Controversy reigns on opening day
Decent bowling conditions and some reckless batting contributed to the clatter of wickets on an opening day full of controversy. First came the news of Darren Pattinson's debut - something I am still battling to comprehend.
Born in Grimsby and raised in Australia, Pattinson admitted to me before the start of play that he has never harboured any ambition to play for England. So what on earth is he doing wearing an England cap? That should have been where this whole saga ended.
Innocently enough, Pattinson has taken advantage of the fact that he has a British passport to play some county cricket between seasons in Australia. Aged 30 next week, he offers nothing to England's future, and this is the crucial difference between him and the many others who have represented England having been born elsewhere, or who were raised overseas. They, at least, made the decision to make a life here.
Crucially, after a total of just 11 first-class matches both here and in Australia in all of this time, how can the selectors really be sure that Pattinson is worthy of receiving such special treatment?
I have nothing whatsoever against Pattinson on a personal level, none of this is his fault and he seems to be as surprised as anybody. But I must take issue with our selectors whose responsibility, I would argue, extends more than merely to picking players.
What message does this send to English county cricketers who dream of playing for England - and, specifically in this case, to Chris Tremlett, who was actually called into the squad before Pattinson?
Barely had we settled down after this news when AB de Villiers had the nerve to claim a catch at slip that he clearly dropped. Andrew Strauss was the batsman, and he rightly stood his ground while the umpires conferred. One replay was enough to expose de Villiers' gamesmanship, and loud boos rang out across Headingley. Later, what appeared to be a brilliant catch by Vaughan was overruled by the third umpire who gave Amla the benefit of the doubt.
Seven of England's batsmen made starts, and then got out. Alastair Cook must be excused criticism as he received a poor decision but, especially as England had decided to drop Paul Collingwood and play an extra bowler, it was imperative that wickets were not sold cheaply.
Worryingly, Michael Vaughan made a duck, falling again to Dale Steyn and Tim Ambrose did little to suggest that he will be a long-term prospect at number six. Andrew Flintoff played the worst shot of the lot, flailing at a wide one and being caught behind for 17.
Graeme Smith and Neil McKenzie both looked well set, but the bounce found by Anderson and Flintoff as England got amongst the wickets again made one wonder why Tremlett or Steve Harmison was not chosen.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I could not believe it when I heard we'd picked Pattinson - Unbelievable! What a slap in the face for Hoggard, Jones, Tremlett, Harmison, Plunkett.
I wish the guy well and hope he proves me wrong in this match but he has no experience and offers England no future - a crazy decision and one I wold like to hear the selectors justify!
Complain about this comment
once again jonathon agnew fails to acknowledge the superb contribution of james anderson, by far our best bowler in this game and for the whole year. his line and length was immaculate. graeme smith and arthurs were a disgrace, as was AB (AWFUL BRAT) de Villiers. pathetic SA conduct.
Complain about this comment
An Immature batting from England combined with a disciplined bowling performance from South Africa to leave SA on top. Shameful cheating from A B de Villers which should not go unpunished was a blemish on their day. A welcome return for Fred at least with the ball, and a reminder from Jimmy A of what he can do (again), but what must Simon Jones do to be re-selected, and what message does Pattinson's selection (and poor performance with the ball) send to England's best county bowlers?
Complain about this comment
I normally support the underdogs, and would've supported england at Headingley. But the selectors and Vaughan's crazy antics have made me change my mind. The Saffers look set to win this Test big time, and deservedly so.
The clueless selectors need to be replaced en-masse.
Complain about this comment
Why do I have the feeling that had Tremlett been chosen, it'd garnered nearly the same amount of media questioning and speculation? Or would the roving eye turned on Ambrose, who was only spared the pre-game troubles by the Pattinson Selection? Surely the media and fans are always grasping for scapegoats, but look at today's performance - batting discipline and clear thinking - THAT'S what was missing out there today. Nothing less.
Head in the game, England... Head in the game.
Cheers from the US.
Complain about this comment
There really doesn't need to be some very stern action for abysmal behaviour like de villiers and also the pressure put on the umpires to turn around the Amla decision.
The South Africans and Australians are good at sport but horrible sportsmen, and unfortunately their time of "win at all costs" mentality permeates the sport at all levels.
We are a village cricket team and the opposition last week played with an Australian mindset - you would have thought that they were playing someone worth beating.
I'm sure people will be moaning about the loss of lots of wickets - no doubt the same people who moaned that last weeks test was boring because wickets didn't fall.
Complain about this comment
Can the BBC please drop the vendetta against Pattinson? He's bowled better than anybody in county cricket this season - what was he meant to do, tell them he didn't fancy playing Test match cricket?
He was born to English parents, in England, holds a British passport and has said himself he IS NOT eligible to play for Australia.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I'm afraid Pattinson's selection was an error of judgement by Miller. He is clearly not a special talent, just a decent seamer.
It is a sad day.
Complain about this comment
the whole day has been mired in controversy, and i don't know where to start, but here goes:
1. pattinson's selection is a total disgrace, for all the reasons aggers gave. there is no justification i can think of to excuse it. it is simply unjust that he was selected shead of jones, tremlett, mahmood and especially matthew hoggard on his home ground.
2. billy bowden should be in a circus, not umpiring in test matches. with his exaggerated gestures and showmanship he is clearly more interested in being the centre of attention than in giving correct decisions. two umpiring decisions today have totally altered the day's play: cook was given out when he clearly wasn't, and amla should be out but his coach and captain got the decision changed. it is an utter disgrace. if on-field players cannot appeal or refer a decision, it is disgraceful that the coach and captain of a team can get a decision changed. the whole game is becoming ruined. what the hell is going on?
3. why are umpires never charged with bringing the game into disrepute? if there was a system of grading umpires by their decisions, we would know who the 'good' umpires are. they should have 'averages' worked out by the number of poor decisions as against the total number of decisions made.
4. how are spectators supposed to know whether a decision can or cannot be referred? the game i love is being ruined by this incompetence and inconsistency. but i suppose expecting the icc to do anything constructive about it is like expecting it to rain pound coins.
i have never been so furious at a series of events on the cricket field in my life.
Complain about this comment
Aggers - agreed on Pattinson. On a different note, when will Ian Bell's alarming inability to get runs under pressure get noticed? Only "Skid" Marks (who else?) seems to have picked up on it. Alec Stewart last week claimed that Bell had answered all of his critics - well not this one. Today he was well set and, at a crucial stage, got an inside edge to Kallis. Its hard to imagine an established Australian batsmen getting out at such a time, in such a manner.
Unlike Stewart, I have no financial incentive to promote Bell. As such, objectively, I would rate him as a very gifted player who lacks the crucial ability to score runs when it matters. The fact remains that Bell has never scored a test century when he is the first in the side to reach three figures. A statistic Stewarts agency is unlikely to be promoting. His innings last week was absolute class but then who has ever doubted his quality on a flat deck in the sunshine with the pressure off? We should be grateful to Bell though, as the Ashes of 2005 would never have been so exciting if he had averaged anything decent in a role which required a quality test number 5 who could handle pressure. Graham Thorpe anyone? Bell was wrong then, and he will be lucky to stay in the side if this habit continues. Its Graeme Hick all over again.
Complain about this comment
More worried about Vaughan's batting than Belly's to be honest mechanicalCogbill
Complain about this comment
There was a distinct decision between the Strauss and Amla "decisions" in my mind. Firstly, the Strauss one - Strauss was unsure and so it was up to the umpires to make a decision, which they felt they were unable to do and so referred the decision to the 3rd umpire, which THEY are fully entitled to do.
With the Amla "dismissal", both Amla and the umpires were convinced he was out and the umpires did not decide to refer the decision. Only when Amla walked back did he force the umpires to refer it, effectively asking them to refer the decision.
Also, if the 3rd umpire finds the evidence to be inconclusive, then my understanding was that the ruling made on the field would stand, meaning Amla would be out. Either the 3rd umpire has to have evidence that it is not out, or the decision should stand.
Complain about this comment
There can be no qualms about the legitimacy of Pattinsons selection. He is more English than a number of our current team (birthplace, parents, passport).
To be fair this isn't what the moaning is about - he has only played 11 first class matches (Aus and England) yet he is picked in front of proven bowlers with records of sustained success. If he had been blowing teams away then maybe I could understand it but his slim stats are only marginally ahead of the other proven match winners.
Perhaps the selectors wanted to suprise the boks with a bowler they knew nothing about after having such a good look at our attack last week. Still a baffling and unpopular decision.
Complain about this comment
mechanicalCogbill
The pressure wasn't off Bell last week. His stand with Pietersen saved the England innings. You don't seem to be allowing the facts to get in the way of your entrenched views.
Complain about this comment
Why did they include Pattison over Simon Jones in the first place? He's taking wickets at around 13, and according to the Worcs captain, fit and back to the pace he bowled at in 2005.
Jones arguably bowled even better than Flintoff as the Ashes wore on, and to have both of them back would be a massive boost.
One of the main reasons England beat Australia in 2005 was that they had four decent quick bowlers who complemented each other well. Jones, Hoggard, Flintoff and Harmison was a first-rate attack, and it is a great shame they did not have the chance to play together longer; Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad are not really in quite the same class.
Only the plus side, Panesar is a much better spinner than Giles, although Giles provided more at gully and with the bat. If Broad, who hopefully be a really decent test bowler but isnt quite there yet, is included for his batting ability (especially given that collingwood is now gone) then the need for three other incisive quick bowlers is even greater.
Complain about this comment
I am confused about how referrals to the third umpire work. I know that the rules of cricket in general stipulate that when there is doubt, the benefit goes to the batsman. But decisions would not be referred to the third umpire unless there was doubt. So on that principle it would be pointless to refer anything to the third umpire as it would always have to be judged not out.
Isn't it true that the on-field umpire is supposed to make an initial ruling, and then the third umpire only overturns that decision if it is clearly wrong? I know that's how it works in some other sports (e.g., American Football), and that seems by far the fairest way to do it. Does cricket work differently?
It seems to me that with the Amla non-dismissal, he was initially judged out and it certainly wasn't clear from the replays that he was not out; therefore, he should still have been out. It sounded from the commentary, though, that the on-field umpire did not make his own ruling before referring it.
Can someone please clarify?
Complain about this comment
My view of the whole Pattinson mascarade is this: the selectors are still trying to keep their "unchanged side" together (albeit with the inclusion of Flintoff!), and are therefore reluctant to bring anyone into the side who might seriously challenge for a place, especially in the bowling department. In other words, Pattinson was the best stop-gap available, ensuring that Sidebottom will come straight back into the team when he has recovered from his injury - which may have been a lot tougher if, say, Simon Jones had been picked... and had taken a bucketful of wickets! (Even more so with Hoggard or Harmison, I guess!!) No such danger with Pattinson (I suspect - and so do the selectors!), who will, at best, have a half-decent game, and will happily make way for the third test.
I am unsure whether we should applaud their pragmatic approach (in choosing this course of action, they keep some key players on their side - well, Sidebottom! - and spare themselves some potentially disruptive decisions later in the summer), or lambast it as cynical and short-sighted...
Complain about this comment
The decision to leave out Collingwood and play Pattinson was obviously wrong. Another shocking decision by Bowden today, you are just wondering how he is related to South Africa because they must have something on him.
There was one success from the day though Ambrose got 12 more runs than I was expecting!
Complain about this comment
I can't believe AB de Villiers claimed that catch! There's a lot of issues affecting the spirit of the way cricket is played but I never thought I'd see what amounts to blatant cheating on a cricket pitch.
Take something like sledging which at it's worse is pretty bad but even the arguably the worst purveyors of that dark art, the Australians, would never ever claim a catch which was clearly grounded.
AB de Villiers should be throughly ashamed of himself and if Collingwood is banned for not making his bowlers bowl quickly enough then surely de Villiers should have an enforced time away from the game to reflect on his underhand actions.
Complain about this comment
Evilspindoctor,
Last week was one of Bell's better knocks and when he started the pressure was on I agree. However, one wonders what would have happened had KP not raced to a ton and taken the pressure off? I would like to be corrected on this but, to date, he has consistently failed to score runs when it matters. Of course all runs matter, just some runs matter more than others. A gutsy 85 today seeing us to the close is the sort of thing I want to see (and have never seen so far). I am not sure that we have much better in the wings at present so Bell may need to be persevered with but he is fragile under pressure and the Aussie loves that.
Complain about this comment
I thoroughly agree with Jonathan. Tremlett must feel like he's been kicked in the box! It smacks of if your face doesn't fit. (just ask Chris read). Whoever made the decision should be sacked, or do the decent thing and resign.
Complain about this comment
Wow what double standards Aggers, how can you say Amla got benefit of doubt , when replays clearly showed the ball bounced before the catch was taken by captain, I am very amused by ALL england commentators both on BBC and SKY are saying Amla got benefit of doubt, that is just so wrong.
Micheal Holding clearly was one person who was right in saying yes ball bounced before Vaughan caught the ball and everybody else wanted amla gone when he was not out, didnt Kevin peterson got called back last year against india then every body on TMS and SKY were saying wow justice is done right decision is made and now the very same people are saying Amla should have gone or he got benefit of Doubt, there was no doubt in that was not a catch thats why he was called back.
Complain about this comment
Perfect swing conditions. I'm sure England's most consistent swing bowler over the last few years will knock them over tommorow...oh wait
Complain about this comment
Im am losing so much faith with Englands selectors.
Michael 'oh but hes a great captain' Vaughan continues to prove his best days are behind him and how come Hoggard is dropped after one poor test in NZ? Didnt Harmison play 4 poor series before he was dropped.
And as for the wicket keeper situation, if we compare every keeper to Gilchrist we are never going to find a keeper to last a year in the squad!!!
Complain about this comment
The problem with the Amla decision is not what the result was, it is that Bowden saw fit to ignore the Test match conditions! Under the circumstances of the Amla decision Bowden has no right to refer the appeal to the third umpire, he can consult with the other on field umpire and if they are not sure they give the batsman the benefit of the doubt.
"Only if the line of vision of both umpires is obscured shall the bowler’s end umpire be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpire as in Clause 3.2.2 (b). "
Certainly Bowden's line of vision was not obscured, the same is true in the Strauss case, how can we have the umpires making it up as they go along? If the fielding captain were to ask the umpires to review a decision it's a code of conduct violation, why isn't it when Amla did it?
We have had the case of an umpire who correctly followed the Laws and playing conditions being sent down for 're-education' why is no action taken against one who flouts the playing conditions?
Complain about this comment
I have no big problem with Pattinson's inclusion. He's got a decent record and has bowled very well for Notts. He was included in the 30 man Champions trophy squad so it shouldn't be such a huge shock.
Only us English can write a bloke off after 3 overs of international cricket. Give him a chance for goodness sake people.
Complain about this comment
Felton what was kevin peterson doing standing on boundary line last year against india when he was given out by Simon taufel , Amla's case is exactly the same then I didn't hear any grumblings all of them were saying justice was done.
Complain about this comment
This was a dreadful day's test cricket, what with wickets falling and people getting runs. Bring back Sunday at Lords, proper Test cricket, I say.
Complain about this comment
feltonpg its called common sense. its the likes of you that live politically correct lives not offending anyone.
If we all lived by the rules we would all be as boring as you listing the wording of rules and laws off the top of our heads
Complain about this comment
Pattinson was born in England, I assume to to English parents, and spent his early years there. Thus England is where his 'roots' lie.
Morally he is better qualified to play for England than the players born overseas who come here to earn a living (and not out of any great sense of loyality to the nation) and somehow end up qualifying to play for England by 'residency'.
If 'living' in the country is given primacy over being born in it we could see the English cricket team go the same way as the NZ rugby team with all their Pacific Islanders playing for the All Blacks.
Complain about this comment
i am not writing pattinson off after 3 overs, i am saying he should never have been included in the first place!!! and i said that from the moment i heard about his inclusion this morning. the selectors have clearly lost the plot.
i repeat my point, what is the point of jones, mahmood, hoggard and tremlett struggling away to get fit, to refine their actions etc, if they are then ignored and a complete unknown (aged nearly 30!!!!) who by his own admission had no prior ambitions to play for england is suddenly leapfrogged over them. its a total disgrace.
Complain about this comment
For those of you complaining about amla bear in mind England tried similar last year against India with KP but failed to get the decision overturned - coach, players shouting from the balcony....
As for dodgy catches Vaughan today, G. Jones against Bangledesh in Durham, was it Hussain in Sri Lanka - there have been a number.
Anyway can England criticise anyone for gamensmanship, poor behaviour, etc. The jelly bean incident, the rugby tackle, collingwood mouthing off at warne in melbourne for no apparent reason, the list goes on.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear england selectors. You have truely messed this one up. calling up Pattinson is definitley one of the worst decision made in my life-time!
There are 6 bowlers in county cricket i feel so sorry for. Hoggard, Harmison, Jones, tremlett, Bresnan and Mahmood who all want to play fotr there nation unlike Mr pattinson who never aspired to play for england. I have seen Pattinson on a number of occasions this season and he is not an international player where as the previous 6 players mentioned could all make the team.
I fell most sorry for Hoggard. This was his home ground and one he knows well and could definitley perform at and hold down a place in the test side. Dropped after one bad test is harsh but this is worse. His consistancy is what we need not half-volley pattinson
I have lost all respect for Moores and Goeff Miller and before the replies of hes only bowled 3 overs returned, what i want for England is someone who will wear their heart on their sleeve like Hoggy.
Hoggy i hope your test career is not over but sadly i think it is. Congratulations selectors on treating a treasure of swing bowling and english cricket this way.
Complain about this comment
haha sajid mahmood is finished. knock him off these lists.
if harmison is finished for bowling short and wide then mahmood is definately finished
Complain about this comment
The umpiring today was awful. The whole flurry of England wickets was caused by a bad mistake by Bowden followed by what has to be one of the worst pieces of cheating I have ever seen by a fielder. SA should be forced to field with one less man for the entire 2nd innings as punishment! Villers should be out grovelling to both teams for his blatent cheating, and should consider himself lucky to be every picked again! Because of him Vaughan was denied a catch that on any other day would have been given as umpires over-reacted by being ultra-cautious. If SA win this test it will be down to Bad umpires and cheating, no amount of skill over the next 4 days will change that.
Complain about this comment
petrevus -
1. The replays were inconclusive on whether the ball bounced, it was impossible to tell if Vaughan had his hands under the ball or not - if you've ever seen the phenomenon of "foreshortening" explained you'll know that replays can be misleading. If the entire Sky and BBC commentary teams think it was inconclusive, I'll take them over you.
2. Pietersen was NOT called back last year against India, he had to accept the decision despite the entire stadium realising that the ball had bounced. Today, the SA team managed to overturn the decision by putting pressure on the umpires.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
what are the selectors doing? What about keeping to players within the squad? Tremlett is not a bad player and certainly offers more to this patterson player, who even vaughen admitte he had only seen him bat 1 over!!!
What a joke. AB should be ashamed of himself, but at least the umpires exposed him, things like that should mean he gets some kind of fine, that would stop this claiming catches.
Shame we didnt have them 4 down at the close, but from thr highlights i saw freddie is well up for it. Hopefully there will be plenty of cloud tommorow, so we can bowl them out cheap
Complain about this comment
Whilst De Villiers claiming of the catch was plain cheating the Amla 'dimissal' was far more intersting.
As you may be able to figure out I'm an Indian fan and witnessesd Kevin Pietersen given out by Simon Taufel, walk back three quarters of the way to the changing room and then stop after getting advice from the changing room. After a viewing from the third umpire he was recalled. Now the thing to bear in mind is the Taufel gave him out.
Amla's situation was identical. So why the outcry? If you live by the sword you die by it. England set the precedent and so can have no complaints.
I thinks Aggers saying with certainty that the Vaughan catch was good is plain bizarre. I saw it and thougt it hit the ground, so did Michael Holding. David Gower thought it was good. That means there was doubt and the right decision was made.
Complain about this comment
This is one england line-up we will never see again. Ambrose batting at six and Pattinson selected ahead of Tremlett, Hoggard, Jones etc.
Tremlett and Hoggard can feel particularly hard done by. Tremlett was called up before Pattinson but was not selected. He was 12th man for the entire 2005 ashes series and when he did get his chance against India last summer he bowled well.
Hoggard had been our best bowler for 2 years before he had one bad game and got dropped. He can feel pretty hard done by.
AB de Villiers should be disciplined for claiming that catch - how did he think he was going to get away with it?
Complain about this comment
terrier 26
It must be a relief to have the shy and retiring South African KP playing for your team. Never arrogant, never cocky and a true Englishman. You must be proud.
Complain about this comment
uniquenamehere
Wrong fella'. Pietrsen was called back.
Complain about this comment
Let's have a bit of Paul Nixon revers-slog sweeping and jellybeans...
Now THAT was a summer!
Complain about this comment
Intriguing.
Unlike most people who've commented on this blog I don't think I should be an England selector, though I must admit when I heard we'd picked this guy Pattinson this morning I was a bit bemused.
I can only assume that the selectors have been following English cricket and therefore been impressed by what they've seen. It reminds me of a few years ago at Headingley when Neil Mallender got his debut: a horse for a course, he took a load of wickets; 5-50 in the first innings, 8 in the match (ref. cricinfo web site). No-one complained then, but this time it back-fired.
A real puzzle. What odds would you have got on that yesterday ...
Complain about this comment
unique
get your facts right first peterson called back against india , he was given out then he was called back.it happened exactly like amla
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/302974.html
Out, In Like Flynn and Out Again: There have been some bizarre dismissals down the years, but few batsmen could have been given out twice in three balls in the same innings. It happened to Kevin Pietersen in the afternoon, with Simon Taufel declaring him out even though Mahendra Singh Dhoni had dived and taken the edge on the bounce. The Indians were miffed when Pietersen was allowed to return to the crease, after his trudge to the pavilion ended with team-mates alerting him from the balcony. Zaheer Khan wouldn't be denied though, and a beautiful delivery slanting away from the batsman sent him back minutes later. This time, there were no comebacks.
Complain about this comment
Why are we mere mortals so adept at shifting blame.
A player taking a low down catch diving forward can never be sure that it has been taken cleanly. Michael Vaughan was far more certain than AB de Villiers that he took his catch cleanly, however, both were shown to be grounded. If Michael had thought he had not taken the catch cleanly surely he would have indicated a foul catch to the umpires.
If there is any doubt the benefit goes to the batsman.
Should Strauss's apparent dismissal benefit from the replays and not Amla's?
We should not shift our blame from a poor and disappointing batting display by England , as well as poor team selection,onto AB de Villiers, Amla or even Vaughan.
This brings back memories of World cup football, with Rooney stamping on an opponent's ' testimonials' and being red carded and contributing to England's departure. The blame was then shifted to a mere wink.
If you shift the blame you will never take responsibility for the true shortcomings and not improve.
Complain about this comment
if the selectors really HAVE been following county cricket, that would be a first!!!
no, they just made the customary cock-up. simple as that.
Complain about this comment
As usual the English sense of fair play means we get the wrong end of it. With the English media etc we will always stamp on our own players - collingwood vs NZ and yet De Villiers blatant cheating and the AMla situation are compared with Vaughan's and Pietersens(when he was given out!!). Unless we take the AUssi and SA view of win at all costs we are always going to be second rate. We must decide. Champion fair play and accept we will loose more than we win or.......
Complain about this comment
to kapil_devil
i like people who wear their hearts on their sleaves such as KP does. yes he can be too cocky which was his downfall today. But he knows his ability whilst Smith in all honesty appears to be jealous of English success and wants to win at all costs and not in true sporting manor
Complain about this comment
uniquenamehere - here's the proof that he was called back. 'Clearly hit the turf'? Whatever!!!!!!!!
'Khan to Pietersen, no run, madness!
Pietersen was beaten twice in the over, then gets one fuller outside off stump, drives hard, gets a thick edge, which replays clearly indicated hit the turf before Dhoni snapped it up! They all appealed, Simon Taufel raised the finger, Pietersen had already started to walk...then with the tv showing what happened - the ball did hit the grass just before going into Dhoni's gloves - Pietersen is called back from near the ropes. The third umpire is referred to and NOT OUT is the verdict. Pietersen was almost home when he looked up at the balcony and saw his mates waving him back. People will have their views on this, I'm all too sure... '
Complain about this comment
terrier26
You know, SA fans probably like their captain to be passionate and wear his heart on his sleeve. His record speaks for itself.
As for jealousy of England, jealous of what exactly!!!! This I want to hear.
Complain about this comment
The selectors have made possibly the most astonishing decision today since Chris Cowdrey was appointed captain all those years ago.
The ONLY possible sensible decision once it was confirmed that Sidebottom wasn't fit was to replace him with Flintoff, give us 4 bowlers plus Colly's occasional swingers that you can argue would be effective at Headlngley.
Instead we have an unknown pace bowler who denied both our main seamers (Anderson and Flintoff) their preferred ends and posed little threat. We have no Colly as a back up bowler and as a result will heap greater demands on the aforementioned 2 bearing in mind Broad is carrying a knock as well.
The knock on effect on the batting is that we have lengthened the tail instead of having Colly at 6, Flintoff 7, Ambrose 8 and Broad 9 which is much more solid
I would love to know the theory behind the selections. Someone should be accountable for this disaster, or at the very least explain it.
Complain about this comment
The English have to bring back Hoggard and Jones. Hoggard was dropped after one bad test, but he is still England's most consistent bowler in my opinion.
And Jones is back and picking up tons of wickets in the county championship, and he's proven at international level.
Pattinson is not an international bowler. Just a decent county seamer.
Complain about this comment
I find the commentary extremely biased; why is it always bad umpiring/unfair player behaviour when anything goes against the English team? As many people noted here, KP getting his decision overturned in the India match last year....everyone agreed that it was fair....now Amla should have walked and not waited; Smith should not have asked Amla to wait...all British doublestandards...I really wonder about the biased nature of the British commentators...almost all, except Geoff Boycott and maybe Tony Greig upto an extent harp about the English players and stop talking about the opposition...while one understands that everyone has his/her own patriotic feelings, that should not come in the way of neutral commentating...and let Pattinson play and prove or disprove himself rather than ppl already passing judgement on him...
Complain about this comment
Why all this controversy about Darren Pattinson? Grimsby, so far as I am aware, was not part of Australia at the time of his birth and is not now either. The man is English and he should be getting our support, regardless of whether you think he deserves to be there.
As for the claim of 'no ambition to play for England', I suspect he can't quite believe himself what's happening to him at the moment. When you've been working as a roof tiler less than two years ago, just playing first class cricket must be a dream. So get off his back and give him a chance. It seems to me that a lot of people have just had a go on the basis that nobody saw it coming without actually looking at what he's done this season.
Complain about this comment
OMG, what does it take to get a comment reported on here.
My entry at 8.51 has 'been referred to moderators.' Was it my chutzpah in questoining Aggers, Gower or my bringing up Pietersen's non dismissial against India?
The poor soul who complained needs to get a life!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
As a Yorks CC member I must say T T Bresnan must be a better bet he can bat too . He is ECB MVP this season . I am in the members stand Saturday so will be watching with interest
Complain about this comment
54 you are completely missing the point over pattinson. it is the fact that he was catapulted into the team over umpteen other bowlers with PROVEN records that is the bone of contention. be honest, it was crazy to do what the selectors did today.
if they are going to make such outrageous decisions they will become evn more of a laughing-stock than they already are. an as for peter moores, he must be the luckiest man on earth to have got the job he has. he couldn't organize the proverbial inebriation ceremony in a brewery.
Complain about this comment
Feel quite sorry for Pattinson. He's on a bit of a hiding to nothing.
Let's just hope he takes 7-30 in the morning session tomorrow and shuts us all up eh?
;*)
Complain about this comment
pontoon_g117
If you place of birth is the only criteria for represting a nation why are KP and Strauss playing for England?
Point is Pattinson lives and makes his living in Aus.
How many other countries would this happen in?
Complain about this comment
Can the people saying Pattinson is just an average county bowler wait until he has bowled more than 3 overs before they judge his ability at this level! If Flintoff is fit enough to bowl then we only need four bowlers and if he isn't then he shouldn't be playing!
Complain about this comment
Pattinson is one of those joke selections you laugh about 10 years after it happens. Unfortunately we've got to wait those 10 years until our faces can flicker away from a grimace. The selectors almost managed to surpass theirselves however with the continued selection of ambrose, and his promotion to 6, the man just cant bat. On a brighter note i agree with earlier comments about James Anderson. Whether Aggers gives him enough credit is neither here nor there, but he has really grabbed his chance and become the bowler in our side you wouldn't drop and his batting really is underrated, as proved with yet another not out today. I don't know if we will win this test match or not, but despite a pretty dreary outlook on todays play it's far from over, especially as most of our wickets fell because of bad batting rather than exceptional bowling.
Complain about this comment
Clearly there is more to this than we have heard. The obvious thing to do in the absence of Sidebottom was to bring Collinwood back into the team. This is unlikely to be a game where five bowlers are needed anyway (unless they really are scared about Flintoff, in which case he shouldnt be playing).
I can only imagine that whatever it was happenne so late that they just went for the closest bowler available.
Complain about this comment
After such an intriguing day´s cricket, characterised by the usual England batting shortcomings and some excellent England bowling in conditions that had greatly improved in the afternoon, it is a pity that the day may be remembered for the controversies.
I think that the Pattinson issue has been well covered by you; Aggers, and my fellow bloggers and the majority decision seems to be that it is all very weird. I will only add the following: Why on earth should someone so little known be called up, when the number of people in England pressing for his inclusion could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand? Unfortunately, most of them -- the people not the fingers --appear to have been selectors. The really deplorable thing is that it has sent out a very bad message to Simon Jones, Harmison, Hoggard and a few other seamers who thought they might be on the verge of selection again. One only had to listen to Hoggie talking at lunch-time on TMS to see the effect this has had, although he was pretty diplomatic about it. The sad thing is that he was also resigned to the worst.
The umpiring? Well, noone is perfect. It seems that the present team, especially Biily Bowden, are not in the best form and, just as players like Collingwood have had to do, should have a rest from Test cricket until they regain their form. While he is resting, Billy Bowden should be politely asked to have his eyes tested. One only has to see the photo on the BBC website of the Amla-Vaughan incident to realise that noone was in a better position than he was to take a decision on the matter; he was only a few yards away and was down on his haunches watching irt intensely. Amla thought he was out and was walking and it was only under intolerable pressure from the SA coach and Graeme Smith that the umpires decided to call on the opinion of the third umpire. I'm not saying that the final decision was incorrect but I am surprised that bloggers such as putrevus can be so sure that Amla was not out. Whatever.
What is beyond doubt is that players such as Collingwood at Lords and Cook today have had their innings curtailed by very poor umpiring decsions. On the whole and in the long run, bad umpiring decisions tend to affect both teams equally, though that hasn't been the case in this series. Such a large number of poor decisions in six days of Test cricket is not acceptable and I hope that Billy Bowden and his minor partner-in-error return refreshed from their rest, thoughI know they won't be asked to take one.
The AB de Villiers incident was disgraceful. Is there nothing that can be done to sanction such blatant behaviour, visible to all and sundry? What is the principle about "bringing the game into disrepute" about, if not?
Complain about this comment
oh yes 63, the closest bowler available...and chris tremlett had gone to the toilet, i suppose???
Complain about this comment
totally agree 64, bowden is a muppet and de villiers is a cheat
Complain about this comment
It is clear that there is no logical reason for picking Patinson above Simon Jones on age, experience, current form, extra batting ability or looks - all of which Jones wins hands down. It is not unreasonable therefore for the seletors to tell us the baffled public why.....
Second pont there is no doubt that AB de villiers should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute - blatant cheating is not acceptable and he and his fellows should be and probably are thoroughly ashamed of his action
Complain about this comment
Yes, I am an England (and Wales) supporter but I think that there is a huge difference between the two "not outs" today and it really does confirm that the "spirit of cricket" is well and truly dead.
Firstly, before I get accused of blind nationalism, let me state two horrendous recent decisions that I abhorred that went uncontested. The first being when Harmison chucked the ball at Inzamam whilst in his crease, Inzy jumping to avoid the ball and getting ran out! Shocking all all levels. Firstly, England appealing, and secondly it being given out.
The second case is the recent one dayer against NZ when Sid knocked over the batsman (forget which) and then appealing for the run out. The crime being that Colly had all the time in the World to call the guy back. Two examples of England displaying that the spirit of cricket is something long gone.
Right the Strauss dismissal. Firstly, how embarrassing for DeVilliers to pretend he caught it. But perhaps more significantly how wrong that his skipper who had seen it all to pretend that it was a catch. Spirit of cricket equals minus one hundred for all concerned.
The Amla one is far more murky in whether or not the catch was taken. On first view (as live) you couldn't tell. Then from one angle, the same as Amla's view it looked 100% out. The other view it looked 90% not out. Amla displaying true sportsmanship walks. Then his Captain, who earlier was tryng to cheat claiming a grounded catch, waves him back as there is a chance of the third umpire being consulted and the decision overturned. In the circumstances the third umpire can't give it out and rightly so.
But where is the spirit of cricket? Mikey Holding is my benchmark on fairplay and decency - wouldn't it be wonderful if cricketers could trust one another to be honest and say whether they made a catch or not?
Was Gilly the last honest bloke and the last of the walkers (Amla excepted).
Soon cricket will degenerate into the same pathetic situation that is currently in football. Winning, by whatever means, will become more and more important as more and more money pours into the game.
So goodbye "cricket" in the true sense and hello to a game I will soon become to look at with the same guarded view that I watch football.
Sorry for rambling...and I do expect a heap of abuse for posting this from the Saffers.
Complain about this comment
Watching Pattinson on the (admittedly edited) highlights he looks like a journeyman. Not much pace and no movement in the air, although a little bit off the pitch. No evidence that he is going to seriously threaten even an average test batsman let alone the likes of Smith or Kallis.
Vaughan's opinion of Pattinson's selection was clear in that he gave him three overs at the start - perhaps to get them out of the way - and didn't return to him.
In a way it doesn't matter much, because he will presumably be dropped for Sidebottom in the third test and that will be that, but in another sense it does matter, because it is important that players have confidence in the selection process and know that people are being chosen on merit and not on a random hunch. Otherwise they may conclude - like Hoggard and perhaps Tremlett - that it doesn't matter how well you perform, if you are going to be leapfrogged by also-rans who have had a good couple of games.
Complain about this comment
You English are all the same. Your team were out played and are now picking on the new guy and crying foul about de villiers. I'll agree that de villiers was wrong and should not have appealed for the wicket of Strauss. However, you all seem to forget your captain fantastic did not collect the ball cleanly in his "catch" off Amla...surely he new the ball had hit the ground..i think those who label de villiers a disgrace have a very biased opinion. You are also claiming that the coaching staff should not have told Amla to go back, remember what happened in 2007 with Pieterson...As for Botham..he is the most biased of all comentators..its getting to the point where I turn the volume down on the tele..
English sport fans need to realise that you are average in all sports so stop looking at other people to blame...If I was English I'd be embarrased with some of the comments on here...
Complain about this comment
13 wickets have fallen on Day One with no batsman having half a century against his name. Bowlers are doing well. Will the batsmen rise up to the occasion ?
Dr. Cajetan Coelho
Complain about this comment
rgbhajee
Mikey Holding the benchmark for fairplay and decency?
The same Mikey who kicked the stumps out of the ground when he was given a decicons in his favour in NZ?
Oh and Mikey said England set the precedent, which they did. He also said it wasn't a clean catch.
From Mikey's conclusions England have no one to blame but themselves.
Complain about this comment
Amla was definately not out...the ball was clearly grounded while Vaughan tried to gather it....pathetic how you are all trying to smother the events of a poor batting performance...I hope Amla makes 100
Complain about this comment
Post 72 should read wasn't given a decision in his favour.
Sorry
Complain about this comment
I cant see why Aggers can critise Pattinson's choice..yes a slap in a face for Hoggard,Harmison and Tremlett but who cares?
Pattinson has been chosen and people should just get on with it, espically Aggers in his poistion.
Why is Hoggard not being chosen?
Out for form
Harmison
Out of Form
Tremlett
Maybe the pitch wasnt the right ideal siutation for the lad.
Also get to see Freddie back, but I wish some people would keep their mouth shut about Ambrose, he is a wicketkeeper, thats his job, not to bat jst to catch the red ball and to stump or catch the batsman out.
Also I am appauled that Aggers can critise Flintoff for playing an awful shot.The others kept nicking edges to slip.
Give Freddie some time and he will be back to his best.
Complain about this comment
70, if i was south african i would be ashamed of the behaviour of my team today
Complain about this comment
Geoff Boycott has been singing the praises of his own Yorkshire lad who screwed the pooch over the Twenty20, making out that guy is as English as a Yorkshire pudding even though he's a Pakistani citizen, born in Pakistan to two Pakistani parents who only moved to England a few years ago and does not have a British passport.
If Pattinson was black or a Pakistani transplant "Brit" none of you lot in the media would have dared lift your head above the parapet.
Fact is Pattinson has two English parents and is born in England.
Do I think Pattinson should have played?
NO WAY.
The guy thinks he's Australian. He's lived in Australia most of his life, has admitted he never even harboured particular ambition to put the Three Lions Cap on and he should never ever have been in contention on that common sense basis alone.
Beyond his nationality, what a kick in the teeth to Chris Tremlett. Tremlett, Simon Jones, Harmison and Hoggard should all be above Pattinson in the pecking order talent wise, along with gone knows how many others.
Complain about this comment
xxxCORRECTxxx
Why did the ECb not realise that the yorkie lad was Pakistani.
After all he captaine England u15 and was the England u17 captain when all the hoo haa broke out. Confuesd?
Complain about this comment
Hey - ProudSouthAfrican: Us English are not all the same: there has been some rather unfortunate comment on this blog, but not all of us have commented that way.
At the end of it all, the England batters under-performed today, but I dont think England are out of the game, and at the end of the day, we'd all take a game with incident and controversy versus a placid draw any day!
(Anyone remember Atherton versus Donald perchance ..?)
Complain about this comment
75, do you think someone should TELL ambrose that his job is to catch the red thing, did you SEE the dolly catch he dropped off anderson in the last game???
Complain about this comment
Kapil_Devil
The weirdest thing about the whole scenario with the young Yorkshire lad IS that he - a Pakistani citizen born in Pakistan to two Pakistani parents who is not a British citizen - could play for the England U15 and U17 teams.
He should never have been eligible to play for England in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Please correct me if I am wrong but did Amla not give himself out by walking. I don't think there was an appeal and therefore the umpire made no decision and without an appeal the umpire can not call the player back. On the other hand Strauss stood his ground and forced a decision.
Complain about this comment
I for one was a touch startled but delighted by the selection of Mr D Pattitson, the Postman. It shows that if you are prepared to put in hard graft and toil away anything is possible. What better message to send out to the county circuit, than the this kind of selection, this in turn gives out added belief and incentives to other 30 something pros, helping them raise their games and consequently the overall standard of competition. Plus the selection has a touch of novelty in this bland corporate sporting age; that you can go from a mundane job to sporting stardom in half a year.
England are far too concerned with selecting young players with POTENTIAL. Take Stuart Broad, I fully agree he undoubtadly has the attributes for long and successful career, but to put him in the team just because of the big P rather takes the pee. It should be the case of having to put in huge graft to get a test place, where you make sacrifises. The harder you work the more hungary you become the better you know your game and consequently the more mentally strong you are.
Although Pattsion is 30, he has obivously worked extremly hard down under, in the result gaining the attention of a very strong Notts team. Furthermore full credit to him for he was prepared to relocate and lose the secruity of his job to give this cricketing oppitunity a proper bash.
Complain about this comment
ProudSouthAfrican - Well done for standing up for de villiers - can't blame him for claiming a catch that he 'new' he had grounded - what was he supposed to say when his captain and the whole team were celebrating around him and certainly did not need any replay even for the least agile of mind to see that he had grounded, grassed and pushed it before scooping it up. So good on you by sticking by your man.
Complain about this comment
84, i assume your comments were ironic, but isn't it worrying and disturbing that this kind of blatant cheating is forcing its way into cricket just as it has in football. maybe de villiers is related to cristiano ronaldo???
Complain about this comment
xxxCORRECTxxx
You're absolutely right, he should never have been allowed but he was.
And by your rules should KP be in the oppositoin line up. Born in SA, but doesn't even think he's English. He just came over because he couldn't get in his state side in SA.
What next? Danish Kaneria playing for England?
Complain about this comment
77. what you are saying is utterly shameful. The England counties have an influx of South African players who are looking to a featherbed which will pay them infinitely better wages than they get in South Africa.
For me as an England cricket fan, this is a disgrace. The young Pakistani-born lad from Dewsbury who has lived there since he was very small and has played for England under15s doesn't compare with Saffers (and dare one say Aussies) prolonging their ageing careers at our counties' expense.
The ECB must do something about this very shortly and I am writing to them now on this topic.
What fools we are putting up with rubbish from other continents, who take full advantage of our generosity.
Complain about this comment
this is about has good has,our summer weather(pretty poor).
how can pattinson be better then s jones,hoggard(ruff end of the pineapple by the way).
Complain about this comment
MechanicalCogBill please try and refrian from talking absolute rubbish. You say Bell scored 199 last week when the pressure was off. Hmm..interesting definition of no pressure as England had lost 3 wickets for 4 runs and were struggling at 117-3 when he came to the crease. Also, in the Ashes 05 Bell actually batted at No.4, not at No.5 as you stated. Please get your facts straight before you criticise.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me, or is the umpiring in international cricket geting worse and worse? We have the technology to refer decisions (like the Cook dissmisal) so why not use tv replays?
Complain about this comment
Freddie
we don't have TV replays because of the Vaughan incident. No one can agree regardless of TV.
I get your point though and why they can't use telly to see if a ball pitched in line I have no idea.
Complain about this comment
Re: Amla's re-instatement
1) Video evidence can be inconclusive. In Pietersen vs Dhoni it was blatantly obvious the ball bounced. Vaughan's catch was 50:50. Chances are he had his fingers under the ball but we'll never know so anyone claiming emphatically either way needs their heads feeling.
2) If the SA team can ask for a re-run of the video and 3rd umpire referral for this scenario, why couldn't the England team have sent Alistair Cook back to the middle while video evidence of his "dismissal" was assessed by the 3rd umpire?
Either we do technology or we don't. Can somebody please make up their minds.
Complain about this comment
The only place where TV would be useful is when it can provide a clear unequivocal answer quickly - hotspot would be a good here as it doesnt take time to bring to the fore, and seems very accurate.
Personally, I don't like hawkeye. I suspect that it is not as accurate as the hawkers of it would have you believe. Any method that involves extrapolation is questionable in this way - don't believe the hype.
For me, though, I think the wrong decisions add to the spice rather than detract from the game. It would be quite dull if umpires got everything right ...
Complain about this comment
I'm fairly new to cricket, only been getting into it for the last few years as my father in law is from the West Indies and doesn't like football!!
I find myself inceasingly supporting anyone other than England as I do in football due to the narrow minded johnny foriegner's a big bad cheat and you wouldn't get an honest Englishman behaving like that attitude displayed by the media. The journalism on a whole is painfully one sided.
Setting aside the manner in which the Vaughen 'catch' incident was brushed under the carpet I can't help feeling that the reporting of the AB incident wouldn't hve been so disparaging if it had been an Englishman on the end of the catch.
Pieterson was sent back by the balcony against India and in both cases TV showed that the ball grounded and wasn't taken cleanly.
Complain about this comment
huxleysdad
Cook couldn't appeal beacuse the catch in that case was clean. You can't refer whether he touched it or not.
They're the rules dear boy.
Oh and Dhoni's clearly bounced did it? Well, I felt Vaughans did. So there's the problem with technology. (Note Mikey Holding didn't think it was a clean catch, Gower did......and so it goes.)
Complain about this comment
I have for some time been surprised at England's acceptance of mediocrity. Ambrose should not be playing test match cricket- his keeping has not been immaculate and his batting is technically flawed. The decision to play him at six following his recent poor form and obvious inadequacies was crass. Prior has been keeping well at Hove this season and averages over 40 in test matches. He should be batting at six for England. Perhaps someone could also explain what Stuart Broad has done to justify his position in the England side and as the media's current darling. He bowls too many loose deliveries, is not quick enough to hurry top international batsmen and does not make the ball deviate consistently. The Aussies must be licking their lips, and as for Pattinson- the mind boggles.
Complain about this comment
i have never heard such rubbish. wrong decisions add to the spice!!! what is the point of PLAYING a game if the decisions of the officials negate the players' efforts??? talk sense!!!!
i suppose you would be equally sanguine if an umpire's decision robbed your team of winning a cup final ???
Complain about this comment
tanbridgemarkos- Chris Read is the best English keeper, and is as good at batting as any of the other players who have been in the England set up for the last few years (Jones, Prior, Mustard) What people have to realise is that there is a huge difference between county and international cricket.
Complain about this comment
Its simple, we need the referral sytem in, Ambrose, Pattinson OUT, and Tremlett out as No.12. Mustard/Prior in at wicket-keeper, i would say Mustard but i'm a Durham fan so slightly biased :D, S.Jones in for Pattinson and Harmison in at No.12.
Complain about this comment
Kapil_Devil
I think the first and major criteria for playing for a country is to be a citizen of that country.
You're a citizen of a country by either a) Having one or more British parents. b) Being born in that country (not everywhere, but in England this is valid) c) Being a naturalized citizen.
To use your example, KP obviously fits the bill. He's half-English as well as half-SA. He's got an English parent, English grandparents, great grand-parents, cousins, uncles and aunts from England just as much as he does from SA.
The Yorkshire lad can't say the same. He has no historical familial connection to the country.
The second criteria, for me, for national selection is a desire to play for that country. This is not a technical criteria for selection - that's already seen to by the citizenship requirements I laid out above - this is a common sense criteria.
You see Andrew Symonds, born in England with an English parent and a British citizen but turned England down in order to play for Australia. Fair enough. KP chose to play for England, is half-English, lives in England and is married to an English woman. Fair enough.
Pattinson obviously fails this secondary, common sense criteria. He doesn't have any particular desire to play for England (as oppose to anyone else and seemingly way below his desire to play for Australia), he thinks of himself as wholly Australian and makes his life in Australia. That's the reason his possible selection should have been discarded after a second or two's thought.
Complain about this comment
BournemouthWhite wrote:
feltonpg its called common sense. its the likes of you that live politically correct lives not offending anyone.
If we all lived by the rules we would all be as boring as you listing the wording of rules and laws off the top of our heads
Well if the Laws of cricket and the playing conditions are just expediencies to be done away with at the convenience of the umpire I wonder why players are fined/banned for breeching them? Certainly the likes of Bowden are undermining the argument against the use of technology if they're not prepared to make the decisions they're paid to make.
Complain about this comment
correct, feltonpp, i agree 100%. bowden should be banned from international cricket for bringing the game into disrepute. his record of appalling decisions is becoming embarrassing, and all the arm-waving and silly showman antics in the world do NOT compensate for accuracy.
Complain about this comment
should have said 'lack of accuracy', sorry (haha, not a very accurate comment was it???)
Complain about this comment
xxxCorrectxxx
Fair enough.
So you would accept Stuart Law, Daniesh Kaneria or Mushtaq Ahmed playing for England.
They're all qualified, or will be very soon.
Complain about this comment
cityboy105:
There in lies the difference between someone who follows a team and someone who follows a sport. You follow a sport because you are patriotic: you want your team to win. I follow a sport because I enjoy the sport.
So in answer to
"i suppose you would be equally sanguine
if an umpire's decision robbed your team
of winning a cup final ??"
Yes I would.
Complain about this comment
I think Mohammad Asif should be select to play for England, he will be soon available. It fits the present mood of the country and the cricket.
Complain about this comment
Freddie Flintstone- Chris Read is a fine keeper, but the assertion that his batting is comparable to that of Prior's is incorrect in my view. He averages 18 in test matches and only 33 in first class cricket, as compared with Prior's test and first class average of 40. If you are going to play a wicketkeeper batsman at six, it has to be Prior. Even though you would be gambling on his flawed keeping. At 26, however, he is young enough to improve his glove work at test level, if selectors would take a long-term view instead of allowing themselves to be prompted by influential figures in the media (Messrs Atherton, Hussain, Botham, Brearley etc.).
Complain about this comment
to be honest, i would play the wicket keeper on glove ability, sure if there is someone good enough to wicket keeper and bat like gilchrist then fine. But currently there is no on like that. And secondly, when Flintoff gets some batting form back surely he will bat at 6?
Complain about this comment
huxleysdad wrote:
If the SA team can ask for a re-run of the video and 3rd umpire referral for this scenario,
They can't it's dissent and a code violation!
why couldn't the England team have sent Alistair Cook back to the middle while video evidence of his "dismissal" was assessed by the 3rd umpire?
Because it would be a code violation! Also in neither case does the does the umpire have the authority to refer to the decision to the third umpire. That's the problem when you start changing the rules, how does anyone know which ones are being enforced today?
Sir Thomas More had it right.
Complain about this comment
Wasn't it schoolboy cricket he played for england as that is where he was schooled? Much like Ryan Giggs in football.
I think it is hard to say that just because a player is born somewhere or raised somewhere that he is one nationality and no the other.
Andrew Symonds despite being born in England was raised in Australia and as such wanted to play for them more than anyone else.
However you also get people like Greenidge who was born in barbados, raised in England but thought his thing was to play for his roots.
You can't judge what nationality a person is in situations like this, only the individual can.
Saying that i believe the fact that he was an Aussie helped him get selected as there is still an aura about them. It also shows it was a stupid sign dropping graveny who did a pretty good job as chairman of selectors.
Complain about this comment
Let's just hope Pattinson becomes a "one test wonder" and leave it at that. Anything less and we lose the match by day 3!
Complain about this comment
This business about the replays and referrals to TV umpires - time to stop worrying about whether we can refer, when we can refer, who can refer, and just accept that it is better to get it right. If there is any doubt aboiut a decision, use the review. Cricket is such a stop/start game that it hardly even interrupts the flow, so let's use the umpires for the easy bits, and the TV for the difficult bits - I think that Vaughan's catch was propbably not out, for example, but there was an LBW a few balls later proven to be so by the cameras, and not given - so we know now that the result is distorted by that error......and there will be more.
David S
Complain about this comment
how is picking a 30 year old Aussie who has no abition to play for England a smart move, when we have Tremlett waiting in the wings, or Hoggard who is only 31 with 67 caps under his belt and 248 internatrional wickets, and both would hve been very keen to play today. i agree with Aggers here, how should Tremlett feel, id be gobsmacked by it all, what a kick in the teeth, im sure he was happy for Freddy to come back into the team, and would have probs been happy with Colly keeping his place, or even one of the older guys coming back, aka Hoggy, Harmison, or Jones, but to this situation, horrid!
Complain about this comment
The Pattinson selection should be the straw that breaks the camel's back regarding the selectors- unfortunately there is no-one to sack them- those in a position to do so are themselves deserving of the sack. So, we the public will have to endure nonsense like this a good while yet. Cook - still looks wooden. Vaughan failed again. Bell thought he was Ricky Ponting. Pietersen couldn't keep a cool head (and after Athers had written him up as an all-time great in the Times today- what bad timing). Ambrose? Curtly was a more reliable Test batsman. Flintoff - not sure that can even be called batting. To cap it all, 'Monty' 's batting has managed to go backwards. But for Ntini's freebies, today would have been a complete disaster.
Complain about this comment
aggers, you sort of ducked the whole amla ''controversy'', not to bang on about it but i dont remember to many criticisms of the KP incident...
Complain about this comment
With all that's been happening today, strange team selection, fielders claiming catches that weren't, Flintoff's return, I have to question the relevance of Mechanicalcogbill's attack on Ian Bell.
This sounds like someone just taking any opportunity to sound off about a player they don't like. Pietersen made 150 last week and was out for 45, Bell made 199 and was out for 31. Cook got a poor decision but Strauss made only 27 and Vaughan's worrying form continues, this time he made 0. England were all out for 203, and as predicted Flintoff didn't suddenly recover his batting form.
It would have been great if Bell, or any of them, had knuckled down and made it hard for the bowlers but they all seemed to think they were in a one-day game and had to make runs quickly.
Poor old Bell. He makes nearly 200 runs and because he hasn't made a ton in his next match he gets the usual heap of abuse. It's quite normal, actually, for batsmen to make a big score and follow it with a few low ones. KP does it all the time and I don't hear anyone complaining. But if you cast your mind back to 2006 Bell actually made a century in three consecutive matches.
Please talk about something relevant to this match, such as what is Pattinson doing in the team, why all the hype about Freddie, when are the umpires going to go to Specsavers, what shall we do about fielders claiming iffy catches, and how are we going to take 17 more South African wickets to win this match?
Complain about this comment
#115: Aggers didn't 'duck' anything - Billy Bowden ducked giving a decision -as Boycs pointed out (repeatedly, as with most things) on air at the time. The decision once referred to the 3rd ump could never be given out.
Complain about this comment
Cityboy105,
I’m not missing any point at all. I am simply making the argument that there has been a lot of scorn poured on the selection of Pattinson without any real consultation of the facts behind it.
Let’s look at this season’s stats. This season, Pattinson has taken 29 Championship wickets at 20.86 apiece. He has taken more wickets, at a better average, than either Matthew Hoggard or Chris Tremlett. Steve Harmison has taken five more wickets, but his are more expensive than Pattinson‘s. Simon Jones’ figures, though extremely impressive, are in the second division and I think that does need to be taken into account. So I would suggest that Pattinson is certainly worthy of at least being considered.
As for the Kapil Devil‘s comments, I never said birthplace is the only criteria. I just find it incredibly hypocritical that people are apparently prepared to accept players like Kevin Pietersen for England, but aren’t prepared to accept someone who was born in this country and was raised for the first six years of his life here. I have an uneasy suspicion that if Pattinson was from a traditional cricketing area rather than from Grimsby, then we would not be having this argument.
Complain about this comment
What about Broad? Hes most definately one for the future but he's in the team primarily to take wickets. Which he's not doing to date. Sidebottom for Hoggy or Jones and Broad for Harmison.
Ambrose for Prior who can at least get decent runs. Hopefully the keeping can improve over time.
The sooner we get an attack as similar to 2005's the sooner we will climb the test rankings again.
If we lose this series then I think Moores has to go.
And its about time Shah got a run in the team at Bells expense. Maybe it will teach him to value his wicket more?
Complain about this comment
I was at headingley today, and i had a great time as always sat in the western terrace. However i did concentrate on the cricket enough inbetween all the silliness to kno England as a team, and other individuals were a joke today.
Vaughan does not deserve his place, these aren't 'magic' balls, he's just not that good any more. Shah deserves his place at three.
Ambrose is useless, his batting isn't worthy of test match no.9, let alone no.6, and his keeping isn't anything special. prior tops the first class averages for goodness sake!
And Patinson's selection bemeused all of us in the place...i wouldn't have tremlett, he flatters to decieve. harmison has had his chance and has shown he has no rel desire to succeed for England, but Hoggard and Simon Jones however definitley be ahead of Patinson.
Bowden was a joke, i could see it hit his pad, and since when do we over turn catches when the batsman is 10 yards from the changing room?
And A.B Devilliers, well...i guess he's gonna regreat that.
Complain about this comment
What is going on with technology in cricket? Today we've seen Alastair Cook wrongly fired out by the umpire and conclusive TV evidence being ignored which could have been used to correct the decision, had the laws allowed. Then later in the day, with Vaughan's catch, we've seen inconclusive TV evidence used to reverse the umpire's decision, which was probably right in the first place.
Chuck in AB de Villiers' disgraceful claim for a non-catch and it's a pretty poor day for cricket all round.
Complain about this comment
"My dear old thing...". Isn't it time for Blowers to retire into the the crushed velvet obscurity of faux loveydom? As well as umpire Bowden having a poor day, Blowers started by mixing his Amlas with his Princes with his Ntinis early on and continued to make numerous mistakes per session, more than is necessary or helpful, particularly if your relying on radio. I was traveling to Brighton from Cornwall and his camp cricket trill seemed to be required about six or seven times during the day, more than was feasibly tolerable. I've no interest in buses or pigeons, it's just not interesting... please stop him. Why doesn't somone.
Complain about this comment
#122: buses and pigeons are the real stuff of life, my dear old thing.
Complain about this comment
Have to take issue with comment 77 by xxxCorrectxxx:
'If Pattinson was black or a Pakistani transplant "Brit" none of you lot in the media would have dared lift your head above the parapet. '
I suppose white 'transplant "Brits"' like Pietersen, Ambrose, Robin Smith, Lamb, Hick, Caddick etc are ok, but you can't bear someone of a different colour or culture playing for England.
There's no room for your thinly-veiled prejudice on these boards. Usual right wing paranoia about 'pc media' as well. Please try to develop a more nuanced understanding of the world in which we live. I look forward to the day when Adil Rashid is taking wickets and scoring runs for England.
Complain about this comment
When a wicket-keeper can't catch and can't bat he should struggle to get into a school team let alone be let loose on test cricket! Ambrose to go, to be replaced by either prior (who can at least bat) or foster (who can at least catch and stump)!
The inclusion of Flintoff I must say also confuses me. When someone comes off a big series of injuries they need to seriously prove and test themselves at the county level like everyone else before being selected for the test team! It seems odd that Flintoff has scored hardly any runs, and got hardly any wickets in not many games and yet is an automatic pick for England!
To be fair to the boy he's a great bowler, he others genuine pace and bounce that is different from the swing that the other English bowlers all know and love! But for the last 2-3 years (essentially after the ashes) he has had absolutely no batting form whatsoever - he is no longer an all-rounder but a bowler who flails at the ball with a big heavy bat and occasionally gets a score! With this in mind, it just seems absurd that he would replace Collingwood, whom I absolutely love in an England shirt (lets not forget he was one of wisden's cricketers of the year only last year and the only only one to turn up to the ashes down-under). Despite being in a bit of bad form (not helped by awful umpiring) Colly' style of play would have been absolutely suited to today's play and should have been given the chance!
To be honest, no qualms against Flintoff being in the team, but not replacing a Batsman (who can bowl alright away swingers that could have worked a treat at headingly) and especially when a space opens up with Sidebottom injured!
Complain about this comment
Cheap shot Aggers. Saying the guy is rubbish BUT "it's not personal" doesn't make it okay. I expected more from a respected journalist.
As for those questioning the sportsmanship of the South Africans (and Australians), are we not forgetting one little incident involving a certain P Collingwood? Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
Why is everybody making so much fuss about AB de Villiers non catch. Is it not par for the course for SA? Am I the only one who remembers Mark Boucher claiming a run out (and it being given) while not even having the ball in his gloves at the time?
As I recall, the ball had lodged between his upper arm and chest. He even 'bragged' about it to his team with them enjoying the fact that they had gotten away with it. It was replayed over and over on TV.
We may have some dirty washing but, ye Gods, SA's laundry is positively rotting.
Complain about this comment
Re #30
If 'living' in the country is given primacy over being born in it we could see the English cricket team go the same way as the NZ rugby team with all their Pacific Islanders playing for the All Blacks.
--------------------------------------------------
*sigh*
And I will provide the addendum to this grand piece of sweeping generalisation, that the vast majority of 'our Pacific Islanders' in the All Blacks WERE born in New Zealand.
At least get your facts straight before you start slinging this kind of muck around, yes?
Complain about this comment
Both non-catches were unnacceptable. Cricket does not exist in nature, and was invented for one reason : to construct an environment in which to have moments in which the human spirit soars. These come from playing brilliant shots, taking wickets and catches - and, most importantly, from those times when you do the decent thing and admit you didn't get a man out, when it looks as though you did. Everyone who has played the game knows exactly what I'm talking about.
By cheating, the England captain has brought not the game but himself into disrepute. Vaughan should not be picked again, as captain or as a player. This is a great shame - although flawed as a batsman he sometimes plays sublime shots through the offside. However, if you let yourself and your country down there is a price to be paid (or should be). In modern Britain I suspect the selectors willl assume that professionalism somehow excuses cheating, as it does routinely when divers win penalties in football. More is the shame.
Complain about this comment
Aggers. Terrific article and you are spot on.
I am surprised that CMJ (and some others) see the questions over Pattinson's selection as being about where he grew up and where he learned his cricket. We have lived for some time in a world where there is no automatic correlation between birthplace and residence and nationality. Pattinson has a British passport and British parents and was born in Britain. Unlike KP and others he has no need to qualify because he is British. If he was a 20 year old tyro of promise that would be enough for me for his being considered for selection. But he isn't. He is a thirty-year old part time player on a working holiday in England playing a bit of county cricket. If he had true potential don't you think that the Aussie system would have picked him up much earlier?
I think that the selectors look quite ridiculous. This is a Test match not some trial game or some meaningless ODI.
Complain about this comment
Watching Englishmen trying to quixotically mount a 'moral high horse' is a highlight of this Test for Protea's fans. Least we not forget that England cricket has a gutter reputation second to none. Stirring up an issue about AB de Villiers is a typical Pommy ploy - squirrelling away a 'credit' to justify counter-breaches, eh ? England invented devilish, underhanded, mean-spirited, dirty tactics (mind you, that applies to life/history in general just as well) so... MAN UP... as my grandmother said WHINERS ARE WEINERS !
Complain about this comment
How much longer will the selectors stick with Vaughan?
Complain about this comment
Why does Michael Vaughan continually find it necessary to lie?
Last year he was caught out in an embarrassing fashion.
Yesterday Aggers alluded to his 50th game as captain. "I was unaware of it" Aggers reported Vaughan as saying, and then later in the interview "Yes, I'd been counting and realised it would occur at Headingley".
This may seem to be a small thing, but I really wonder how much we can trust about the other things Vaughan says.
It just reflects badly on himself and he should just stop what is intended as "spin" probably, but just ends up as lies.
Complain about this comment
Forget Pattinson, that’s just a stupid selection. There’s more important things happening with cricket at the moment and they concern the top two rated teams in the world
There's much I should like about this South African side but Smith ruins it for me. His snarling ungracious behaviour is more akin to a football player. He ruins my enjoyment of watching his team in the same manner that Ponting does for Australia - and his apprentice Symonds is just as bad. I was fortunate enough to attend six days of the 2005 Ashes and watched every other ball on TV. Take Ponting out of that team and they would be almost flawless. South Africa need to lose more than Smith (Boucher) but it would be a start. With big rewards now about to be part of cricket the ICC need to take action immediately to prevent the dressing room influencing umpires decisions.
Complain about this comment
It offers hope to all those nothing bowlers who qualify for England and have a few years left in them, ahead of all those who played here all their career, have years ahead of them and have only ever wanted to play for England.
Silly decision, just another in a long line of baffling decisions. Perhaps they happened to be there the day he took 6/30, looked at his season average and based it on that...........
Just a few names from the past, daft selection policy isn't a new thing. Either players never should have been picked, didn't get a go when they were and of course some had more chances than they deserved.
John Childs - played two Tests against the best side in the world in 1988 at the ripe old age of 36. Took 3 wickets at 61.00 and never played again
Richard Blakey - picked for the India tour of 1992/3, tough enough in its own right, and never seen again. With Russell and Stewart around why on earth did Blakey get a look in?
Martin Bicknell - Test debut in 1993, played two Tests and was one of the best English bowlers in the county game. Didn't get a recall until a decade later and then for two Tests. Had ODI averages of 24.00 and 26.69 yet only played seven times in 1990-1991
Ronnie Irani, Steve James, Martin Saggers, Usman Afzaal, Gavin Hamilton, Ed Smith, Chris Adams, Aftab Habib, Simon Brown, Ian Ward - don't need to add much to that little lot
Mark Ealham - did pretty well, respectable averages with bat and ball, but I can only conclude the selectors felt he lacked pace or wasn't good enough with the bat
Kabir Ali - played one Test last time the South Africans toured here, took five wickets at 27.20 and hasn't played since!
Hollioakes - six Tests between them, another bizarre couple of selections based on theory
Shaun Udal - true professional but picked so late in his career as to only ever be a stop-gap measure ahead of younger spinners
and now Darren Pattinson. Of course at the other end of the scale, players like Chris Lewis, Ian Salisbury and Ashley Giles got a lot of Tests without ever achieving much
England should have picked from a long growing list of players who have been tried and not failed, certainly not enough times to warrant being behind Pattinson in the pecking order :-
- Matthew Hoggard : 67 Tests, 248 wkts @ 30.50
- Steve Harmison : 57 Tests, 212 wkts @ 31.39
- Simon Jones : 18 Tests, 59 wkts @ 28.24
- Liam Plunkett : 9 Tests, 23 wkts @ 39.83
- Sajid Mahmood : 8 Tests, 20 wkts @ 38.10
- Chris Tremlett : 3 Tests, 13 wkts @ 29.69
- Kabir Ali : 1 Test, 5 wkts @ 27.20
- Graham Onions : 0 Tests
Some have played more TESTS than Pattinson has first class games.
On a side note, Tremlett has taken 13 wkts in 3 Tests compared to Broad who's taken 18 in 7 Tests - Broad gets picked (for his batting?!?)
Complain about this comment
As for the catches, the sides should have been using referrals. I understand England chose against that so they should put up with bad decisions as it's their fault they can't do anything about them!
The fielders are guilty of one wrongdoing in my view, they're claiming catches they must know aren't clean. Why muck about with all this referral nonsense and just refer anything that isn't clear, either a clean catch or a phantom nick to the third umpire. Yeah, yeah, yeah it may slow the game down - as if the players don't do that with field changes, drinks breaks, aborted run-ups etc.
What makes me laugh most of all is that we have replays to judge whether a ball touched the boundary in order to gain an extra run or two, a decision which will unlikely affect the outcome of a Test, but we can't spare the time to double check the handful of wicket decisions that could. I'm sure Cook would trade in all his boundary replays for ONE replay so he could continue his innings and maybe have carried England beyond 250 or who knows.
Bickering about who started it, who benefits more etc is ridiculous, it's all a mess and a lot of people are throwing toys out of prams over it. Vaughan's reaction to the recall of the South African batsman was a disgrace, captains do have a tendancy to be more petty, surly and immature than the other cricketers.
I have to laugh at anti-English comments about "inventing underhand tactics" etc. Change the record fellas, if unsubstantiated accusations is all you can throw at us then don't bother. You wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the Rs
Complain about this comment
Granted, until this test I have never heard of Darren Pattinson but for goodness sake he is there now and as English cricket fans you should surely support him? Or is his selection and the umpiring decisions, a typical "whingeing pom", pro-active defense mechanism to deal with the inevitable English defeat by the superior South African cricket team?
Methinks it must burn ye backsides to be beaten by teams from Her Majesty's former colonies. Can you believe the cheek of those natives?
Complain about this comment
I really cannot understand why Matthew Hoggard was not picked for this time. Hoggy has the number over the majority of South African batsman, especially Graeme Smith, dismissing him a number of times in RSA in 2004/5.
I can't say I know much about Pattison...! Not 248 Test wickets worth anyway.
I am also surprised about Paul Collingwood's omission. Yes I agree that he has had a lean spell, but Tim Ambrose at No 6? Come off it. No wonder smug Smith had a grin as wide as Tower Bridge when he came out to field.
As for the "catch that never was". Looked perfectly good to you, I and most importantly Amla. With so much technology about, it has potential to wreck the spirit of this glorious game. Oh sorry, Smith and Arthur are doing a good job on their own. Utter disgrace from the South Africans.
Complain about this comment
Surely the worst crime against cricket and good taste in this test match is MICHAEL VAUGHAN'S MULLET?
What's that about? Does he think we won't notice the ever-declining follicle count on top and at the front, if he grows more down the back? :-)
Complain about this comment
Sloppy work Aggers that will only excite the controversy. BOTH claimed catches were NOT OUT, so right end but wrong means.
Complain about this comment
your decription of ab claiming the catch was quite right however using the word doubt over the vaughan catch is covering up the truth as it clearly shows on the replay that the ball hit the ground.
Complain about this comment
Alot has been made of Amla's decision being reversed, but didn't something similar happen to KP? I seem to recall that he was nearly at the boundary when the balcony suggested he ask....Or is it different in this case as it was the SA's forcing the case?
The selection of Pattinson seem's like an odd decision but it's not the first time a seamer has been called up for a test match at Headingley now is it? Yes I would of preferred Hoggard particularly as her would be replacing are premium swing bowler.
Yes Anderson has bowled well, but also his pace was down considerably so is he struggling with an injury? The main question with Anderson is what Jimmy will turn up on any given day, the superb wicket taker or the less than average pie chucker?
Question on the first test why did England force the follow on? When was the last time a top side on a flat track was forced to follow on and not bat considerably better? Surely 25 overs of batting and setting the SA's 500+ to win would of given the bowlers a bit of a rest and would of forced a change of mind set on the SA batters....
Complain about this comment
No England experiance, no future, why Pattinson's in the team and Hoggard isnt i will never know. Bad decision by Millar. he's had a good county season but playing for England against SA is a different level! Also, when Hoggard bowles i can see him taking wickets with the swing that he creates but Pattinson all i see is an average seamer.
Get Hoggard back!!!!!
Complain about this comment
From my recollection there were several grounded or near-grounded catches at Lords which the England team didn't claim. Despite a chequered past current team comparisons with regard to sportsmanship do not favour the Saffers.
The rugby tackle incident was wrong, and Colly said as much immediately afterwards. Difficult to imagine Mr. Smith doing the same.
The game's not over, I would like Pattinson to do well, as I support anyone who represents my country. It will not alter the fact that it was a baffling selection which does nothing for the morale of the crop of worthy bowlers who were ignored.
Complain about this comment
Ridiculous decision to pick the Aussie. Is this why Flintoff was wearing Tremlett's Jumper?
A show of solidarity perhaps? I'd like to think so
Complain about this comment
What a three card trick by the selectors!
Ambrose at six - failed!
Flintoff at seven - failed!
Pattinson - three overs - failed!
Resignation letter, anyone?
Complain about this comment
You guys really make me laugh sometimes. When Atherton and Russel saved England at the Wanderers by blocking the whole day did you say "that's not in the spirit of the game"? I doubt it. Yet when Smith and McKenzie do it at Lords, it's not in the spirit, a waste of £75, a win at all cost attitude...etc.
It's the same with De Villiers' dropped catch. As a Saffer I agree it's embarrassing he did that. He deserves the rebuke you spit so vehemently. But then Vaughn does exactly the same thing, on the very same day, and you blame the umpiring, the SA dressing room, the "win at all cost" attitude of the Saffers etc, etc. Vaughn tried it on too – the replay is clear and conclusive. Also, remember when Vaughn sent Pietersen back after the replay showed the Indian keeper dropped him? i.e. EXACTLY the same circumstances!
Complain about this comment
Anyone stating that replays showed conclusively that Vaughan's catch hit the ground are plain wrong. They were inconclusive at best. If the fielders fingertips are under or around the ball it will still appear to 'bounce'. TV replays have a tendency to make any low catch look dodgy. I am convinced Vaughan genuinely thought he'd taken the catch and I think he probably did. In no way was it comparable to the de Villiers incident as some here have suggested.
Complain about this comment
Have read all the above comments and note a lot of anti-English sentiment. I wonder how many of those making them are living in this "awful" place.
Regarding yesterday's play, the only point I want to make concerns the comparison of the two "catches that weren't".
AB de Villiers "catch" was so clearly grounded and with his subsequent manipulation of the ball there was no way that he (AB) could not have known that it was not a clean catch, and to then claim the catch was nothing short of blatant cheating.
Contrast that with Vaughan's diving catch and look at the position of his head. I believe that he was himself convinced that he had caught it cleanly and therein lies the difference. There really is no comparison.
Hashim Amla clearly thought the catch was clean and so did Bowden. The pressure on the umpires to refer the decision to the 3rd. umpire is code violation for dissent, And please don't harp on about the KP incident in India - 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Complain about this comment
Please can someone ask the selectors to explain their selection for this test? I would like to see a direct answer to a direct question. Why was Pattinson selected ahead of Hoggard, Jones et al? I dare say the answer will be as straightforward as say the Chancellor responding to questions on the economy. It would be nice however if one of the BBC commentary team could raise the question.
Complain about this comment
Let's see if I've got this right. In the first test, Collingwood gets 7 runs and is out to a bad umpiring decision. Vaughan gets 2, clean bowled by Steyn. Collingwood is dropped for the second test. Then in the second test, Vaughan is again out thanks to Steyn for a duck. Anyone else think we dropped the wrong captain?
Complain about this comment
Aggers is spot on , whilst the Headingly test has a history of bowlers being picked for the conditions ... and Neil Mallender springs to mind as an example, the message that is being sent to the likes of Hoggard,Jones,Tremlett and Harmison is not good.... Neil Mallender wasnt an unknown entity , this Pattison seems to A not actually care about playing for england and B is pretty well an unknown quantity.
If our bowlers were struggling this was an ideal time to put a fit and hungry Hoggard back into the fray... a man who prior to New Zealand had pretty well been Englands best and most consistent Bowler for years.. I do hope we are not returning to the days of crazy selections just hoping somebody would click...We have good young talent in Broad let him learn from an experienced team whilst they still have the ability... That way not only will we have a competitive team now we will be building for the future at the same time.
As most sportsmen want to feel they are part of a set up Tremlett for instance potentially might feel angry at bein overlooked , knock his confidence , its the unseen affects that could be the worst.
Complain about this comment
hello really fed up of hearing the guff around pattinson end of day he got a uk passport and if the so callled elite who have the best of english cricket at heart then fair enough. find it a shame to hear all the oh har he not english well if that the case then kp shouldnt be wearing a england shirt if you have to english to play for england think as a responsible reporter and generally a sensible talking man a certain member of the tms team should now let this matter end thyank you
Complain about this comment
I know this isn't necessarily the player's fault but when Pattinson got the call was he not asked 'do you want to play for England?' rather than told as much. As a 'proud Aussie' surely this is sacreligious.
It does make me wonder that if I now create a résumés that includes firstly my actual birthplace (Essex) but also perhaps a fictitious upbrining in South Africa or Australia then would I, a fifth team cricketer from the suburbs of London, be considered for national selection? I could even put on the accent if someone asked.
Complain about this comment
I doesn't matter if Pattinson is from Mars. It was an awful selection with far reaching consequences.
Complain about this comment
correct, speedofthepuma, the whole point of the discussion about pattinson (totally missed by many contributors to this blog) is the effect his selection has on the other players who were overlooked. it was a disgraceful selection, and the selectors' silence on the reasoning (if it can be called that) behind it, is deafening.
Complain about this comment
I also have to say I've caught up with the Vaughan/DeVilliers' catches. They are clearly incomparable, and to my mind the former was a certain catch.
Complain about this comment
My bet is that the Headingley crowd will make their feelings clear today by booing de Villiers all the way to the wicket when he comes in to bat.
Complain about this comment
At 7.34pm, UK Falcon wrote almost word for word, what Intended, ...so where is the consistencey in the umpiring? Any Umpire can make the occasional error (such as the Cook dismissal, The Flintff Nb) but Bowden has displayed continued lack of judgement, indecision, and obvious weakness in the face of player/dressing room pressure.
Will there be any inquiry into his performance during this match? As for his pathetic gestures, what inferrence can be gained from his continued employment of them?
That the man is more concerned with his own ego than the mundane functions of his job.
Given that he still he persists with them in the face of almost universally ridicule only reinforces the impression that his ego is superior to his judgement.
Not a quality desirable in an umpire.
Eccentricity when backed with genius is one thing, when backed by incompetence it is quite another
Complain about this comment
Couldn't agree more, christot, as I have said before on here, Bowden belongs in a circus. His over-elaborate gestures and 'showmanship' do NOT compensate for his consistently poor performance. When are umpires EVER going to be made accountable for their dreadful performances in the same way that players are? Why not have 'averages' for umpires: poor decisions compared to the total number of decisions made. Then we would KNOW who the bad umpires are.
Complain about this comment
I agree that Amla should have been given out but not because he was out (which he clearly wasn't as Vaughan grounded the ball). The laws state if the ball touches the ground before the fielder has full control of it the batsmen should be not given out. In a test between Bangladesh in NZ recently a NZ fielder took the catch but when he went to ground he used the ball to help himself up. The umpires wrongly gave the batsmen out.
The problem with the Amla dismissal was that there was no immediate referral and the batsman walked. The decision rightly or wrongly should have stood. It's the laws that need changing as this is clearly a grey area. I don't think the umpires should be blamed as they are probably following the letter of the current law i.e. the finger wasn't raised so they can still refer it.
Complain about this comment
I'm pretty sure Bowden DID raise his silly crooked finger to Alma, who, as you rightly pointed out, Was given out and walked. = OUT.
Strauss DIDN'T walk. Was referred, = NOT OUT
Alma didn't cross the rope, hence the referral
Hence the inconsistency
Complain about this comment
I'm ashamed to say that English/GB sports selectors have no scruples when picking
"foreigners" to represent us. We are so desperate to achieve success we'll pick anyone. Remember Zola Budd ? What a joke!
Complain about this comment
Having read the comments above, and countless others in other blogs over the years, I wish to suggest the following new mathematical relationship:
As the length of any English cricket blog increases, the probability of the Australian team being mentioned in regards to "poor sportsmanship" approaches 1.
Seriously England: get off your high horse in regards to your morals (Collingwood) and your standing in world cricket (not that great).
Complain about this comment
Yet another appalling umpiring decision (amla's 'lbw') This is now getting beyond a joke, to the point where the majority of decisions given are actually wrong!!! Is there any point in having 'neutral' umpires if this is the best they can do???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The point is there is no doubt that AB's ball hit the ground, There is doubt as whether Vaughn's did.
Complain about this comment
Look at the evidence 166, De Villiers' hand was on TOP of the ball as it rolled at least 6 inches along the turf. If he couldn't tell it was touching the grass at that point what DID he think? That it was hovering above the ground like some kind of magical illusion???
Complain about this comment
Surely the overriding issue regarding the two grounded 'catches' yesterday is the disgraceful conduct of the fielders involved.
The umpiring has not been good in this test so far (Another poor decision has just given the 'Aussie' his first test wicket for England) and the referral system seems riddled with confusion and inconsistency. However, this would all be immaterial if the players did not claim catches which they clearly didn't or may even have doubts about taking.
Drugs cheats are rightly banned when they are exposed so let's now clean up the game and ban players for the blatant cheating on the pitch we witnessed yesterday.
Collingwood has been suspended from ODIs for presiding over a slow over rate but this pales into insignificance in comparision to the actions of de Villiers and Vaughan yesterday for anyone who cares about the future of cricket.
The removal of Vaughan is surely due anyway as he would not hold down a place in the side on merit alone and now his integrity has to be questionned as well.
Perhaps the selectors could find an unsuspecting Kiwi painter and decorator playing somewhere on the county circuit who would skipper us if asked nicely.
Complain about this comment
The standard of umpiring has now gone beyond a joke. This series and the NZ series earlier in the summer have been riddled with dreadful decisions, and there seems to me to be no point whatever in having 'neutral' umpires if this is the best they can produce. I have said over and over again: there are only 2 types of umpire; good and bad.
We have been saddled with some of the worst during this summer. Bowden is among the worst, he is a showman and a clown but he is NOT a good umpire. When will the authorities take a stand and DEMAND that umpires are reprimanded, fined, even banned when they make blunders of the order we have seen this year. There should be a system of 'averages' for umpires, with the number of poor decisions against the total number of decisions given. Then everyone would be able to see who the good and bad umpires are.
Of course it will never happen because questioning an umpire's decision is 'bringing the game into disrepute', while making a series of dreadful decisions which may be match-changing, even series-changing, of course is not!!!!
Complain about this comment
Surely if a player walks off he's out!
Mickey Arthur and Smiths reaction were poor.
Its like if a football player is sent off but the manager and the captain tell him to come back on!
The umpiring has been unbelievable this series!
Complain about this comment
i am an England fan and it dismays me to see people like Agnew and Botham (and the rest of the "prawn sandwich brigade" they think they are so different from) going so over the top on the De Villiers incident.
i have played cricket for many years, and i've spent weeks of my life at slip! i don't know how many times i've caught a ball and not been sure if it was bump ball or not. sometimes it is. sometimes it isn't. GET REAL.
watch the tape IN REAL TIME. the ball falls below his eyeline as it reaches him and his whole team is already preemptively celebrating the dismissal! so of course he goes along with it in hope. he wants it to be out.
all this heavy-handed high-mindedness is a bit hollow really. i'm an England fan and i know that if anyone's looking for sportsmanship howlers you hardly need look much further than this current England team...
also---- i've written it on here quite a few times before! flintoff's just not a test match number 7, is he? no matter how many times he says to everyone he is! THE TEAM is much better with him having a dart at 8 or not there at all.
pattison who?
Complain about this comment
Gilo1966 I think you will find the fielders behavied differently in yesterday's disputed 'dismissals'. In the Strauss incident De Villiers claimed a catch but Strauss stood his ground. Alma, however, walked although Vaughan can clearly be seen telling the umpire he was only "pretty sure" he caught the ball.
Personally I'd get rid of the third umpire. As this debate shows, TV replays are not clear; there are probably as many people on here who saw Vaughan catch the ball as saw him ground it. If decisions were left to the umpires on the field, yes there would be 'wrong' decisions but they could be accepted. There is a big difference between a mistake made after seeing the incident once at real time from 22 yards and a mistake made with the benefit of a long lens and slow motion replay.
I think better umpiring would be achieved if there were a bigger pool of umpires for international matches. It seems we have the same umpires match after match. If they are poor umpires, their mistakes have far greater effect.
Complain about this comment
Loving this discussion. I dont think any team can point fingers about dubious decisions... I have seen it from most sides...including SA and Eng!!!
Just find it interesting that the Sky comentators find the need to bang on about de Villiers incident when their team only managed one wicket all day!!!
England batted poorly and the SA batters have had the better batting conditions.....welcome to test cricket....you win some you loose some.....Anyone care to remember the last test series between these two countries in England and how the weather played its part too??
I think SA will take this game and this will set up an interesting last two games of the series.....Will be great cricket!
Complain about this comment
speedofthepuma wrote:
The rugby tackle incident was wrong, and Colly said as much immediately afterwards. Difficult to imagine Mr. Smith doing the same.
Yes the shoulder charge ("rugby tackle") on a fielder attempting to play the ball was wrong and the batsman should have been out for 'obstructing the field', however he got his just desserts and was run out so justice was done. We know that the SAns would certainly not have withdrawn such an appeal, for example Pollock collided with KP and knocked the bat from his hand which caused KP to be run out, they certainly didn't consider calling him back!
Complain about this comment
It seems your selectors or is it the public forcing the selectors are so desperate for winning results they will select anyone to speed up this process.I cant beleive that they cant select from home grown players.Do they know what they are doing to young kids moral by selecting anyone who just walk in at the last moment? My son has just come from a school tour in England and he says you have some really good youngsters, so do the right thing with whom you pick.I know I wouldn`t want to watch a aussie playing for us no matter how good he was.
Complain about this comment
It is really a shame to see a test series ruined by umpires. In truth this should have been a good balanced test match butween 2 good sides, but now England will go one down chasing the series and South Africa will not have won it will be South Africa O England O Umpires 1
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS