Nasser Hussain says Darren Pattinson's selection is not the reason for England's failings on and off the field.

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 about; and I include the likes of myself in that, because we do have to ask questions about the selection.

And 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 focused 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.

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 youh 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 ones to blame for that poor start, not Darren Pattinson.

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?

Click here for Sky Sports cricket TV schedule