tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post3961682070949245593..comments2024-02-11T10:15:25.794+00:00Comments on Third Umpire: Team England; Consistently ConfusedTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09215417891130654291noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-16049894670747204832008-07-25T14:45:00.000+01:002008-07-25T14:45:00.000+01:00I understand your point regarding Tremlett, howeve...I understand your point regarding Tremlett, however, the 12th man for England, the guy who misses out and heads back home to join a game which is half way through is consistently undercooked and fatigued. Just look at what happened to Jimmy Anderson a couple of years ago. It had a far worse effect on him, but at the end of the day he was still a great bowler. Tremlett has been playing in a shocking Hampshrie team who have lacked confidence and often failed to make the opposition bat twice because of their own poor batting shows. It is far easier to bat once you know the opposition were all out for 200 and are unlikely to do any better second time around. You have all the time in the world. And Tremlett's economy of 2.7 shows that he hasn't been bowling badly but has in fact been kept out by teams who recognise him as Hants major threat. And his performance for the ODI side (his weaker form) showed that he is far from out of form.<BR/><BR/>The real point is that if England are going to tell Tremlett that he is their 12th man (regardless of what we may think, by selecting him as 12th man they declared that he was the next guy in line for them - and he has good figures vs India last year to suggest he is deserving) then he should play if a bowler goes down, especially when Pattinson was called up to cover Anderson and not Sidebottom according to the selectors. It sends out completely the wrong message. By all means select Pattinson as 12th man and then play him, but it adds to confusion and a sense of injustice when the 12th man is consistently overlooked even in the event of injury. Why is he there and that is the question all other bowlers asked.<BR/><BR/>As for Pattinson himself, he is not an exceptional bowler. He does his job but he hasn't got a particular X-Factor which makes him stand out above the rest. I stand by the statement that one of Hoggard, Jones, Lewis, Harmison, Tremlett, even Ali, deserved the chance above him and indeed had earnt that chance. We often complain that England are too loyal to the batsmen, it is rarely the case with bowlers it seems (I don't imagine that Paul Horton, Dawid Malan, Andrew Gale or Snell are about to pull on a test shirt despite their form). Those guys above deserved better than to be overlooked for a guy who has just played 6 first class games in England and never had any desire to where the 3 Lions. The selectors have done a lot of damage with their "hunch pick".Chrispyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17116768172493122694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-74035624282335678802008-07-25T03:41:00.000+01:002008-07-25T03:41:00.000+01:00One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned...One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned about Tremlett he was omitted from the Hants side to face Sussex due to injury just a couple of days before the test started.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you look at form, before the current Lancs match (speaking of which, he currently has figures of 2-100), 18 wickets at 32.88 with a strike rate of worse than a wicket every 12 overs are not the figures of someone pushing for selection for the test side.<BR/><BR/>Pattinson was a risky selection but reasonable in the circumstances. We wanted someone who was currently fit and on form and he was one of three or four that fitted the bill on that score. There would be issues with some of the others that would make them risky picks too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-32206245463053563492008-07-23T01:03:00.000+01:002008-07-23T01:03:00.000+01:00I have come to the point where I don't trust anyth...I have come to the point where I don't trust anything said by Team England. On the off chance they are telling the truth they are probably wrong. Who knows what happened with Pattinson's selection, I don't suppose there is any chance of us ever knowing for sure...<BR/><BR/>You are right about Anderson, I thought he had a really good game. He bowled really well and without much luck. He batted well too with lots of courage. Certainly England's 'Man of the Match'Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05153704692133983969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-81928738173196873172008-07-22T23:24:00.000+01:002008-07-22T23:24:00.000+01:00I would love to see Jones in the side again, but y...I would love to see Jones in the side again, but yet again he is missing out for Worcestershire. If he can't play more than 60% of their games then I can't see him being selected again which is a shame. Anderson seems to have taken the mantel from Hoggard which is a shame but at the same time he is doing well so good on him. Hoggy should still be considered as the next in line for swing bowling, not Mr Pattinson.Chrispyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17116768172493122694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37251922.post-38310119580397475942008-07-22T15:21:00.000+01:002008-07-22T15:21:00.000+01:00Top piece Chris - couldn't have put it better myse...Top piece Chris - couldn't have put it better myself.<BR/><BR/>Also agree re: Anderson - am increasingly impressed with all three parts of his game!Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09215417891130654291noreply@blogger.com