England v South Africa, second Test

Strange things happen in sport - and this comes from someone who has been watching 53-year-old Greg Norman lead the Open for much of today - but the selection of Darren Pattinson for his first bowl in Test cricket this morning is one of the stranger. I've already posted on him, so leave your comments there. Cricinfo described his second ball today as being reminiscent of Angus Fraser in his pomp, but Graeme Smith soon went after him, hitting three fours, and Pattinson was taken off after three overs.

Great that Andrew Flintoff is back and bowling so well, but the batting looks light. Flintoff made 17, which is no worse comparatively than anyone else did, but Tim Ambrose does not look like a Test No 6 (nor more than Flintoff does) and Vaughan continues to cause worries. Ian Bell returned to his usual "so far but no farther" approach to an innings, and Kevin Pietersen remains the only batsman of threat.

On the two controversial "catches", the one claimed by AB De Villiers off Andrew Strauss even though it was very clear that the ball had been taken on the bounce and the one by Michael Vaughan that was given and then changed after Hashim Amla appealed, my view is this: fielders occasionally make dodgy appeals knowing that they are trying their luck, it is up to the umpires, backed up by TV if needs be, to tell them to get knotted. In the case of the De Villiers catch, it was very naughty of him to appeal for something so clearly not out but the umpires made the right decision.

The Vaughan "catch" was less clear-cut and I'm sure his appeal was based on a hunch rather than an attempt to con anyone. But when Amla was given out, he should have gone. It is outrageous for a batting side, watching the game in the dressing room, to see that someone should not have been given out and then demand a TV replay. The umpires should have gone to the TV in the first place but once they decided not to, the batting side should accept the poor decision.

And before anyone accuses me of pro-England bias, I expressed the same opinion in this blog last summer when Kevin Pietersen also walked off to the pavilion only to be told to appeal a catch by his team-mates. It is the men in white coats who control the game, for better or worse, not the spectating players.

Comments

[Som]

Starting with a confession. I'm not as great fan of Vaughan's timing. While he is yet to set alight Headingly with the bat, I'm afraid he chose just the wrong time for subjecting AB de Villiers to his homilies. Vaughan could have waited till the match was over. After the Lord's flop show, Smith & Co copped enough flak to regain their senses. Vaughan only helped de Villiers find another reason to punish them.

[johnmc]

Absolutely agree that England were wrong last year as South Africa were this, but isn't there a subtle difference. Last year, there was fairly conclusive evidence that the umpire had made the wrong decision. This time the replays were inconclusive. While it is right and proper that the benefit of the doubt is given to the batsman when the umpire has referred the decision upstairs without making one himself, surely if he has made a decision and the videos do not prove him wrong that decision should stand.
One bright spot from today though. It might have been the most irritating day's cricket I can remember but from the ludicrous selection policy to Cook's wrongful dismissal, De Villier's blatant cheating, our appalling batting and the late controversy, it surely confirms Test cricket as the high point of the game, producing drama that Twenty20 can only dream of

[Tony Mason]

Pity England's dressing room wasn't quicker off the mark to ask for TV review for Alistair Cook.