Michael Vaughan is awesome

[Richard]

I don'r get it. Why would you want Collingwood to go, hasn't he been the most consistent English batsman in past year or so. If anyone its Strauss who's been pretty medicore throughout. Collingwood may not have the all-round strokes but he makes for with his dtermination and will to fight. He's not pretty to watch but one of the few english batsman that are likeable really.

tbf, Collingwood > Strauss on everything since 2005. And (a fit) Tresco-Cook-Vaughan-Pietersen-Collingwood-Bell is better than Strauss-Tresco-Cook-Vaughan-Pietersen-Bell.

Collingwood is also > Bell atm...

Since 1 January 2006:

Strauss M-16 R-1141 HS-128 AVG-38.03 100s-3 50s-3
Collingwood M-16 R-1310 HS-206 AVG-50.38 100s-4 50s-2
Bell M-13 R- 949 HS- 119 AVG-45.19 100s- 4 50s-5

England have played against one really good attack in that time, Australia - where Collingwood averaged 48 and Strauss averaged 24, and Bell 33.

Collingwood looks pretty dire when he's out there most of the time, which creates the illusion of him being a poor player. Even a good judge like Richard who usually doesn't fall into such traps is fooled it seems. I don't see why Collingwood's place comes under question when you consider how badly Strauss has been going in the past few series, really. Bell has the potential to be world class so I can see why he's ahead of him despite poor numbers, but Strauss - as much as I don't think he's as useless as quite a few people seem to - certainly should not be ahead of Collingwood in the pecking order at this stage.

There's no way on Earth Strauss is ahead of Collingwood in the pecking-order at the moment. I've never suggested that at all.

What I have suggested is that Strauss is a better batsman than Collingwood, and to suggest otherwise is IMO ludicrous. And to suggest he's better than Bell is beyond ludicrous.

Collingwood has had a good deal of ridiculously lucky innings in the last year, never more so than those at Lord's against Pakistan and West Indies. He has also played some good knocks, most obviously that Adelaide double-century. But he certainly didn't have as good an Ashes as Bell, and probably not even as good as Strauss.

In his last 28 innings (3 n\os) he's made just 3 chanceless half-centuries, and one century, that Adelaide double.

Simple fact is, he's made some very lucky big scores, one superb large score, and done not-much plenty of times. That is not the mark of a particularly good batsman.

Undoubtedly, though, I'll say it again - if Trescothick were to return for the next Test it'd be Strauss, not Collingwood, who'd have to go.

 

[cover drive man]

I said it several times in the official tour thread, and I tried to convey it without too much going OTT in my day's report, but I've not felt happier about a single player's achievement for a long time. Last time was probably Alec Stewart and that century at Old Trafford on the Saturday in 2002.

It's wonderful not only to see a sportsman conquer an injury which, not once but two or three times, has seemed like it might end his career, but to confound so many doubters from so many angles. I know beyond question that there were quite a few Englishmen (and others, though it's not quite so poor there) who were hoping Vaughan would fail today because they thought his being brought back for this Test sent out bad messages. That refers to people on this forum and elsewhere. Shame on them, TBH. It's far, far better for England that Vaughan comes back, stays fit and re-establishes himself as a class batsman than if he disappears without trace, and far, far fairer on the man, too. No-one deserves to have their career finished by injury, we've seen it happen to Andy Caddick and Craig White in the not-terribly-distant past. I find it wonderful to see it having not happened here.

My only slight disappointment is that Duncan Fletcher was no longer there to share the moment.

He's a fantastic player when he is on form. In fact when he is on form he is one of the greatest batters in the world in my opinion but he's not always on form and he is injury prone.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Collingwood has had a good deal of ridiculously lucky innings in the last year, never more so than those at Lord's against Pakistan and West Indies. He has also played some good knocks, most obviously that Adelaide double-century. But he certainly didn't have as good an Ashes as Bell, and probably not even as good as Strauss.

Crackpot, lunatic, nutcase, fruitcake. None of them can do you justice.

 

[Piper]

I'm very happy for the man in his achievement and it was great to watch.

I don't feel that the journey back to 2002 is complete yet though, the attack was pretty average for large chunks of today but it was exactly what he needed after what he's had to go through to get there.

I just hope he can carry on from here and nail India consistently and take his form on tour.

Im happy for him for sure. But I don't think we can celebrate his ''return'' yet. It is after all only one innings.

 

[Flem274*]

Richard has a point about chanceless runs and all that stuff, however runs are runs and if you have a player with a bit of luck then is'nt that even better?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

I'd rather have a lucky batsman that makes centuries than a luckless one that doesn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd rather have a lucky batsman that makes centuries than a luckless one that doesn't.

The point is though, no-one is intrinsically lucky. If a batsman has been exceedingly lucky in the past, his luck is likely to drop to a more normal level - he doesn't have any more or less chance of having luck in the future than any other batsman. Hence, he is therefore unlikely to repeat the efforts he has already achieved. If someone had been lucky but you could guarantee said luck would continue throughout their career, it wouldn't matter a great deal - the point in bringing up luck is not to discount the runs a batsman has scored, but to suggest he's not as likely to keep scoring them as a previously luckless batsman with a similar (or even inferior, within limits) record.

 

[Matt79]

The point is though, no-one is intrinsically lucky.

Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.

And if you want to label Collingwood lucky during the past couple of years, a) I'd not necessarily agree, and b) you'd have to be even-handed and label Strauss as imbecilic in many of his efforts over the same period. I'd choose lucky over stupid, if those are my choices.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.

That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.

 

[Prince EWS]

Richard's efforts at producing first-chance averages actually suggest that some batsmen ARE in fact, for whatever reason, consistently lucky. And if that's the case, that's a good attribute to have.

There is nothing to suggest that said luck will actually continue though. If someone has been lucky, their luck is likely to change.

And if you want to label Collingwood lucky during the past couple of years, a) I'd not necessarily agree, and b) you'd have to be even-handed and label Strauss as imbecilic in many of his efforts over the same period. I'd choose lucky over stupid, if those are my choices.

I never said Collingwood was lucky though - I was simply arguing the case in theory of a lucky batsman and an unlucky one.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.

Said it better than I did, TBH.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.

Which is bollocks anyway. How lucky was he to get stuck playing in such difficult circumstances in his first 3 Tests where he was on a hiding to nothing? How about when when he was given lbw to Tait when it hit him inches outside the line of off-stump?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Which is bollocks anyway. How lucky was he to get stuck playing in such difficult circumstances in his first 3 Tests where he was on a hiding to nothing? How about when when he was given lbw to Tait when it hit him inches outside the line of off-stump?

That's true, and as Richard says he has played some genuinely good (or better) innings, however large numbers of the runs he has scored have been quite lucky.

 

[Matt79]

That's just due to the power of random, just because someone has been lucky in the past (like Collingwood has been for large parts of his career) doesn't mean they're going to continue to be lucky, and you certainly can't continue to pick them, relying on them being lucky.

But what some people here assert is that some batsmen have been consistently lucky throughout their careers. So I ask, if you think some people are consistently more lucky than the norm over a decent period of time - thus suggesting you don't think these things "even themselves out" -on what basis do you say, "they'll soon stop being so lucky"? The long career of unreasonable "luck" they've enjoyed would suggest otherwise actually.

I'm not seriously suggesting that some people are charmed and will be lucky indefinitely. What I'm saying is that labelling someone "lucky" is a generally meaningless and hideously overused puerile excuse proffered up when people dislike either the technique or sometimes even the personality of players who succeed and they can't supply proper argument as to why that player is not good that has not been disproved by the facts. Player A averages 12 runs more per innings than Player B, but you want to believe Player B is better? Player A must be lucky - cheating bastard that he is. A bowler you think is not equipped to succeed at Test level consistently takes wickets? Must be lucky.

Somebody can be lucky over a short period, but to suggest that success over the course of more than two or three innings can be solely, or even in large part, put down to luck is insulting to the player in question's ability and the intelligence of those of us reading it.

You might as well not say anything at all if that's the best you can come up with...

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's true, and as Richard says he has played some genuinely good (or better) innings, however large numbers of the runs he has scored have been quite lucky.

No they haven't been any more lucky than anyone else, you're using ramblings from a proven crackpot like Richard who is in no place to judge what are lucky runs anyway. That's just his get out clause for when he's comprehensively wrong. McGrath and all those Test wickets? Lucky.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm not seriously suggesting that some people are charmed and will be lucky indefinitely. What I'm saying is that labelling someone "lucky" is a generally meaningless and hideously overused puerile excuse proffered up when people dislike either the technique or sometimes even the personality of players who succeed and they can't supply proper argument as to why that player is not good that has not been disproved by the facts. Player A averages 12 runs more per innings than Player B, but you want to believe Player B is better? Player A must be lucky - cheating bastard that he is. A bowler you think is not equipped to succeed at Test level consistently takes wickets? Must be lucky.

Can be measured to some extent by dropped catches and the like, and you'd have a hard time arguing that certain Collingwood innings haven't been lucky in that regard.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Can be measured to some extent by dropped catches and the like, and you'd have a hard time arguing that certain Collingwood innings haven't been lucky in that regard.

How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?

 

[Tom Halsey]

No they haven't been any more lucky than anyone else, you're using ramblings from a proven crackpot like Richard who is in no place to judge what are lucky runs anyway. That's just his get out clause for when he's comprehensively wrong. McGrath and all those Test wickets? Lucky.

No, you don't seem to have an argument here, you're not arguing why they're not lucky.

Multiple dropped catches equals lucky, and it's happened in more than one Collingwood innings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How many times was Collingwood dropped during his double century then?

That was a good innings, it's other innings that weren't.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No, you don't seem to have an argument here, you're not arguing why they're not lucky.

Multiple dropped catches equals lucky, and it's happened in more than one Collingwood innings.

What the hell? Multiple dropped catches happen to everyone. You don't have an argument because you're using Richard's rhetoric which is wishy-washy bollocks. You haven't shown Collingwood to be more lucky than anyone else, so you do not have an argument.