Is Collingwood good enough to be a regular Test batsman?

[BingLeeElectric]

Same person?

Not quite, Sherlock.

 

[pasag]

IP Check?

 

[Perm]

2016 runs at 43.82 with 5 centuries and a high score of 206.

Thoughts on Paul Collingwood now?

 

[pup11]

Paul Collingwood is England most reliable and dependable batsman IMO, KP is England's best and most dangerous test batsman but Collingwood has also performed very well in the last 2 years in test cricket to cement his place in the English test side.

 

[gettingbetter]

2016 runs at 43.82 with 5 centuries and a high score of 206.

Thoughts on Paul Collingwood now?

Still hard to say. He deserves to be where he is, but if guys like Shah, Bopara and Joyce are doing well in county cricket...well, its hard to say.

People will bring up why he shouldn't be in the team, but oput simply, he is punching above his weight and doing well. IMO ATM Collingwood>Bell, though Bell is the 'future.'

 

[Richard]

This is one of those "good ol' times" threads. What's best of all is that there are 3 stages! Possibly a record for Greigys so far found in a single thread, and fascinating to view the same people at different stages of his career.

Quite glad I never posted in it - I'd certainly never, ever have backed him to make a double-century against Clark, McGrath and Warne however flat the pitch. Nonetheless, my stance as of the time of this post is pretty well-known; Collingwood's scorebook Test average flatters him, his first-chance average offers a much fairer reflection (as always).

And this is the first time I've ever read posts from the famous BING LEE account.

 

[Perm]

Richard, can you name some significant innings when Collingwood has been dropped? Can't say I remember him having a great deal of chances.

 

[Nate]

Rate Collingwood for sure. Reliable as.

 

[Goughy]

Collingwood's scorebook Test average flatters him, his first-chance average offers a much fairer reflection (as always).

Is it just me, or have you ever actually produced a figure for peoples first-chance average?

I dont think you have. Unless there is a calculated figure that is comparable to the first chance average of other people then you should stop calling it "first chance average" as it isnt anything close.

All I have seen is that sometimes you list innings where a player has been dropped and then gone on to make a decent score. Thats not an average nor does it allow comparison.

You say FCA is a fairer reflection so a) what is it for Collingwood and b) What is it for others so we can reflect upon that of Collingwoods against similar stats.

 

[GIMH]

Richard, can you name some significant innings when Collingwood has been dropped? Can't say I remember him having a great deal of chances.

Hmmm V WI @ Lord's in May he made a ton after being dropped 4 times, 3 in the first 50 IIRC. Also V Pak @ Lord's last year he was dropped a fair bit en route to 186

 

[GIMH]

Is it just me, or have you ever actually produced a figure for peoples first-chance average?

I dont think you have. Unless there is a calculated figure that is comparable to the first chance average of other people then you should stop calling it "first chance average" as it isnt anything close.

All I have seen is that sometimes you list innings where a player has been dropped and then gone on to make a decent score. Thats not an average nor does it allow comparison.

You say FCA is a fairer reflection so a) what is it for Collingwood and b) What is it for others so we can reflect upon that of Collingwoods against similar stats.

I think he has a document for Trescothick

 

[Richard]

Is it just me, or have you ever actually produced a figure for peoples first-chance average?

I dont think you have. Unless there is a calculated figure that is comparable to the first chance average of other people then you should stop calling it "first chance average" as it isnt anything close.

All I have seen is that sometimes you list innings where a player has been dropped and then gone on to make a decent score. Thats not an average nor does it allow comparison.

You say FCA is a fairer reflection so a) what is it for Collingwood and b) What is it for others so we can reflect upon that of Collingwoods against similar stats.

I rarely do it over a career as it takes too much effort, but I'll do it here for Collingwood, as I once did for Trescothick (I still have the file, and will attach).

{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 96, 80}, {134*, 0, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 186, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {111, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 62, 40}. That's what went in the scorebook. The {}s are division between either seasons or, in the case of dual winter tours, of series.

Now here's what he gave his first chance on:
{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 54, 80}, {134*, 36*, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 79, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {31, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 0, 40}.

As you can see, most of the effect of let-offs has been recent; his 2007 summer is made to look far, far more impressive than it was by good fortune; his Australia tour is untouched and remains a picture of three innings amid other mediocrity; his 2006 summer was very average rather than the good that it appeared; and before that luck had impacted to negligable degree (just the one let-off in Pakistan but the match was still a good one).

The same thing for Trescothick is in the attached document. These are two of the luckiest batsmen of recent times. Kevin Pietersen would also be up there, and I'll do an exact one for him sometime too.

 

[Prince EWS]

I rarely do it over a career as it takes too much effort, but I'll do it here for Collingwood, as I once did for Trescothick (I still have the file, and will attach).

{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 96, 80}, {134*, 36*, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 186, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {111, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 62, 40}. That's what went in the scorebook. The {}s are division between either seasons or, in the case of dual winter tours, of series.

Now here's what he gave his first chance on:
{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 54, 80}, {134*, 36*, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 79, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {31, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 0, 40}.

As you can see, most of the effect of let-offs has been recent; his 2007 summer is made to look far, far more impressive than it was by good fortune; his Australia tour is untouched and remains a picture of three innings amid other mediocrity; his 2006 summer was very average rather than the good that it appeared; and before that luck had impacted to negligable degree (just the one let-off in Pakistan but the match was still a good one).

The same thing for Trescothick is in the attached document. These are two of the luckiest batsmen of recent times. Kevin Pietersen would also be up there, and I'll do an exact one for him sometime too.

It really has no context if you only do lucky batsmen though. I'd like to see a sample of 15 or so batsmen with similar scorebook averages to Collingwood who haven't been overly lucky during their careers to see exactly what a decent first chance average is.

 

[GIMH]

I rarely do it over a career as it takes too much effort, but I'll do it here for Collingwood, as I once did for Trescothick (I still have the file, and will attach).

{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 96, 80}, {134*, 36*, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 186, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {111, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 62, 40}. That's what went in the scorebook. The {}s are division between either seasons or, in the case of dual winter tours, of series.

Now here's what he gave his first chance on:
{1, 36, 28, 24}, {7, 10}, {10, 3, 54, 80}, {134*, 36*, 25, 14, 31, 32}, {57, 19, 3, 48, 9, 79, 3, 48, 31, 25, 5, 26*}, {5, 96, 206, 22*, 11, 5, 28, 16, 27, 17}, {31, 34, 29, 10, 42, 128, 5*, 0, 4, 28, 63, 0, 40}.

As you can see, most of the effect of let-offs has been recent; his 2007 summer is made to look far, far more impressive than it was by good fortune; his Australia tour is untouched and remains a picture of three innings amid other mediocrity; his 2006 summer was very average rather than the good that it appeared; and before that luck had impacted to negligable degree (just the one let-off in Pakistan but the match was still a good one).

The same thing for Trescothick is in the attached document. These are two of the luckiest batsmen of recent times. Kevin Pietersen would also be up there, and I'll do an exact one for him sometime too.

I'm feeling somewhat lazy...what does the average work out at with these scores?

 

[Perm]

Well c'mon. Give us the stats then, instead of just his innings. Would also like to see one for Alistair Cook, who you rate so highly.

 

[Perm]

I'm feeling somewhat lazy...what does the average work out at with these scores?

37.50 if my calculator skills are good.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well c'mon. Give us the stats then, instead of just his innings. Would also like to see one for Alistair Cook, who you rate so highly.

Or Mark Butcher.

 

[pasag]

FCA come into the worst three of Richard's pet topics for mine, together with Hayden is crap and Ireland should join forces with England.

 

[Perm]

Or Mark Butcher.

Or Nasser for that matter. I suppose it's much easier to do guys like Collingwood though, as he hasn't played anywhere near the amount of games Butcher and Hussain have.

 

[The_Bunny]

1725 Runs at 37.50
I honestly dont how this is half as terrible as you make out