Sky Sports.com

Pattinson: wrong pick

I don't buy into all that hype about unsettling the team unity either. Having someone come in at number 11 does not make you get bowled out for 203 in your first innings. It does not unsettle the team first up, maybe it does later in the match, but England's batsmen are the one's to blame for that poor start, not Darren Pattinson.

Nasser Hussain
Quotes of the week

ENGLAND v SOUTH AFRICA
Third npower Test
Live on Sky Sports 1 & HD1
Wed, July 30 - Sun, Aug, 3
Click here for full schedules

The biggest disappointment from the second Test has to be England's performance on the field, but the public fall-out from it is nothing but annoying.

There has been a lot of spin over the past two days, much of it coming from the media and I include the likes of myself in that, because we do have to ask questions about the selection at Headingley.

But the selection of one lad, Darren Pattinson, did not cost England the Test match.

What cost England that Test match was batting poorly in the first innings and the fact that South Africa played some excellent cricket. Beyond that the issue has been clouded.

But everyone has since focussed on Pattinson and clearly it was the wrong selection for a number of reasons. First of all, I just don't think it was fair on the lad to bring him in from such obscurity.

Ferocious pressure

He had only played a handful of games for Nottinghamshire and it wasn't right to jump him over experienced, hardened county players like Chris Tremlett, Steve Harmison, Matthew Hoggard and Simon Jones.

Secondly, it was wrong to go for a horses-for-courses policy. Fifteen years ago at Headingley you needed pitch-it-up swing bowlers, but these days you need a balance attack. England already had James Andersen to do that - and he bowled really well.

Thirdly, Pattinson is blatantly an Australian. He might have been born here, but he was brought up there and his dad says he's an Aussie. What does that say to our young Academy cricketers and the people in the game that pump huge amounts into youth development?

I just felt so sorry for Pattinson. He's clearly a nice lad and a good cricketer and the bottom line is he put in a decent performance, but should he have been put under that ferocious pressure? No he shouldn't.

I don't buy into all that hype about unsettling the team unity either. Having someone come in at number 11 does not make you get bowled out for 203 in your first innings.

It does not unsettle the team first up, maybe it does later in the match, but England's batsmen are the one's to blame for that poor start, not Darren Pattinson.

Man-management

As for the public fall-out - and I'm not talking specifically about Michael Vaughan or the selection - I do think if you win the game, you take credit as a captain so if things go wrong, you have to hold your hands up.

When I lost that famous toss in Brisbane in 2002 I actually asked Duncan Fletcher, Marcus Trescothick and three or four others for advice; but I was proved to be wrong and held my hands up instantly.

I thought Vaughan actually had a decent game as captain, but it is good man-management if you do hold your hands up because after all, we all make mistakes. I do think though that when asked about selection issues both he and Peter Moores should have said nothing. They should have both referred any questions to Geoff Miller.

I was part of the Schofield Report and that is why we changed the selection format. We wanted someone who was accountable if you like, but also figurehead and a reference point for selection issues.

You never hear John Buchanan or Ricky Ponting talking publicly about Australia's selections, do you? I see Hugh Morris has called a meeting and that is why we have someone in that role, to deal with these issues.

Good guy

We should not be looking to hang people out to dry either. Now we need to look at how we got into this situation and having spoken to Michael Atherton about this in the last two days, I wonder whether the captain now needs to be kept out of selection altogether.

He is the one that leads the team on the field, so maybe it is a question of saying: 'Here's your 13, whittle that down to 11', so captain and coach decide the final XI.

I know Geoff Miller as well and he is a really good guy and having worked with him myself, I have absolutely no doubt that he would give the captain what he wants too.

This should not be a time for knee-jerk reactions or massive changes. England have gone down big to South Africa before and bounced back.

But the harsh facts are that in the last couple of innings, England have struggled to bowl the tourists out once, let alone twice. They need a wicket-taker and whether that is Steve Harmison, Simon Jones or anyone else, I don't know.

How to work him into the side is another matter as well. It might mean bringing Paul Collingwood back in, having your wicket-keeper at seven and then just going with your four best bowlers. That might rule Stuart Broad out, which would be hard on him, but it might be that they just replace Pattinson with Ryan Sidebottom and bring Jones or Harmison at Edgbaston.

Whatever happens, whoever is responsible and whoever makes the decision, England need a strike bowler.