Collingwood: Statistical Anomoly

[superkingdave]

This has possibly been brought up before but just having a discussion about Collingwood with my dad, who's not a fan and he was saying he scores all his runs when we lose...so i looked it up and its actually quite interesting.

Collingwood averages 38.00 with only 1 century when England win and 41.75 with 3 centuries when we lose. Now is this a bad thing or a good thing?

By comparison there are only 2 batsmen who have debuted for England since 1989 that have averaged more in losses and they are Mark Ramprakash(22.15/25.95) and Nick Knight(17 tests, 17.4/19.00)

The others (haven't looked at guys who played a couple of tests)

Atherton (40.10/35.66)
Hussain (43.27/31.09)
Stewart (44.94/29.93)
Hick (30.33/26.34)
Thorpe (62.62/29.48)
Crawley (39.81/30.46)
Butcher (44.88/23.34)
Flintoff (40.78/26.61)
Vaughan(38.08/33.30)
Trescothick (47.60/36.67)
Key(43.25/22.90)
Jones (22.10/16.44)
Strauss(49.26/28.68)
Bell(43/34.38)
Pietersen (54.92/36.65)
Cook (44.05/24.03)
Prior (44.25/33)


Colly obviously isn't good company with Mark and Nick, and England's best batsman (at least before KP) has a massive difference between the two.

Is there any other batsmen around the world with similar anomolies to Collingwood? Any older English players ?( I stopped with Atherton)

 

[Uppercut]

The freak Adelaide test probably just skews it tbh.

 

[superkingdave]

The freak Adelaide test probably just skews it tbh.

Yeah it does, changes it to 38/36, though thats still closer than all the others mentioned

 

[Furball]

Noticed that the other day when looking at England's batting stats in depth.

One other interesting stat I noticed is the averages for each match innings. With 1 exception, England's batters are better in innings 1 and 3 in the match ie when they bat first, perhaps suggesting a collective mental bloc about chasing totals rather than setting them.

The 1 exception, bizzarely, is Ian Bell.

 

[Langeveldt]

Noticed that the other day when looking at England's batting stats in depth.

One other interesting stat I noticed is the averages for each match innings. With 1 exception, England's batters are better in innings 1 and 3 in the match ie when they bat first, perhaps suggesting a collective mental bloc about chasing totals rather than setting them.

The 1 exception, bizzarely, is Ian Bell.

Although 2nd and 4th innings scores would naturally be lower, due to the deteriorating pitch?

 

[Furball]

Possibly.

It did strike me as odd that every England batsmen bar Bell averages more in the 1st than the 2nd innings, and the 3rd rather than the 4th.

 

[Burgey]

Thought you meant the football team.....

 

[bryce]

Hard to say if it is a good or a bad thing - but it does show he is a good player to have in the side because he performs when the pressure is very much on

 

[superkingdave]

Guess you could also say that the statistics show Collingwood's performance has little or no effect on the course of the match. Which is probably a bit harsh

 

[Barney Rubble]

It could be argued that perhaps Collingwood bats too low down the order, and therefore his big innings tend to involve rescuing England from a potential collapse, rather than firing them to a match-winning total. Obviously there are exceptions, though.

It shows that Colly performs when the pressure's on, but the reason I'm an advocate of Ian Bell is that you also need players in your team who can hammer home the advantage when the pressure's not on. Clearly Colly needs a certain amount of pressure to perform.

 

[pup11]

It could be argued that perhaps Collingwood bats too low down the order, and therefore his big innings tend to involve rescuing England from a potential collapse, rather than firing them to a match-winning total. Obviously there are exceptions, though.

It shows that Colly performs when the pressure's on, but the reason I'm an advocate of Ian Bell is that you also need players in your team who can hammer home the advantage when the pressure's not on. Clearly Colly needs a certain amount of pressure to perform.

I agree with it to some extent, Collingwood imo is England' second most reliable batsman in test cricket after Pietersen, you can back him most of the times to hang in there and get the job done, you won't see him chucking his wicket away playing lose shots.

So he is a very good cricketer to have, who can grit it out in a tough situation to score runs, but he is not necessarily a match-winner, he can contribute to the cause of a side greatly, but he is just not a bloke who would be able to pull-off a game for his side all on his own.

 

[Richard]

Guess you could also say that the statistics show Collingwood's performance has little or no effect on the course of the match. Which is probably a bit harsh

I'd simply say that the cookie has crumbled the way that happens, by chance, to have meant that the bowlers (and other batsmen) were poor enough to mean that on the occasions Collingwood scored England still lost.

 

[wpdavid]

I'd simply say that the cookie has crumbled the way that happens, by chance, to have meant that the bowlers (and other batsmen) were poor enough to mean that on the occasions Collingwood scored England still lost.

Yeah - it's not as if he was scoring cheap runs when the pressure was off because the game was already up. Not that I can remember, anyway.

 

[bryce]

It could be argued that perhaps Collingwood bats too low down the order

Coupled with the fact his Test average batting at number four is 56, your point is well supported

 

[pasag]

25 Grand Final losses, not an anomaly, just a club with a massive history of choking.

 

[The Sean]

25 Grand Final losses, not an anomaly, just a club with a massive history of choking.

Matt's on his way to your place right now I reckon. Armed.

 

[GIMH]

25 Grand Final losses, not an anomaly, just a club with a massive history of choking.

Thought of you & Matt as soon as I saw the title!

 

[Uppercut]

It could be argued that perhaps Collingwood bats too low down the order, and therefore his big innings tend to involve rescuing England from a potential collapse, rather than firing them to a match-winning total. Obviously there are exceptions, though.

It shows that Colly performs when the pressure's on, but the reason I'm an advocate of Ian Bell is that you also need players in your team who can hammer home the advantage when the pressure's not on. Clearly Colly needs a certain amount of pressure to perform.

Like Colly did two days ago?

 

[Richard]

Collingwood's done that before TBH. ABdeV is a master of it currently.

Fortunately for ABdeV on the relatively rare occasion he's batted with his team under the pump he's also produced a knock or two as well.