Cow Corner Blog

Miller time harps Dusty

Wed Jul 23 01:36PM

When Mike Atherton asked Michael Vaughan whether he was happy with the team he was handed for the second Test in the aftermath of the Headingley debacle, there was an awkward 10 second silence.

Vaughan fidgeted, avoided eye contact and then became overly defensive before offering the response of 'it's not really the time to talk about these things'.

At least if Mrs Vaughan wanted to know whether Michael had been down the boozer for a couple of cheeky ones before coming home, she'd have no trouble in telling.

Now national selector Geoff Miller has sought an explanation after Vaughan latterly admitted England were unsettled by a "confused" selection before the ten wicket defeat.

Miller said: "The selectors are not here to make Michael's job harder, which is why I'd like him to clarify his comments. It's been made into a massive issue by the media and I want to hear his side of the story. This is professional sport. I'm the national selector, Michael is the captain - we're both in this together. We must make sure we're on an even keel."

Not here to make Michael's job harder you say.

Then why pick a bloke who the captain has not even seen bowl in a first-class match or in outdoor nets because he only got the call the afternoon before the match.

Why not put him in the initial squad if he was going to be the natural replacement for Ryan Sidebottom - who was carrying a bad back at Lord's - rather than seemingly cobble the plan together in the Skyrack next to the ground on the Wednesday before the Test.

Why promote a bloke who many think is not good enough to bat at number seven to number six because four days earlier the attack couldn't bowl out the opponents on a featherbed.

As Vic Marks said in the Observer at the weekend the late call-up of 29-year-old Nottinghamshire seamer Darren Pattinson, who had made just 11 previous first-class appearances, by Miller maybe was an attempt to be noticed.

Pattinson was the first new cap since the current selection panel of Miller, James Whitaker and Ashley Giles took over.

As Marks mused: "Does he have pretensions to be another Uri Geller: to pluck from his flat, Derbyshire cap some gobsmacking magic in the form of the former roof tiler."

- - -

Certainly a pair of former England captains turned curmudgeons are not on Miller's side in their columns today.

Ian Botham led the chorus of condemnation: "The England team selection on Friday knocked me sideways. I feel very sorry for Darren Pattinson, but I don't have any sympathy for the selectors who lost all sense of perspective and embarrassed English cricket. It was the most illogical, pathetic and diabolical piece of selecting I've seen. I want to hear a proper explanation for this, as do the England cricket fans around the country."

Geoff Boycott wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "He bowled steadily and didn't let anyone down. It is not his fault that he is at the middle of this schemozzle. But this was one of the first big decisions taken by England's new selection panel, and they got it badly wrong. They need to admit their mistake and realise that wild hunches are no way to build an international cricket team."

---

TALKING POINT: So who was to blame - Miller and the selectors or Vaughan and the players.? Christopher Martin-Jenkins described Pattinson's selection as the most left-field in 99 years - so who did England pick in 1909?

COMING UP: County Championship action plus India v Sri Lanka in the first Test

Comments1 - 13 of 13

"It is not his fault that he is at the middle of this schemozzle." Best. Sentence. Ever.
Great blog today Cowers, very interesting read indeed.
From the_kop2003 on Wed Jul 23 01:29PM
Report abuse
kop, do you find that jude surf to be extremely irritating?
From samuelbanks on Wed Jul 23 01:39PM
Report abuse
To be fair I don't think Pattinson played badly, we just don't have the firepower at the moment to bowl out a decent test side. Until the likes of Simon Jones is fit again and Harmison gets his radar fixed we are going to have to get help from the pitch and the batting side to get them out. Showed how much we need Sidebottom at the moment.
I think the selectors need to be a bit tougher and prepared to drop the mis-firing big guns and bring in the on form players.
From sikka316 on Wed Jul 23 02:07PM
Report abuse
we are forgetting that this team has ben struggling even before DP entered the scene.Petersen has been woeful (yes by his standards), so also Vaughn and most of the top order. just look at South africa..look at their top six and calculate their averages....woeful batting can make the bowling look bad if both are on same side or good if on the other side. england trouble isnt the bowling but the batting. CRICKET IS A BATMAN"S GAME!!!!
From alobok on Wed Jul 23 02:28PM
Report abuse
who pattinson.......................stupid spammers
From swads43 on Wed Jul 23 03:38PM
Report abuse
Whilst Simon Jones, Mathew Hoggard or Steve Harmison might have given us some greater penetration, the main problem is not the selection of Pattison (a wrong call but not one that you can blame the player for) but our failure to score runs. Too many times are the bowlers blamed or replaced when the 'batsmen' seem to be sacred cows. A look at the match figures reveals that the top 5 batsmen scored 219 in total and the all rounder,WK and bowlers managed 263! Does this not become a huge signpost for the selectors if they are looking for answers?
From john.tait0.t21 on Wed Jul 23 05:09PM
Report abuse
I googled your question about 1909. The MCC in the Ashes series picked a bowler they didn't use, a batsman called King who scored 60 and then was dropped or who was unavailable, a batsman called Sharp who made a century in his second or third test. They dropped Hobbs who failed twice and picked Frank Woolley, who didn't do much in that series, but it was Frank Woolley they picked.
I would suggest the comparison was inaccurate and irrelevant.
From james_ssmith on Wed Jul 23 05:43PM
Report abuse
john buttresses the point with his analysis. we are all about the bowling forgetting that the real trouble is the batting. Our woeful batsmen made the SA bowlers look better than they really are!
From alobok on Wed Jul 23 06:22PM
Report abuse
Who actually selects the selectors? Neither Miller or Giles had an outstanding Test career, and Whitaker played one Test - why can't we actually have selectors along the lines of Botham, Gooch, Stewart, Atherton etc who actually understand the game and who've had success at the top level?
From vllles on Wed Jul 23 11:40PM
Report abuse
BTW, in 1909 England picked SF Barnes - by then playing League Cricket, and aged 36 - and, for the final test, 38-year-old Douglas Carr, whose 1st-class career had only begun that same year!
From vllles on Wed Jul 23 11:51PM
Report abuse
It's not the selektors fault if they cannot find eleven X Factor Flintoff floating about on a pedalo
Vaughan should be replaced by Collingwood who is at least in the AFL home and away league
From arttidesco on Thu Jul 24 10:02AM
Report abuse
Is this a particularly ageist site ?
Age counts for nothing on the criket pitch
From arttidesco on Thu Jul 24 10:04AM
Report abuse
It shouldn't count for anything, Artti, but face it - after a certain age the reactions are just that little slower, and at the top level reaction speed is crucial. Also after years of pounding up and down a 20+ yard run up on the county circuit, the legs aren't going to be all that great either, for a fast bowler. You don't see many 30+ fast bowlers - even McGrath and Hadlee cut their pace a little and relied on guile and cunning.
With the rise and rise of 20-20, cricket's going to become even more of a young man's game, and the County Championship and Test Cricket will suffer as a result. Who's going to keep anyone over the age of about 27-28 on their wage bill when some teenager will do the running about?
From vllles on Thu Jul 24 11:07AM
Report abuse