Rubbish Aussie county cricketers

Not many of them to be fair but Matty Nicholson- dear oh dear can someone explain this one? He played tests for Australia and has done some yeoman county work down the years but is averaging 50 plus a wicket this season and not looking much cop. Shocking return for an antipodean overseas player.

Well obviously the Championship is of a better standard than many think and not every Australian is Glenn McGrath.

Wash your mouth out Lever! Every Aussie playing county cricket would be a dead set certainty to make the English team, as Darren Pattinson proved this summer, somewhat depressingly. God that was such a weak display of Aussie arse licking from our selectors. A crap cricketer is a crap cricketer. England has plenty, and so does Aus.

To be fair Aussies bowlers don't dominate in CC half as much as Aussies batsmen. It's still a surprise when one of them struggles. Usually a pleasant surprise but sods law the 'rey get lumbered with the Aussie oddity.

But most of the Aussie batsmen do seem to end up in division 2 playing for Craptishire against Craptishire. An Aussie with a big reputation like Voges played for Notts in division 1 this season and struggled to average 40.

Some Aussie players look on a season in county cricket, nothing more, nothing less, and go on to bigger and better things, Stuart Clark and Doug Bollinger to name but two.

Dunno Bas.

If your a cricketer with anything about you - you don't get spanked to all parts and not bother.

(unless you're Shoaib)

JKLever wrote:Dunno Bas.

If your a cricketer with anything about you - you don't get spanked to all parts and not bother.

(unless you're Shoaib)

Or a recipient of Peter Roebuck's 'hush' money.

Henry wrote:Wash your mouth out Lever! Every Aussie playing county cricket would be a dead set certainty to make the English team, as Darren Pattinson proved this summer, somewhat depressingly. God that was such a weak display of Aussie arse licking from our selectors. A crap cricketer is a crap cricketer. England has plenty, and so does Aus.

Whatever. Pattinson has had a great season in Div 1. And he's rubbish.

Just shows that a short stint in a foreign country isn't enough to judge a cricketer.

I would rate Bollinger and Tait way above Pattinson, but they had terrible times in England.

Pattinson got lucky to be playing his cricket at Trent Bridge early season when it was swinging all over the shop.

If he'd played for Somerset he'd never have got picked - that's how much of a shite selection he was.

Most galling that if KP was captain i'm sure Simon Jones would have been picked at that time.

JKLever wrote:Pattinson got lucky to be playing his cricket at Trent Bridge early season when it was swinging all over the shop.

If he'd played for Somerset he'd never have got picked - that's how much of a shite selection he was.

Most galling that if KP was captain i'm sure Simon Jones would have been picked at that time.

One of the main reasons Vaughan quit was because the selectors didn't let him have Jones at Headingley.

During Fletcher's reign the selection input of the captain was greatly reduced. This was fine, because there was a coherent strategy and Fletcher and Hussain / Vaughan were usually 'singing from the same hymn sheet' to use one of 'Team England's' dreadful stock phrases.

But now we have Moores and Miller running the show - just wait, you'll find KP lumbered with some lemon in his team soon too. Luke Wright anyone?

Didn't Vaughan say in that interview that he always got the side he wanted on the field

JKLever wrote:Didn't Vaughan say in that interview that he always got the side he wanted on the field

Yes - no captain would hang the poor bloke out to dry in front of the media.

It was a pretty open secret that Vaughan had lobbied hard for Jones for that match (but not Hoggard for some reason). He had never even seem Pattinson play before, I believe.

As it stands the Captain / Coach have final say on the XI - but not the squad of XII or XIII they have to pick it from. You can't pick Jones if he's not in the squad.

Vaughan had the choice between Pattinson and Tremlett.
He chose Pattinson and sent Tremble back to county cricket
Q.E.D. - a total f**k up.

For him to bleat post-defeat that he "wasn't given the choice"
and that Pattinson was "thrust" upon him was absolute BS and
a sure sign of his desperation in deflecting blame by trying to pass the buck.

Not saying Tremble would have been any better - but the fact
that Vaughan had seen Tremble play and not Pattinson
indicates to me that he'd "lost it".

This isn't a continuing character assassination - merely a logical
disection of the events at the time. I get fed up reading the
excuses from Vaughan apologists who continue to regard him
in the 2005 Ashes victory light ...

The Captain always has the final say on the make up of HIS team.
KP is presently proving it - with encouraging results.

Gary 111 wrote:

JKLever wrote:Pattinson got lucky to be playing his cricket at Trent Bridge early season when it was swinging all over the shop.

If he'd played for Somerset he'd never have got picked - that's how much of a shite selection he was.

Most galling that if KP was captain i'm sure Simon Jones would have been picked at that time.

One of the main reasons Vaughan quit was because the selectors didn't let him have Jones at Headingley.

During Fletcher's reign the selection input of the captain was greatly reduced. This was fine, because there was a coherent strategy and Fletcher and Hussain / Vaughan were usually 'singing from the same hymn sheet' to use one of 'Team England's' dreadful stock phrases.

But now we have Moores and Miller running the show - just wait, you'll find KP lumbered with some lemon in his team soon too. Luke Wright anyone?

I think Pietersen has already exerted his authority over Moores by insisting on clear-the-air talks with Coach Sussex as a condition of his accepting the captaincy.

I don't think Moores holds the power in that England dressing room any more.

We'll find out when the winter squads are announced whether Pietersen has really taken charge of the show. I'm expecting a few changes in line with the ODI updates - the promotion and backing of "talent" over the more conservative "good egg" picks.

I don't think Vaughan will feature, and I reckon Strauss and maybe even Collingwood might find themselves on the outs. Hoggard's already gone.

We'll see...

Merlin wrote:Vaughan had the choice between Pattinson and Tremlett.
He chose Pattinson and sent Tremble back to county cricket
Q.E.D. - a total f**k up.

For him to bleat post-defeat that he "wasn't given the choice"
and that Pattinson was "thrust" upon him was absolute BS and
a sure sign of his desperation in deflecting blame by trying to pass the buck.

Not saying Tremble would have been any better - but the fact
that Vaughan had seen Tremble play and not Pattinson
indicates to me that he'd "lost it".

This isn't a continuing character assassination - merely a logical
disection of the events at the time. I get fed up reading the
excuses from Vaughan apologists who continue to regard him
in the 2005 Ashes victory light ...

The Captain always has the final say on the make up of HIS team.
KP is presently proving it - with encouraging results.

Why would you pick a bowler who constantly bangs it in short of a length for Headingley where you need to swing it from full of a length?

The selectors had picked Pattinson in the squad because they believed him to be the best swing bowler in the country. It was a brilliant plan which unfortunately overlooked just one minor detail - Namely that the selectors are all a set of turds.

I'm reserving judgement on Pietersen thus far.

Remember he has only won one Test. Lets see how his record is shaping up this time next year before praising him to high heaven.

Judging by the last two Test captains he's following he's got a hard act to follow to match up to their standards.

Point taken, but once picked by the captain for the final XI, it's both bad form and IMO
it also shows a sign of weakness in said captain when he then starts throwing his toys
out of the pram by blaming everyone else but himself for initially selecting the player.

What if ... just what if ... England had won?

Vawn preening himself in self reflected glory at the brilliance of picking Pattinson ?
...Or Vawn bleating about the selectors giving him a bowler he'd never seen before ....

One guess .........

Gary 111 wrote:Judging by the last two Test captains he's following he's got a hard act to follow to match up to their standards.

Well, he's a better batsman than both and has way more hair. Early signs are good.

Gary 111 wrote:I'm reserving judgement on Pietersen thus far.

Remember he has only won one Test. Lets see how his record is shaping up this time next year before praising him to high heaven.

Judging by the last two Test captains he's following he's got a hard act to follow to match up to their standards.

Aye - agree ... it's far too early to judge.

But hey .. the signs are a shed load more encouraging than those in the later months of Vawn's reign.
For a start Harmison was rejuvenated ... Shah recalled ... aye early days here as well ...
but you have to admit, the team looked heaps more confident in the way they went about the demolition
of the saffers latterly.

Merlin wrote:Point taken, but once picked by the captain for the final XI, it's both bad form and IMO
it also shows a sign of weakness in said captain when he then starts throwing his toys
out of the pram by blaming everyone else but himself for initially selecting the player.

What if ... just what if ... England had won?

Vawn preening himself in self reflected glory at the brilliance of picking Pattinson ?
...Or Vawn bleating about the selectors giving him a bowler he'd never seen before ....

One guess .........

We've been down this road before Merls....

But i'll say one more thing. Vaughan publicly backed Pattinson (as JKL mentioned on the last thread) it was only journalists with behind the scenes knowledge of team selection that brought it to my attention in the papers that Vaughan wanted Jones for Headingley.

I found even that slightly odd personally, I would have gone for Hoggard myself.

Merlin wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:I'm reserving judgement on Pietersen thus far.

Remember he has only won one Test. Lets see how his record is shaping up this time next year before praising him to high heaven.

Judging by the last two Test captains he's following he's got a hard act to follow to match up to their standards.

Aye - agree ... it's far too early to judge.

But hey .. the signs are a shed load more encouraging than those in the later months of Vawn's reign.
For a start Harmison was rejuvenated ... Shah recalled ... aye early days here as well ...
but you have to admit, the team looked heaps more confident in the way they went about the demolition
of the saffers latterly.

Nit-picking slightly - but Shah wasn't recalled. He has always been in the ODI team this summer. If Pietersen really believed in Shah where was he at the Oval Test? - maybe my point about the selectors picking most of the squad rather than the captain....

Gary 111 wrote:

I found even that slightly odd personally, I would have gone for Hoggard myself.

Now that, I'd agree was the selectors/captain's crime.

Leaving Hoggard out on his home track.
Hoggie must surely have done summat terrible to have become
the forgotton leper of the England team ... since Nov 2007.

Dello wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:Judging by the last two Test captains he's following he's got a hard act to follow to match up to their standards.

Well, he's a better batsman than both and has way more hair. Early signs are good.

Aye, the first sage point on this thread.

Vaughan's career has three distinct phases...

Phase One: Curtains - looked a bit silly and lean pickings with the bat
Phase Two: Short Back & Sides - The golden period, bashed the Aussies all over the place
Phase Three: The Receding Mullet - Obviously affecting his head balance at the crease, result = stumps re-arranged on a regular basis...



Obviously he needs a crazy Slaphead stage where he returns as a crazy pumped up lunatic, smashing sixes for fun...

Merlin wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

I found even that slightly odd personally, I would have gone for Hoggard myself.

Now that, I'd agree was the selectors/captain's crime.

Leaving Hoggard out on his home track.
Hoggie must surely have done summat terrible to have become
the forgotton leper of the England team ... since Nov 2007.

There has always been a bit of a gripe here in Yorkshire that Vaughan often overlooked some of his own team-mates for England duty.

Obviously Vaughan and the selectors weren't impressed with Hoggard's county performances. But, on the face of it his stats were almost the same as Pattinson's (same number of wickets per match, average 3 runs higher) with Pattinson playing in many low scoring games on seaming wickets.

So I doubt Hoggard has lost his 'nip' - as people allege. He is just vastly underrated. I remember Caddick having a pop at him saying he could do a better job after being dropped. He is overlooked after injury while statistically inferior bowlers (Flintoff, Harmison, Anderson) are fast tracked back. And Fletcher has had a few digs in his recent Guardian columns, guff along the lines of he was lucky to have Flintoff at the other end, who got most of his wickets for him...