***Official England in India***

[Rant0r]

Dont think Collingwood was very good to begin with tbh. Hes always been a middling cricketer who contributes a fair bit in all aspects on the field. He rose above his usual level for one series and quickly dissolved back into the depths of mediocrity that fit his career like a solved jigsaw puzzle.

what he does do is get more than he should from his ability, he should be the posterchild for the rest of the team

Bell really frustrates me. Its so obvious that hes worked on his game in this format and has the talent to succeed and yet he always throws it away everytime he goes out to bat.

put collingwoods head on bell's talent, the kid has more talent in his little finger than colly has in half his body

 

[tooextracool]

Not playing enough ODIs doesn't help, but England are poor because they lack high-calibre one-day cricketers, have done for quite a few years now, and several of the few players who might be ODI-class get ignored by the selectors in favour of utter rubbish like Sajid Mahmood.

Disagree. As people have suggested in the past, NZ have always punched above their weight despite not having too many high calibre ODI players. Im sorry but how many teams have players that are as talented as the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff?
Australia yes
India yes
Sri Lanka possibly

and then you really have to exaggerate players' abilities in order to say so.

I think it goes deeper than that. Theres surely got to be something wrong with the makeup of the domestic and list A cricket in England because most players are simply not possessing the kind of skills that they should already have when they play for England in colored kits.

 

[tooextracool]

what he does do is get more than he should from his ability, he should be the posterchild for the rest of the team

put collingwoods head on bell's talent, the kid has more talent in his little finger than colly has in half his body

That maybe the case, and its admirable to inspire those mortals who think they need to be geniuses to be able to play international cricket. However, it does not change the fact that Paul Collingwood is and always has been a mediocre ODI cricketer. When Darren Gough suggested that he is an all-rounder, he wasnt too far from the truth IMO. Would Collingwood really consistently feature in this England side if it wasnt for his amazing fielding and dibbly dobbly medium pacers? I am inclined to think not.

People need to really have a good hard look at Collingwood IMO. Suggesting that he should be batting in the top 4 because hes amongst our top batsmen is plain false. Equally there should be questions asked as to whether hes done enough to hold down a place at 4 or 5 when there are players like Patel and Bopara who could potentially be better than him?

 

[Rant0r]

That maybe the case, and its admirable to inspire those mortals who think they need to be geniuses to be able to play international cricket. However, it does not change the fact that Paul Collingwood is and always has been a mediocre ODI cricketer. When Darren Gough suggested that he is an all-rounder, he wasnt too far from the truth IMO. Would Collingwood really consistently feature in this England side if it wasnt for his amazing fielding and dibbly dobbly medium pacers? I am inclined to think not.

People need to really have a good hard look at Collingwood IMO. Suggesting that he should be batting in the top 4 because hes amongst our top batsmen is plain false. Equally there should be questions asked as to whether hes done enough to hold down a place at 4 or 5 when there are players like Patel and Bopara who could potentially be better than him?

yeah he's had enough gig's at number 4, in fact i reckon he might have even had enough at 4 in tests.

as handy as he is, he's just one of those that you'd want to go hang yourself if you got out to him really, bopara's bowling probably has a bit more potential, swings is a bit.

 

[gettingbetter]

Dont think Collingwood was very good to begin with tbh. Hes always been a middling cricketer who contributes a fair bit in all aspects on the field. He rose above his usual level for one series and quickly dissolved back into the depths of mediocrity that fit his career like a solved jigsaw puzzle.

I wonder if we expect certain things from certain players (dependant upon nationality). We all know that England hasn't been very good at ODIs for a long time, but of late, I think that they have improved - displays against India at home and South Africa. But for batsmen, I would be suprised if England had Australian like averages; 40 average or 35 average with a 90+ strike rate.

Who expects any English players to average the above?

Then again, to be a good ODI side, you need players to average such. It is my belief that that likes of Shah, Bopara, Patel and to an extent Bell (alongside the 'regulars') good be a better ODI outfit if positioning was well. You can't have Patel and Bopara at 7/8.

So that goes back to Collingwood. In the international sphere, he is a decent player, but for England to take the next few steps, they probably need to shed him.

you reckon colly's done ?

I'm not 100% sure. He is a safe option, maybe not so much now. He did well against the Aussies in the CB series, but I don't think that form is likely to return to him. Assuming that he is batting at number 6 on a regular basis (what position is he batting?) or whatever position he is in, I'd rather see Patel there (assuming Bopara and Shah are fixtures) in Collingwood's position.

The above is based solely on batting. I don't think either's bowling is all that important in selection - honestly, where has this come from. It seems that ever since Fletch was in power of England, this has become a staple in selection.

 

[tooextracool]

Can't find much fault in England's play. India where just too good again.

Anderson really looking gun barrel straight in these conditions without any swing though. Harmo or Sidebottom should replace him for the remainder of the series.

Andersons problem is that hes just not suited to ODI cricket. He throws at least one ball in an over down the leg side and had the Hoggardish attribute of bowling too full. Its not even something that he can correct because hes just that kind of bowler IMO. Its absolutely baffling how someone like him is not just playing in an England shirt in ODIs but also leading the bowling attack.

 

[tooextracool]

as handy as he is, he's just one of those that you'd want to go hang yourself if you got out to him really, bopara's bowling probably has a bit more potential, swings is a bit.

I havent seen a lot of Bopara's bowling, but from the little I did see he struck me as an all out seam bowler. Collingwood definetly does swing the ball, we've seen him do it in NZ and other places around the world. Collingwood is not the worst bowler IMO, in fact one could argue that hes a handy cricketer to have in the side but hes just not nor has ever been 'good'.

 

[Rant0r]

still hard to believe they won the cb series

 

[tooextracool]

I wonder if we expect certain things from certain players (dependant upon nationality). We all know that England hasn't been very good at ODIs for a long time, but of late, I think that they have improved - displays against India at home and South Africa. But for batsmen, I would be suprised if England had Australian like averages; 40 average or 35 average with a 90+ strike rate.

Who expects any English players to average the above?

Then again, to be a good ODI side, you need players to average such. It is my belief that that likes of Shah, Bopara, Patel and to an extent Bell (alongside the 'regulars') good be a better ODI outfit if positioning was well. You can't have Patel and Bopara at 7/8.

So that goes back to Collingwood. In the international sphere, he is a decent player, but for England to take the next few steps, they probably need to shed him.

Well I think the real problem is, is there anyone better than Collingwood? At the moment theres Patel, Trott and Bopara who could very well be better than Collingwood but none of them have really set the world alight in List A cricket. This sort of situation reminds me of the time when Mervyn Dillon played for the WI and everyone knew that he was patently not test-class yet he was picked because no one was sure if there was anyone better. Okay so Collingwood is nowhere near as poor a player as Dillon was, but its a comparable situation because Dillon was eventually dropped when the WI decided that they could no longer afford someone who was never really going to amount to anything.
If England did drop Collingwood, they could quite possibly end up with cricketers who are worse than him and by then it would be too late to recall him back into the side.

I'm not 100% sure. He is a safe option, maybe not so much now. He did well against the Aussies in the CB series, but I don't think that form is likely to return to him. Assuming that he is batting at number 6 on a regular basis (what position is he batting?) or whatever position he is in, I'd rather see Patel there (assuming Bopara and Shah are fixtures) in Collingwood's position.

I am a big fan of the 'floating batting order'. I have always been somewhat baffled with how stubborn some captains are with changing their batting order. FFS you dont always have to stick to the batting order that you have declared the name on the teamsheet. For example, was there really a reason why Prior came in before Swann and Broad when England were searching for quick runs the other day?
Similarly, i think captains have got to decide what kind of situations they want their batsmen to be batting in. For example, when 2 spinners are on top of their game and tightening the screws during the middle overs you dont send in Andrew Flintoff. Similarly, Collingwood should come in during situations when England need to consolidate rather than build.

 

[Precambrian]

still hard to believe they won the cb series

One man : Collingwood.

 

[gettingbetter]

Well I think the real problem is, is there anyone better than Collingwood? At the moment theres Patel, Trott and Bopara who could very well be better than Collingwood but none of them have really set the world alight in List A cricket.
If England did drop Collingwood, they could quite possibly end up with cricketers who are worse than him and by then it would be too late to recall him back into the side.

You could make the arguement that Patel, Trott and/or Bopara are better than Collingwood. I think the phrasing you've used is a bit unfair. Rarely do people set alight the domestic scene. In saying that though, Bopara has had 2-3 good seasons now. Talk about lighting up - he did score a domestic double. Trott is averaging above 40 - he could open couldn't he? And Patel has been one of the best if not the best going around the doemstic scene (I must admit though, he is suited to Tests, but I think his selection in the one-dayers is justified).

As I say, not setting the world alight, but certainly doing enough to be a feature of the side.

I am a big fan of the 'floating batting order'. I have always been somewhat baffled with how stubborn some captains are with changing their batting order. FFS you dont always have to stick to the batting order that you have declared the name on the teamsheet. For example, was there really a reason why Prior came in before Swann and Broad when England were searching for quick runs the other day?
Similarly, i think captains have got to decide what kind of situations they want their batsmen to be batting in. For example, when 2 spinners are on top of their game and tightening the screws during the middle overs you dont send in Andrew Flintoff. Similarly, Collingwood should come in during situations when England need to consolidate rather than build.

I guess that all comes down to England not having a decent opening partnership. In saying that, the floating order is dead. I can't recall many uses of it for a long time. I can't recall 'pinch-hitters' being used regularly since the late 1990s - Symonds, S. Lee, I. Harvey, Klusener, Symcox etc etc. I think floating really comes down to the openers.

 

[fredfertang]

I guess that all comes down to England not having a decent opening partnership. In saying that, the floating order is dead. I can't recall many uses of it for a long time. I can't recall 'pinch-hitters' being used regularly since the late 1990s - Symonds, S. Lee, I. Harvey, Klusener, Symcox etc etc. I think floating really comes down to the openers.

'tis ODI's where the mighty Tresco is so badly missed - England would be immeasureably better were he available - It would be a huge step forward if someone selectorial could recognise the reality of his situation and allow him to make himself available just for matches in England

 

[gettingbetter]

'tis ODI's where the mighty Tresco is so badly missed - England would be immeasureably better were he available - It would be a huge step forward if someone selectorial could recognise the reality of his situation and allow him to make himself available just for matches in England

England have done (really) well at home without him.

 

[fredfertang]

England have done (really) well at home without him.

Don't disagree at all but that's despite Tresco's abscence rather than because of it - his presence would take the pressure of whoever opens with him and hopefully allow whoever that is to develop their own game

 

[tooextracool]

You could make the arguement that Patel, Trott and/or Bopara are better than Collingwood. I think the phrasing you've used is a bit unfair. Rarely do people set alight the domestic scene. In saying that though, Bopara has had 2-3 good seasons now. Talk about lighting up - he did score a domestic double. Trott is averaging above 40 - he could open couldn't he? And Patel has been one of the best if not the best going around the doemstic scene (I must admit though, he is suited to Tests, but I think his selection in the one-dayers is justified).

Hard to see how someone whos never played an ODI can be considered better than someone whos played as more than 150. Similarly, cant see how players averaging in the 20s can be better than someone averaging 30. All 3 of them are unproven to different extents. Perhaps they could all become fairly good ODI batsmen, time will tell. At least with Bopara and Patel, there is potential.

I guess that all comes down to England not having a decent opening partnership. In saying that, the floating order is dead. I can't recall many uses of it for a long time. I can't recall 'pinch-hitters' being used regularly since the late 1990s - Symonds, S. Lee, I. Harvey, Klusener, Symcox etc etc. I think floating really comes down to the openers.

Its not about pinch hitters. I dont think a floating order has ever been used. I personally dont like pigeon holing a player to bat in one position when there are still 100s of different roles he could play based on the situation of the game in that position. Thats why players should bat in the kind of situation in which they are best suited to.

 

[gettingbetter]

Considering that Collingwood has been pedestrian for a while, its worthwhile to take someone who is proven in the demoestic form and give them a run.

Whose has an average in the 20s BTW?

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get from the floating order talk when you say its never been used. Number 3s and 4s are usually versatile enough to take it up a gear or consolidate nowadays.

 

[gettingbetter]

Don't disagree at all but that's despite Tresco's abscence rather than because of it - his presence would take the pressure of whoever opens with him and hopefully allow whoever that is to develop their own game

I find this odd. Surely the team has precedence over the individual.

 

[wpdavid]

Don't disagree at all but that's despite Tresco's abscence rather than because of it - his presence would take the pressure of whoever opens with him and hopefully allow whoever that is to develop their own game

Can't help thinking that Tresco's oneday performances weren't actually as good as some of us would like to think - not in the last few years of his international career, anyway. I don't remember a lot from him in the summer of 2004 or 2005, apart from one big innings in the latter case. I know he made a brilliant ton at home to SL in 2006 tbf. But was he really a consistent one-day performer?

 

[fredfertang]

I'd best be careful here as ODI's don't really stick in my mind so but my recollection is that his great virtue was not consistency but the ability to take games by the scruff of the neck on a reasonably regular basis - he's our leading ODI ton scorer by a country mile isn't he?

 

[gettingbetter]

I'd best be careful here as ODI's don't really stick in my mind so but my recollection is that his great virtue was not consistency but the ability to take games by the scruff of the neck on a reasonably regular basis - he's our leading ODI ton scorer by a country mile isn't he?

Darvid has been one of the best batsmen in the last 20 years...standards do drop and you can't always rely on past performances.