In making this observation it wasn't actually my intention to stir-up English posters on the forum, but rather to throw it out there and get peoples thoughts as to their reasons for England's mediocre sporting results. I'm not saying they are terrible, but surely with their population and the money available in the country, they should be so much better.

 

[fredfertang]

TBH, In making this observation it wasn't actually my intention to stir-up English posters on the forum, but rather to throw it out there and get peoples thoughts as to their reasons for England's mediocre sporting results. I'm not saying they are terrible, but surely with their population and the money available in the country, they should be so much better.

I think its generally accepted that the lack of sport (which I believe is now almost non-existent?) in state schools here is a huge factor – for cricket it doesn’t help that there is no coverage, well virtually none, on free to air television . All in all even if you ever manage to find out you’re a young talented British games player, which you very possibly won’t anyway, then if your parents aren’t lovers of the game cricket has no chance of claiming you.

I think I may forget about the Test today – Amidst yesterday’s despair I take a lot of comfort from the fact that it appears that a 53 old man may be about to win a major sporting trophy – my chance may come yet! - I may watch that instead even though the gent concerned is an Aussie

 

[BoyBrumby]

On your point, Its always amazed me that England's had so many overseas born internationals over the years. I do understand that many foreigners do gravitate to England for British citzenship and the like, but the numbers of overseas born players for England does seem relatively high in terms of representation at the top level. Any thoughts? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that "generally speaking" British-born players aren't quite as naturally athletic or skilled as many of their colonial cousins? Certainly, I'm not convinced either way, but interested in your thoughts & opinions on how this westernized country that invented the game and has over 50 million people remains so mediocre overall...and not just at cricket, but pretty much most sports

Ya fecking cheeky get!

Actually, there is more than a grain of truth in what you say. I can't remember the last time we stuck out a union or cricket team without a "neo-colonial" playing for us. Our inherent averageness & turd climate obviously have more than a say in this, but another factor that shouldn't be underestimated is the utter hegemony of football (the round ball kind) up here. It'd be pretty hard to overstate how much it dominates all other sports. Yesterday, as an example, on a day when England were playing the second test of what's probably our 2nd biggest series and The Open golf championships were in full swing, the headline on The Guardian's sport supplement was Chelsea set to land Kaka for record £80m.

 

[Zinzan]

I think its generally accepted that the lack of sport (which I believe is now almost non-existent?) in state schools here is a huge factor – for cricket it doesn’t help that there is no coverage, well virtually none, on free to air television . All in all even if you ever manage to find out you’re a young talented British games player, which you very possibly won’t anyway, then if your parents aren’t lovers of the game cricket has no chance of claiming you.

I think I may forget about the Test today – Amidst yesterday’s despair I take a lot of comfort from the fact that it appears that a 53 old man may be about to win a major sporting trophy – my chance may come yet! - I may watch that instead even though the gent concerned is an Aussie

Appreciate your thoughts on the matter. The subject probably deserves it own thread in hindsight as its kind of off -topic. It is ashame cricket isn't on free-to-air television there and its the same here in NZ. In fact even our main game of Rugby doesn't receive live free-to-air coverage these days.

Also....

Go the Shark !! Please not a repeat of the 96 masters (think it was 96)

 

[Goughy]

On your point, Its always amazed me that England's had so many overseas born internationals over the years. I do understand that many foreigners do gravitate to England for British citzenship and the like, but the numbers of overseas born players for England does seem relatively high in terms of representation at the top level. Any thoughts? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that "generally speaking" British-born players aren't quite as naturally athletic or skilled as many of their colonial cousins? Certainly, I'm not convinced either way, but interested in your thoughts & opinions on how this westernized country that invented the game and has over 50 million people remains so mediocre overall...and not just at cricket, but pretty much most sports

The "less naturally athletic or skilled" made me laugh.

There are clear environmental factors holding back English sport and cricket in particular.
a) Long and cold winters making outdoor sport limited in the winter with early nightfall.
b) Variable wather in summer
c) The effects of the "anti-comptition" movement in the 80s
d) Decline in school sport and a move away from a rounded education
e) Fashion of only playing and being interested in Football
f) Admin is still very much a product of the class system and doesnt understand the modern world.
g) Diet and drinking culture

The best cricketers I have ever seen not to have made it are English. Guys that never had the structure, opportunites or refining needed to be special yet could do things Ive never seen others do.

Regarding foreign born players there are at least 2 reasons why there are so many
1) UK is still the 'mother country' and draws people due to the passport, the pound, its diverse communities and history
2) Foreign players are traditionaly treated better than local born players. There seems to be a specialness to them that makes them more apealing and glamerous than English born and raised players. Basically they stand out, have a higher profile and that translates to having to do less to get selected. There have been fashions. There was the West Indian and South African period, then the Australian period and now we are in the 2nd South African period with the posibility of moving into an Asian period.

The best thing for a semi-decent English cricketer to do to kick start their career would be to go overseas, come back with a tan, a fake accent and a forged pasport

 

[Dissector]

I think I may forget about the Test today – Amidst yesterday’s despair I take a lot of comfort from the fact that it appears that a 53 old man may be about to win a major sporting trophy – my chance may come yet! - I may watch that instead even though the gent concerned is an Aussie

Yeah Greg Norman's run is sensational regardless of what happens today. Incidentally he was born the same year as a certain Ian Botham. Who knows.....?

 

[Zinzan]

The "less naturally athletic or skilled" made me laugh.

There are clear environmental factors holding back English sport and cricket in particular.
a) Long and cold winters making outdoor sport limited in the winter with early nightfall.
b) Variable wather in summer
c) The effects of the "anti-comptition" movement in the 80s
d) Decline in school sport and a move away from a rounded education
e) Fashion of only playing and being interested in Football
f) Admin is still very much a product of the class system and doesnt understand the modern world.
g) Diet and drinking culture

The best cricketers I have ever seen not to have made it are English. Guys that never had the structure, opportunites or refining needed to be special yet could do things Ive never seen others do.

Regarding foreign born players there are at least 2 reasons why there are so many
1) UK is still the 'mother country' and draws people due to the passport, the pound, its diverse communities and history
2) Foreign players are traditionaly treated better than local born players. There seems to be a specialness to them that makes them more apealing and glamerous than English born and raised players. Basically they stand out, have a higher profile and that translates to having to do less to get selected. There have been fashions. There was the West Indian and South African period, then the Australian period and now we are in the 2nd South African period with the posibility of moving into an Asian period.

The best thing for a semi-decent English cricketer to do to kick start their career would be to go overseas, come back with a tan, a fake accent and a forged pasport

Yup, seems to be some truth in that. Almost as if the authorities are looking overseas for a great redeemer rather than their own backyard