Here's a few from slightly further back:
The decision to pick Wayne Larkins for the tours of West Indies in 1990 and Australia in 1990/91; wtf? All I know is that Larkins was a long, long, long way short of being good enough for Test cricket and that that was obvious. I don't know if there were any who had a clearly better case, maybe our friend David could give us some insight there. But it was 20 years ago now (
) so I'd forgive if not.
David Capel getting recalled for the tour of West Indies in 1990; again, wtf? Wasn't it pretty obvious by then (if it wasn't before he was even picked ITFP) that he was miles short of requirements.
Ditto Derek Pringle in 1991, 1991/92 and 1992.
All right, Neil Williams only played his single Test because Chris Lewis woke-up with a migraine. But there was at the very, very, very least one bowler who should've played rather than him, Martin Bicknell - if there weren't others I'll be surprised.
Ian Botham being recalled in 1991, 1991/92 and 1992. Was clearly no longer in a remotely fit state to play Test cricket. And it made it worse that the legacy of a once superlative player was tainted by the overweight incompetant that turned-up (or perhaps more accurately didn't) for those last 5 games.
Dermot Reeve playing Test cricket.
John Emburey's recalls in 1993 and, worse, 1995. He was in his middle-age ffs.
Recalling Neil Foster in 1993 when his body was so crocked by then that he retired a week after the Test he was picked for. What was worse he replaced Phillip DeFreitas who was about the only semi-decent England bowler at that point.
Mike Watkinson playing Test cricket. Now then, yes, he did indeed play important roles in his first two Tests, but he was 35, had never remotely excelled as batsman or bowler over a long career, and if Darren Gough had to be replaced (and let's be honest, he did), then a specialist bowler might've been a better bet, no?
19-year-old Ben Hollioake playing Tests in 1997 basically because he'd done well at under-19 level.
Chris Schofield playing Test cricket in 2000. I don't care if Robert Croft was no use in home Tests; he was a damn sight more use than Schofield was ever going to be.
In 2001, Usman Afzaal playing Test cricket, and Ian Ward as a middle-order batsman (in Ward's case in the only season of his 7 where he was unable to produce the goods). There were at least 3-4 batsmen with better cases.
But the worst of the lot, until Pattinson and Amjad Khan, surely has to be Richard Dawson's elevation to Test level in 2001/02. Honestly, you could not wish to see a bowler with less to recommend him - even if he was only taken on his first tour with the intention of "gaining experience". Hardly spun the ball, never got any drift because his arm was too high, did not bowl with great flight therefore got no loop, and basically obviously was never, ever going to amount to anything. Gareth Batty in 2003/04 wasn't great either but he was at least marginally better than Dawson.
But it is run close by the decision to pick Anthony McGrath with
all-round skills in mind. It'd have been bad enough if he'd been picked as a specialist batsman; as an all-rounder, oh dear, no.
Ian Blackwell and Liam Plunkett were shockers in 2005/06 as well, of course. And Saj in 2006 needs no mention.
And you can give a convincing case as to why John Morris, David Lawrence, Neil Mallender, Paul Taylor, Richard Blakey, Mark Lathwell, Alan Igglesden, Stephen Rhodes, Joey Benjamin, Jason Gallian, Alan Wells, Ronnie Irani, Min Patel, Mark Ealham, Simon Brown, Chris Silverwood, Adam Hollioake, Warren Hegg, Chris Read, Ed Giddins, Darren Maddy, Chris Adams, James Foster, James Kirtley, Ed Smith, Martin Saggers, Shaun Udal and Chris Tremlett should not have played either. But at least they were all decent cricketers, unlike those detailed above.