Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[iamdavid]

If the rumors about Hoggard loosing his nip are correct, then Jones.

If not then a toss-up between those two.

 

[NUFAN]

If the rumors about Hoggard loosing his nip are correct, then Jones.

If not then a toss-up between those two.

Surely he could still bowl with one nip though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's interesting. Can't say there's actually anyone I'd want.
Jones is a cripple, and you definitely want him proving that he can go a full season without getting injured before throwing him back in.
Harmison, Plunkett and Mahmood are all proven failures.
There's obviously something up with Hoggard, because he had a poor final year in Test cricket and is having no interest shown in him by the selectors.
Murtagh has wickets this season and Onions is averaging under 20, but from what I've seen of them for their counties, I don't like either.
Chapple's actually bowling very well but he's just too old.
Tremlett was supposed to be next in line all summer, but is the only bowler mentioned in this post averaging over 30 in the Championship this year.

Would probably go with Tremlett, tbh.

When Cork mentioned Chapple he was being a little naughty, he added that "at least the rest of the team would have recognized him when he turned up."

 

[Manee]

The main excuse given to not playing Simon Jones was that he had to be part of a five man attack because he is most effective in short spells - what is the excuse this time, as England play five bowlers.

Steve Harmison has been topping the Division 1 wicket takers, showing an admirable ability to bowl the most overs for Durham (usually about 20) and end up with four or five wickets, about once per game - how valuable would he have been as England slug it out against the South African top and middle order? People speak of having to have consistency of selection, but Pattinson has pretty much been selected for one game, so out of the window goes that theory.

But the obvious choice was Chris Tremlett. I have been saying since Broad's Test career began that Tremlett is a far better option in Tests. He has better FC statistics, better Test statistics. He is quicker and gets steeper bounce; at this moment in time, he trumps Broad in every aspect for Test selection.

I've mentioned three bowlers and believe that two, one being Tremlett, the other being a bit of a toss up, should be playing instead of Broad and Pattinson. However, all this is based around keeping England's tactic of five bowlers, something which I disagree with on a ground renowned for swing and being bowler friendly.

 

[Goughy]

Harmison, Plunkett and Mahmood are all proven failures.
.

FFS. I can understand someone being disappointed with Harmison but to call him a proven failure is nothing short of crazy.

He is in the top 10 wicketakers for England in the history of Test cricket and has 200+ wickets at a shade over 30.

Id love to be a failure of that magnitude

 

[Richard]

Truth is, though, that the only sustained success Harmison had was in early 2004.

Knock out those 7 Tests, and obviously consider Test-class teams only, and his record for England is 44 Tests, 136 wickets at 39.11. And this flatters him greatly - it's been quite common to see him have 0-70 and end-up with, say, 1-80 or 2-85 by getting a couple of late-innings wickets with nothing deliveries. Case-in-point the SA tour of 2004/05, where if SA had declared about 2 overs earlier on 2 occasions he'd have had zero wickets in the last three Tests. Had these circumstances not conspired in his favour it'd be closer to an average of 50.

Then consider that in these 44 Tests, there are 3 which could fairly be considered "good" games (The Oval 2004, Lord's 2005 and Old Trafford 2006).

I'd say this is a very, very conclusive failure. Harmison is (was, hopefully) someone who has been picked many times on what he was believed to be capable of rather than what he actually was. The fact he's clearly a very likeable guy who pretty much everyone in the team enjoys the company of has very probably contributed too.

 

[vic_orthdox]

James Pattinson.

 

[zaremba]

Truth is, though, that the only sustained success Harmison had was in early 2004.

Knock out those 7 Tests, and obviously consider Test-class teams only, and his record for England is 44 Tests, 136 wickets at 39.11

Isn't it funny that when you discount a player's best games, and games against weaker opposition, how their stats start to look much worse? However it might strike the more even-handed of us as a little unfair, not to say ridiculous.

When you look at his overall statistics in Test and FC cricket, Harmison's figures are better than Flintoff's.

He's one of the main reasons why Durham are leading Div 1 of the County Championship this season and anyone who's watched any county cricket this season would agree that he has been absolutely outstanding.

So if he'd been selected I'd have had no complaints. Ditto Hoggard, Jones or Tremlett.

 

[Prince EWS]

Every bowler up to and including Gareth Batty. I'd have picked Pattinson if the alternative was worse than Batty, admittedly, but I'd have picked Batty before him.

 

[Richard]

Isn't it funny that when you discount a player's best games, and games against weaker opposition, how their stats start to look much worse? However it might strike the more even-handed of us as a little unfair, not to say ridiculous.

When you look at his overall statistics in Test and FC cricket, Harmison's figures are better than Flintoff's.

He's one of the main reasons why Durham are leading Div 1 of the County Championship this season and anyone who's watched any county cricket this season would agree that he has been absolutely outstanding.

So if he'd been selected I'd have had no complaints. Ditto Hoggard, Jones or Tremlett.

Overall statistics are fairly meaningless though. Certainly any Test stats that include Bangladesh and, recently, Zimbabwe, are worth nothing. They're woefully substandard and games involving them shouldn't be classed Tests (and currently aren't in Zimbabwe's case).

The point about removing early-2004 from Harmison's career is that with most players, you can remove a small chunk of matches and it doesn't make all that much difference. However, almost all of Harmison's success came in that time. Removing it makes analysis of his career purer, not less pure.

 

[vic_orthdox]

About time some selectors started recognizing Victorians, anyways.

 

[zaremba]

The point about removing early-2004 from Harmison's career is that with most players, you can remove a small chunk of matches and it doesn't make all that much difference. However, almost all of Harmison's success came in that time. Removing it makes analysis of his career purer, not less pure.

Yes disregard the bits of evidence that are inconvenient to your theory and the evidence becomes "purer". I like it!

It reminds me (in reverse) of the great line "So apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the opera?"

 

[BoyBrumby]

About time some selectors started recognizing Victorians, anyways.

Have you ever played against Pattinson, vic? I did ask in the tour thread, but there's probably been a few hundred posts since then.

 

[Richard]

Yes disregard the bits of evidence that are inconvenient to your theory and the evidence becomes "purer". I like it!

You seem to have come-up with the idea that the theory precedes the evidence.

It doesn't.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Have you ever played against Pattinson, vic? I did ask in the tour thread, but there's probably been a few hundred posts since then.

Have played against him, and no-one likes facing him. Hits the gloves pretty hard, still gets some movement in doing so. Hit our opening batsman one day on the chest, thought it had put a whole in him.

Basically, the guy was bowling very well in District Cricket about 5-6 years ago, a good year or two from really pushing his way up the ranks. Then he and his partner had a kid, bills need paying and the local clubs came calling. Went back and played with Doveton with mates, got a bit of coin. Was lured back down to Dandenong a year or two later, bowling very well still. Victoria had a plethora of injuries to their fast bowlers in 06/07, he took the opportunity and performed well. Got a contract the next season (this one just gone) , but had an ankle operation at the start of it, only came back after Christmas and by then others had leapfrogged ahead of him. Guys who I don't think are better bowlers.

Actually handles the stick okay too.

 

[zaremba]

You seem to have come-up with the idea that the theory precedes the evidence.

Yes, the thought did indeed cross my mind when you said you thought that deleting Harmison's best performances made for a "purer" analysis of his career!

 

[zaremba]

Have played against him, and no-one likes facing him. Hits the gloves pretty hard, still gets some movement in doing so. Hit our opening batsman one day on the chest, thought it had put a whole in him.

Basically, the guy was bowling very well in District Cricket about 5-6 years ago, a good year or two from really pushing his way up the ranks. Then he and his partner had a kid, bills need paying and the local clubs came calling. Went back and played with Doveton with mates, got a bit of coin. Was lured back down to Dandenong a year or two later, bowling very well still. Victoria had a plethora of injuries to their fast bowlers in 06/07, he took the opportunity and performed well. Got a contract the next season (this one just gone) , but had an ankle operation at the start of it, only came back after Christmas and by then others had leapfrogged ahead of him. Guys who I don't think are better bowlers.

Actually handles the stick okay too.

Thanks for this - very interesting to hear from someone with some first-hand knowledge of him.

 

[Richard]

Yes, the thought did indeed cross my mind when you said you thought that deleting Harmison's best performances made for a "purer" analysis of his career!

It does though. Harmison's career has been mostly poor, with a rare piece of good stuff. Therefore, you can see the bigger picture better by removing the minority stuff.

 

[Perm]

I agree quite firmly with a post that Langeveldt made in the last couple of days, I think it may have been in the Official Tour Thread. Basically he just said he felt sorry for Darren Pattinson having to deal with all this media interest and basically becoming the talking point of international cricket overnight. It's a heck of a lot for a guy to go through, especially one as inexperienced in cricketing circles as the other options.

Chris Tremlett can obviously feel a bit hard done by, coming into the squad as injury cover and then not getting the nod. A fair point was made in a cricinfo article, he is the only 'option' averaging over 30 in the County Championship, so perhaps he wouldn't be the right pick. I've always thought Sajid Mahmood was absolutely rubbish, regarldess of the fact he could reverse swing and hurl the ball down at a reasonable clip. His accuracy was far too shoddy, and I think he needs a few more seasons for Lancashire before the Test selectors begin to seriously look at him again.

This leaves us with the three more experienced England candidates, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones. Three bowlers from the famed five-prong attack employed against Australia in 2005, but all had been relegated to domestic cricket. Simon Jones' injury prone body has been standing up to some tough treatment lately and he'll be keen to get back into the England set up. Matthew Hoggard seems to have lost his confidence, or that extra yard of pace in his bowling. It seems he just may not be quick enough to bother top class Test batsman, especially if the ball isn't moving around. A lot has been said about Steve Harmison during his England career, and is he really ready to step back into Test cricket? Personally I'd be inclined to give him a go, as he has been spearheading Durham and would rile up the South Africans a fair bit.

 

[zaremba]

It does though. Harmison's career has been mostly poor, with a rare piece of good stuff. Therefore, you can see the bigger picture better by removing the minority stuff.

Absurd. It's a bit like removing the centuries from a batsman's career analysis on the grounds that these are the "minority stuff".