The thing about playing the extra batsman.......

You see it's hard for Collingwood.........how many did he need to hit to justify the decision to play him.....50? 100?

The thing is, and I'm only saying this from playing at Grade level (obviously the mindset in test cricket may be different)......when you've got the extra batsman at the expense of a bowler you're always thinking you need more runs than usual to cover for the part-timers that are likely to be required.

Add to that, the pressure on Collingwood HIMSELF to score runs AND the fact that he's batting in the tail (more or less) and it totally changes the dynamic and mindset of the whole side. Bowlers don't mind coming up against a batsman down the order when the tail is nearly exposed

Sure it's easy to look at that batting lineup at 0-80 and say....wow look how many batsmen we've got....but I can't remember ever taking advantage of it when I've played myself.

Having said that though.....sure Collingwood may come on and take a few wickets and justify his selection and sure he may score in the second dig but I'm sure the Aussie bats would be feeling more confident than if an extra quick was playing.

I haven't seen anything of Anderson in the last year or so, so maybe he wouldn't have added anything but they say he swings it and he bowls at a reasonable pace and that seems to have proven to be Australia's downfall.

Who knows......the result at the end of the day is all that counts so all this may be irrelevant.

Even though draws are unlikely in test cricket, the position England are in (a draw will win them the ashes) means it is safer to play Collingwood. In any other circumstance a specialist bowler to replace Jones would be a no brainer.

Is it wiser to be safe or is it more justified to be bold? The dillemna is very legitimate. Specially considering how crucial the test is.

Pratyush said:

Even though draws are unlikely in test cricket, the position England are in (a draw will win them the ashes) means it is safer to play Collingwood. In any other circumstance a specialist bowler to replace Jones would be a no brainer.

Is it wiser to be safe or is it more justified to be bold? The dillemna is very legitimate. Specially considering how crucial the test is.

Click to expand...

Yes but how safe is it?

How many runs does Collingwood need or how long does he have to bat before he cancels out the extra runs Australia MAY make (and I know it's only hypothetical).

It's one thing for him to bat it out on the fifth day but he may be doing it on the fourth because Australia score quickly and heavily because they face him or Giles early on. Yes sure England may rotate their 3 quicks so as to not require Giles or Collingwood early but who knows.

All hypothetical I know....but it's not just a case of looking at England's longer batting lineup and saying that's all that matters when you're trying to draw a game.

Imho- The big advantage England have had it this series is the option of the extra bowler, barring rain (and lots of it), I really can't see this Test being a draw. I thought it a tacit admission from England that now they are edging closer to thier holy grail they are starting to think about the chance of 'droping it'.

Given the bowler they had was Anderson, who hasn't been doing well, I don't think this is such a bad move at all.

honestbharani said:

Given the bowler they had was Anderson, who hasn't been doing well, I don't think this is such a bad move at all.

Click to expand...

They could have picked any bowler in England, so they must have thought he was doing something right

In theory they could've done, but try and find one that's performing!

I agree that Anderson coming in for Jones was too big a risk than England were prepared to take.

You could say that Colls dismissal was unlucky and when I saw it live I shouted not out!

England have "supersubbed" an extra batsmen in before in the one dayers leading up to this (if you remember Solanki replaced Jones with England in real trouble) and it worked very well indeed.

A lot of wickets were thrown away yesterday, Vaughan and Pietersen in particular, had England batted properly and were merely 4 or 5 down you could say that the move was a very astute one from the selectors.

The problem with playing the extra batsmen is perhaps that the other batters have a mindset of "if I get out then someone else is there to cover for me" although hopefully there was none of that in possibly the biggest and most anticipated test match ever!

The problem is that for the first time in the series Australia will be able to see the prospect of getting on top of the England attack. In the other games England always had a fresh (even if not bowling particularly well) bowler who they could call upon if things started getting away from them. If Giles was tying up an end, but not looking particularly threatening for example, then the value in Australia trying to hit him out of the attack was not obvious. So much different when there are only four bowlers (and when Giles is first introduced it is likely to be so two bowlers can have a rest - leaving no "spares")

There is one another thing that hasn't really been mentioned at all and that is what it does to Geraint Jones. I believe that Jones is actually a better batsman than Collingwood (and even Duncan Fletcher has been on record as saying he thinks he has the potential to bat at no6). No8. is clearly to low in the order for him, just as no7. is too low for someone (Collingwood) who presumably has aspirations to be a higher order player and bats accordingly.

greg said:

The problem is that for the first time in the series Australia will be able to see the prospect of getting on top of the England attack. In the other games England always had a fresh (even if not bowling particularly well) bowler who they could call upon if things started getting away from them. If Giles was tying up an end, but not looking particularly threatening for example, then the value in Australia trying to hit him out of the attack was not obvious. So much different when there are only four bowlers (and when Giles is first introduced it is likely to be so two bowlers can have a rest - leaving no "spares")

Click to expand...

agree. Australia can get away with it because of Warne but Giles, no disrespect, is no Warne.

Will be interesting to see if England need to use the 5th bowler and, if so, if Australia try to punish him.

Collingwood bowled pretty well. He seems to have as much pace as HOggard. I actually am thinking whether it might be worth it to try him ahead of Bell. Everytime I look at him batting, he seems worse than the last time.

honestbharani said:

Collingwood bowled pretty well. He seems to have as much pace as HOggard. I actually am thinking whether it might be worth it to try him ahead of Bell. Everytime I look at him batting, he seems worse than the last time.

Click to expand...

He bowled four overs and would have gone for lots of runs had he bowled any longer. I admit i was pleasantly surprised by his pace but it seemed pretty clear that he couldn't sustain it.