Gooch & Hoggard on Pattinson

beamer wrote:I think the difference with someone like KP is that he came over as a young, ambitious player who made a positive decision to commit his future to England rather than the country of his birth - OK he wouldn't have done so had it not been for the racial quota system and he may not have done so if he and others within SA cricket had any idea quite how good he was going to become. But he's come in and become England's best and most important player, fully committed to the cause and if he maintains his current average he will be our best batsman in 30 years or more.

Compare that to a bowler who is almost 30, a handful of FC games behind him, who used the fact he happened to have been born over here to get some cricket for Notts as a non-overseas player and had probably never even considered the prospect of playing for England before the selectors contacted him. If he does well I suppose I won't be complaining but it's a short-sighted pick which will have a negative impact on the other bowlers pushing for a place.

So by extension you're saying that if KP had and had been offered the opportunity to play for England in his first season over here, he and England would have turned it down on some moral grounds of him having to put in the hard yards first?

Balderdash.

They waited for his qualification and then got him straight in at the first opportunity to do so, and would have done it earlier had they been able.

Pattinson happens to already qualify, so in he goes.

Pattinson better bowl superb accuracy in this match else his inclusion will always be considered unnecessary experimenting.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Yes, I read it and you both make good points, and as recently as a year or two ago I'd have agreed with you wholeheartedly, but I've thought about it a lot over recent times and now think you're both being too emotional about it, in the same way that I was when I would have objected.

Well.... respectfully I disagree.

JKLever wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Yes, I read it and you both make good points, and as recently as a year or two ago I'd have agreed with you wholeheartedly, but I've thought about it a lot over recent times and now think you're both being too emotional about it, in the same way that I was when I would have objected.

Well.... respectfully I disagree.

Fair enough.

It just comes down to where you draw your own emotional lines under sporting representation I suppose.

I used to be very much in the 'only the pure Englishman will do' school when it came to representing my country, but this has become blurred over the years by the likes of Lamby, Judgey, Phillippe-Henri, Daffy, Big Dev, Nasser and on to KP more recently. Moreover, we have always been represented by sundry Scots, Welshman and even Irish.

I guess I'm just happy to be a bit more inclusive and laissez-faire about it nowadays.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

beamer wrote:I think the difference with someone like KP is that he came over as a young, ambitious player who made a positive decision to commit his future to England rather than the country of his birth - OK he wouldn't have done so had it not been for the racial quota system and he may not have done so if he and others within SA cricket had any idea quite how good he was going to become. But he's come in and become England's best and most important player, fully committed to the cause and if he maintains his current average he will be our best batsman in 30 years or more.

Compare that to a bowler who is almost 30, a handful of FC games behind him, who used the fact he happened to have been born over here to get some cricket for Notts as a non-overseas player and had probably never even considered the prospect of playing for England before the selectors contacted him. If he does well I suppose I won't be complaining but it's a short-sighted pick which will have a negative impact on the other bowlers pushing for a place.

So by extension you're saying that if KP had and had been offered the opportunity to play for England in his first season over here, he and England would have turned it down on some moral grounds of him having to put in the hard yards first?

Balderdash.

They waited for his qualification and then got him straight in at the first opportunity to do so, and would have done it earlier had they been able.

Pattinson happens to already qualify, so in he goes.

Maybe they would have picked KP straight away if he was qualified. But if they had picked him after half a season it would have drawn the same response as with Pattinson. The difference would have been that he would have had the potential for a long career in which to win everyone over!

I have no problem with cricketers who come from English families abroad and come back to play for England (often having to qualify and establish themselves as a county cricketer). After all, England is unique compared to all the other countries in that we have had an empire and a lot of English people are employed abroad because of their expertise and situations surrounding this. The likes of Cowdrey, Dexter, right through to the likes of Craig White recently were from ex-pat families who had travelled to help develop trade and business. You can quite easily be born and brought up in another country but still consider yourself to be 'English' - e.g. I would say there are a lot of muslims living in England born and bred here who consider themselves Pakistani and support Pakistan.

That's why you get the likes of Craig White, born in Yorkshire but lived in Australia until he was 20. I remember from Sky's coverage how you still see pictures of him as a lad as the MCG wearing an England shirt - obviously his family and himself still consider themselves English - despite the fact we have benefited from the Australian cricket system somewhat, when White decided to return to England and persue a career with Yorkshire from a young age - about 20, and commit his future to England. Then its only right he should play for England (despite a slight Aussie twang) I consider him English.

Pietersen is obviously a marginal case, because his ties to England aren't quite as strong, an English born mother and South African father (albeit in a country where many of the whites are from British, Irish or Dutch stock). But I would say his willingness to leave to persue a career in England at a young age - about 20, to settle here, shows that Pietersen clearly thought of himself at least partially English. He was clearly talented enough to represent South Africa but chose to commit himself to England at a young age (when he wasn't at the time the big name player he is now). And now he has an English wife, and will live here until he gets old and fat (and probably retires to Spain!).

By contrast Pattinson clearly considers himself Australian. A lot of talented club cricketers in Australia come over to England to travel and develop their game - if he had any affinity with the country of his birth i'm sure he'd do the same. But why would he? He is an Australian, he thinks of himself as an Australian and he was enjoying being there, at least until the age of 28 and a big wad of notes under his nose. Fair enough Asutralia is a great place to live (not quite as good as Yorkshire, but Grimsby does smell of fish a little). Now, cynically, he has taken the chance to play for Notts as a resident (a lot of Kolpak's do likewise so no complaints there) but to carry on and play for a flag of convenience is just not on. I would like to have seen him make a commitment to live here full time, play for at least a couple of seasons before being considered for selection. Instead I get the feeling he's a mercenary cricketer (and without having seen him play, I doubt he is anywhere near the class of Hoggard and Simon Jones who are two brilliant proven Test bowlers who have given more for their country than almost anyone I can remember. How must they feel about this?). Where does it all stop? Once we've picked one mercenary like Pattinson does this open the floodgates for more traitors like Saqlain, Law and Pothas?

For example Pothas is clearly better than the likes of Prior and Ambrose, I always thought he wasn't picked on a matter of principle - where are those principles now though?

Pattinson will end up living in England though. He can't play again in the Pura Cup.

PearlJ wrote:Pattinson will end up living in England though. He can't play again in the Pura Cup.

Yes he's seen the bumper pay check now. But prior to two weeks ago he wasn't so committed...

Gary 111 wrote:

PearlJ wrote:Pattinson will end up living in England though. He can't play again in the Pura Cup.

Yes he's seen the bumper pay check now. But prior to two weeks ago he wasn't so committed...

He wouldn't have been able to anyway. You cannot play as a home-qualified player in 2 competetions. As Ryan Harris well knows.

Gary 111 wrote:Where does it all stop? Once we've picked one mercenary like Pattinson does this open the floodgates for more traitors like Saqlain, Law and Pothas?

For example Pothas is clearly better than the likes of Prior and Ambrose, I always thought he wasn't picked on a matter of principle - where are those principles now though?

These players have all played full international cricket for other countries and are well into their 30s, so I'd hope the selectors wouldn't go that far - as I said elsewhere there should be a complete ban on players actually representing more than one country at the top level (Test/ODI/T20I) in their career, with the possible exception of those whose country has been prevented from playing for political reasons.

I think there's a number of issues coming together on the Pattinson debate - the fact he's Australian, the fact he has so little cricket in this country behind him, the fact he's almost 30, the fact he's never expressed any wish to play for England or be considered English before, and also that there's other proven or promising bowlers who have strong claims for a place. Take a couple of those factors away and some people might not object so much, it's the whole package that seems to tick every box in terms of making England supporters unhappy with the situation.

beamer wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:Where does it all stop? Once we've picked one mercenary like Pattinson does this open the floodgates for more traitors like Saqlain, Law and Pothas?

For example Pothas is clearly better than the likes of Prior and Ambrose, I always thought he wasn't picked on a matter of principle - where are those principles now though?

These players have all played full international cricket for other countries and are well into their 30s, so I'd hope the selectors wouldn't go that far - as I said elsewhere there should be a complete ban on players actually representing more than one country at the top level (Test/ODI/T20I) in their career, with the possible exception of those whose country has been prevented from playing for political reasons.

I think there's a number of issues coming together on the Pattinson debate - the fact he's Australian, the fact he has so little cricket in this country behind him, the fact he's almost 30, the fact he's never expressed any wish to play for England or be considered English before, and also that there's other proven or promising bowlers who have strong claims for a place. Take a couple of those factors away and some people might not object so much, it's the whole package that seems to tick every box in terms of making England supporters unhappy with the situation.

Okay so to break that down:

1) the fact he's Australian
2) the fact he has so little cricket in this country behind him
3) the fact he's almost 30
4) expressed any wish to play for England or be considered English before

This shows how little he care about England - you could almost put a parallel to Pothas here - save an extra 3 ODI's thrown in. Would Pattinson have turned down a chance to play a meanless ODI here or there for Oz if he was good enough? Or would his English blood stop him doing this?

then conside all those 4 factors and number 5 which is not nationality related:

5) and also that there's other proven or promising bowlers who have strong claims for a place

And you'll see why i'm so pissed of with our pathetic selectors!

If the players aren't passionate about what they're doing and who they're doing it for, then how are the fans expected to be passionate?

Whether England win or lose, in the past I have taken some consolation in the fact that we had a team that is trying their guts out for England, and doing their darndest to win.

Does Pattinson care if England lose? If England come up short by one run, will Pattinson be hurting as much as Flintoff or Strauss? It's just wrong. He'll gladly take his 5000 quid match fee, not get too upset if he never plays another test, and go back to Notts and Aus in the winter, plying his trade. I'm not convinced that the guy really gives a f*ck, and that's wrong.

The Aussies and South Africans are laughing at us you know, and our selectors complete lack of principles. Maybe Geoff Miller might not be a proud Englishman, but I am, and most people who follow the English cricket team are. This guy doesn't deserve to be there yet.

He can't play in the Pura Cup again.

Yes he can.

Henry wrote:Yes he can.

No he can't. You can't play as a home qualified player in 2 countries.

Murray Goodwin did.

Andrew Symonds did.

I don't have a problem with someone playing for England when they have English parents or are born in this country. If this is a one-off, horses for courses selection, I'm not too fussed but, if Pattinson is going to be a regular fixture, I don't think that we should be picking someone who wouldn't get within a million miles of the Australian side and is only in England to earn a payday.

Anyway, I think Hoggy's been treated appallingly. He thinks his England career is over now, poor chap. Link.

Looks like he'll be stuck on 248 Test wickets.

PearlJ wrote:

Henry wrote:Yes he can.

No he can't. You can't play as a home qualified player in 2 countries.

from the Bushrangers site:
Despite spending the past 23 years living in Australia, Pattinson has only ever had a British passport, and as such, will play as an overseas player when he returns to the Bushrangers.

from the Bushrangers site:
Despite spending the past 23 years living in Australia, Pattinson has only ever had a British passport, and as such, will play as an overseas player when he returns to the Bushrangers.

So he's been living in Australia as an illegal immigrant for the last 23 years?

PearlJ wrote:He can't play in the Pura Cup again.

No one can.

England cricket in crisis.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I don't have a problem with someone playing for England when they have English parents or are born in this country. If this is a one-off, horses for courses selection, I'm not too fussed but, if Pattinson is going to be a regular fixture, I don't think that we should be picking someone who wouldn't get within a million miles of the Australian side and is only in England to earn a payday.

Anyway, I think Hoggy's been treated appallingly. He thinks his England career is over now, poor chap. Link.

Looks like he'll be stuck on 248 Test wickets.

The same as Richie!

About time another Victorian got a Test cap.

Seriously, Pattinson was, at best, the sixth-choice seamer in our team last season.

ten years after wrote:

PearlJ wrote:He can't play in the Pura Cup again.

No one can.

snigger. Pedant!