What is wrong with Paul Collingwood?

[Perm]

Collingwood is a great batter.Why do you think there's something bad about him???

Baseball terminology.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Baseball terminology.

He's TEN!!!

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Crap, 10 years old? Is there a ten year old alive who likes cricket?

As for PC, He has the worlds most amusing accent

 

[grecian]

Strictly untrue anyone who heard Jan Molbys danish-scouse accent, with a slight hint of Swansea, when he went there, will disagree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Crap, 10 years old? Is there a ten year old alive who likes cricket?

yeah millions of 'em

 

[Neil Pickup]

Crap, 10 years old? Is there a ten year old alive who likes cricket?

As for PC, He has the worlds most amusing accent

Yes. I've been bowled by ten year olds. I've been bowled by eight year olds.

 

[Bob Bamber]

He's too old and has come in the side too late. He doesn't fit in (age wise) with the likes of Bell , Cook etc..., When he retires (Probably the next Ashes series down under) the rest of the team will be in their prime.

 

[Craig]

Let's see:

1) He's English
2) He's a ginger
3) He's past 30
4) He's a Mackem
5) He supports a poo football team
6) He shares his surname with the most hated AFL team.

That covers it pretty much, I'd say.

Skull right here IMO.

But then again my hero SoC comes up with many posts that are capable of the Skull award

 

[Perm]

He's TEN!!!

I know, but seeing as how somebody had a big rant and created a thread specifically about calling batsmen "batters" I thought I would point it out.

 

[LA ICE-E]

He's TEN!!!

how do you know he's ten?

 

[Arjun]

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Collingwood doesn't look a great player, but he serves a purpose. The team needs someone who will hang in there and build a large partnership. A middle-order with Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen and a fit-again Vaughan will form a strong combination, with striker Flintoff to come in.

While this is not related, I'd like some comments on his bowling, or rather, how useful it will be. He's done reasonably well as a stock bowler, with those six wickets in a match coupled with a century earlier. With Fletcher keen on multi-skilled players like Giles, he surely can do well, or at least better than Giles, can't he?

 

[andmark]

Crap, 10 years old? Is there a ten year old alive who likes cricket?

As for PC, He has the worlds most amusing accent

Hi

 

[sledger]

Paul Collingwood, not test class, IMO.

 

[DJellett]

every team needs a ginger though...its the only thing the aussie team is lacking

I'm on my way in there

 

[Richard]

Haha, this thread was made a few days before I returned and some flybynight posted almost (almost) exactly what I've always thought about Collingwood.

As for his innings leaving the only outcome possible a draw - maybe thats true. Or maybe, just maybe, it's England's failure to take 20 wickets in those matches.

You can't expect 20 wickets to be taken on exceptionally flat wickets. And other than when he's had let-offs, which has been a few times, those are the only ones Collingwood has scored anything much on. He's scored very big and sometimes not-out too, though, so they do a decent job of disguising his large number of failures.

Collingwood is simply not good enough to combat particularly good seam or spin bowling, especially the former.

 

[andruid]

What is wrong with Paul Collingwood? because something is, i cant put my finger on it but for me he will never be a world class batsman. He has got a lot of runs this year, recently got a double century and has a very respectable average in the 40s. But there is something wrong with Paul Collingwood. Whenever i hear the name or see him bat i just cant help thinking to myself this man is not a test player.

You are a victim of Sky's propaganda machine

 

[The Masterplan]

Paul Collingwood, not test class, IMO.

Collingwood is a quality batsman he just a bit out of form at the moment.. he is also an invaluble fielder to the england side.. why drop him when the England team has a winning formula at the moment, Colly has a great test record.. so does Bell you cant expect 50's and 100's all the time...

 

[Woodster]

It's pretty simple - he can only bat when the pitch is dead flat. Put any sort of pace or movement in the wicket and he's just another tail ender. Look at the tons he's scored:

134* n/o vs india - 1273 runs scored in total, match drawn...other centurions - 2 (although there were 4 other scores of 70+)
186 vs pakistan - 1483 runs scored in total, match drawn...other centurions - 4
206 vs aust - 1361 runs scored in total, match lost (should've been a comfortable draw)...other centurions - 3

I realise that the likes of Ponting would've made many a ton on similar pitches...but that's not my point My point is that Collingwood is yet to produce an innings that has influenced the outcome of the game. Like Bell, he finds his runs most often when the hard yards have been done by the batsmen preceeding him, when the runs are already flowing. Put him in a pressure cooker situation with a new ball that's still nipping around and he gets out cheaply more often than not (Bell has improved somewhat however, but the number of times he plays and misses you'd have to say that's more due to luck than anything).

Like many of his English counterparts there's no flexibility in his batting. He bats the same no matter the state of the game - block, block, block. His 206 in adelaide was the most painful innings I have ever seen. For whatever reason he never took any chances to increase the tempo and left England in a position where the best outcome would've been a draw. I don't know if there's such a thing as a century that can lose you a match...but that is as close as you'd come.

As for gingers - isn't one Shane Warne a ginger???? We all know he bleaches his hair, but i'm pretty sure his eyebrows are ginger...and last season he had a goatie that looked awfully ginger...plus his children are gingers. I think he claims to be a strawberry blonde, but i reckon that's just his excuse when he gets a bit slack with the bleaching.

"Collingwood could hardly have done anything more to cement his Test place than he provided in today's innings. Once again he came to England's rescue when they most needed him, floundering as they were at 165 for 6, their most perilous position of the summer." From Cricinfo relating to his 128 against West Indies last summer.

The fact Collingwood has made a career out of digging England out of holes, not necessarily by scoring exhilarating centuries, but by stopping the rot, building an influential partnership, digging in. He isn't the kind of batsman people necessarily flock to see expecting a flurry of audacious drives or elegant strokeplay. But if there is a precarious situation and you want someone to stand up and be counted, Colly's the man.

 

[Goughy]

"Collingwood could hardly have done anything more to cement his Test place than he provided in today's innings. Once again he came to England's rescue when they most needed him, floundering as they were at 165 for 6, their most perilous position of the summer." From Cricinfo relating to his 128 against West Indies last summer.

The fact Collingwood has made a career out of digging England out of holes, not necessarily by scoring exhilarating centuries, but by stopping the rot, building an influential partnership, digging in. He isn't the kind of batsman people necessarily flock to see expecting a flurry of audacious drives or elegant strokeplay. But if there is a precarious situation and you want someone to stand up and be counted, Colly's the man.

Id say my thoughts on the matter are similar.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, though, he's only done this on extremely flat wickets (or, in the case of that 128, against a very weak bowling-attack).

Look at Collingwood's Test scores of note:
Gaddafi Stadium Lahore, 2005/06: 96 (should've been caught behind on 54 but not given) & 80. Did his best to save England but couldn't quite manage it this time. Good effort, certainly, but an incredibly flat pitch. England should never have got themselves into the muddle they did ITFP.
Nagpur, 2005/06: 134* & 36*. Certainly a huge contribution to England's dominance of the match after they had started poorly. But again, an incredibly flat pitch that did nothing for either seamers or spinners. Match drawn easily in the end.
Lord's, 2006: 186 (dropped on 79). A decent innings, certainly, but everyone was scoring this game. Flat pitch and this time rather than digging-out of trouble, he was playing a part along with everyone else in establishing a powerful position.
'Gabba, 2006/07: 96. Decent knock, delayed the inevitable, but the pitch was flat again and the game was already long since lost.
Adelaide Oval, 2006/07: 206 & 22*. First-innings helped set-up a dominant position, second-innings clung-on as said position slipped away. Despite the exceptionally flat pitch, he couldn't save England from defeat.
Lord's, 2007: 111. At least three let-offs this innings, appalling knock worth little. Just FTR, England utterly dominated this match with big scores left right and centre.
Riverside, 2007: 128. Mentioned above. Dead Test, weak bowling-attack.

Apart from these, Collingwood has not passed 70 in Tests, and there are another 58 innings here. In several of his 40s, 50s and 60s he's received early let-offs too. His is one of the classic cases of basic average not really telling you a great deal.

As I said - with Collingwood you get a hell of a lot of poor performances, then an occasional excellent one on a flat pitch, which often comes at a fairly important time. Collingwood is not and never has been someone who can either dig you out of a hole or establish you a dominant position when the bowlers are getting the ball to talk. He certainly can if you've messed-up the chance to utilise a flat deck, which isn't exactly unusual for England. But really, I want more than that in a Test player.