Is Collingwood good enough to be a regular Test batsman?

[Matt79]

Collingwood is decent, without being brilliant.

You can argue about luck and analyse it one way or the other as long as you like, but its all just speculation. At the end of his career, and at the selection table, he'll be judged by what he put in the book.

I certainly rate his general attitude, and think England need him, or players of his ilk in their mix.

 

[Perm]

A let-off is a let-off. And a saw-off is a saw-off.

Mind, Cook more often than not has tended to have both in the same innings by the crateload or none at all. Really, really odd. Flintoff is similar.

Yeah, but you always go on about dropped catches and don't often mention umpiring decisions.

Anyway, Cook's average up until the West Indies series was 43.21 and his FCA was 32.29.

 

[Athlai]

Oh, I can tell once they start getting involved - and in every case so far, those not resident of these isles haven't tended to know the first thing. But I can't really go saying "there's no point arguing this with an Australian \ with a Kiwi \ with a Trinidadian because they can't possibly have a clue what they're on about" because, well, it's not true and it'd be extremely nation-stereotypical, an attitude which I hate.

Most certainly not, ya never know when you'll run into that Irish kiwi

 

[Richard]

You can argue about luck and analyse it one way or the other as long as you like, but its all just speculation.

It's not - not at all. It's stone-cold fact.

At the end of his career, and at the selection table, he'll be judged by what he put in the book.

Totally separate things. At the selection table, scorebook scores are indeed all that count. When judging a player's true achievements, nothing could be further from the truth.

Too often, BTW, people think that when I talk down a player's achievements by pointing-out his first-chance average, I'm claiming he should be dropped. I'm not. There's no case at all for Collingwood's Test exclusion at this point in time.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but you always go on about dropped catches and don't often mention umpiring decisions.

Anyway, Cook's average up until the West Indies series was 43.21 and his FCA was 32.29.

at it being that much of a difference (a relatively short career I suppose, but still). I'm gonna check that meself.

 

[Perm]

at it being that much of a difference (a relatively short career I suppose, but still). I'm gonna check that meself.

Well he shouldn't have gotten any runs when he scored his second Test century. I'll do the other innings tomorrow, or you can now. Just whatever.

 

[Goughy]

Certainly wrong decisions and run-outs when they're clearly not at fault (and I've said time and again that this is incorporated into first-chance averages as a not-out - hence, a first-chance average can be higher than a scorebook one, one such case being Strauss and 2006\07)

Again, how are they incorporated? You dont calculate the damn things. First Chance Average doesnt exist except as a theoratical concept in your head. When the numbers are produced then it would be worth a moment of my time to consider it. However, until then this is worthless conjecture.

EDIT- Just reread the above post and it sounds more aggressive than I meant. The point is still the same though so I will not change it. Just rememer it isnt meant as in your face as it sounds.

 

[Richard]

at it being that much of a difference (a relatively short career I suppose, but still). I'm gonna check that meself.

{60, 70, 17, 2}, {89, 23, 34*, 24, 5, 0, 4, 127, 23, 21, 40, 33}, {11, 43, 27, 9, 15, 116, 11, 20, 20, 4}

His Ashes is unaffected - Australia's catching that series was unexpectedly outstanding - but his India series plus summer 2006 appears in a rather different light - averaging 38.13, and obviously this will go down with The Ashes.

So, in short, just about where I'd put him at the time as I recall. Promising, beyond question, but not quite so phenominally heavy-scoring as fortune made it appear.

He's kicked-on so far in 2007, even if he was a bit disappointing against India.

 

[The_Bunny]

A let-off is a let-off. And a saw-off is a saw-off.

Mind, Cook more often than not has tended to have both in the same innings by the crateload or none at all. Really, really odd. Flintoff is similar.

In that case bad umpiring descisions should be counted as not outs.
Same logic for mine.

 

[Richard]

Again, how are they incorporated? You dont calculate the damn things. First Chance Average doesnt exist except as a theoratical concept in your head. When the numbers are produced then it would be worth a moment of my time to consider it. However, until then this is worthless conjecture.

EDIT- Just reread the above post and it sounds more aggressive than I meant. The point is still the same though so I will not change it. Just rememer it isnt meant as in your face as it sounds.

I do calculate the damn things, though - that's the nature of a stat, someone has to calculate it. I have shown one instance of an entire career - Trescothick - where I have. Then another here - Collingwood.

It's no longer just a concept of my own - my bombastic nature and presence here means it's a trait well-known to all regular CricketWebbers. Just a few minutes ago another CWer calculated one, the first known instance of someone other than myself doing so. ()

I appreciate it takes more work than a simple scorebook average, but to me that's the joy of stats - doing a bit of work to compile them.

 

[Richard]

In that case bad umpiring descisions should be counted as not outs.
Same logic for mine.

Of course they are!

How many times do I have to say it?

 

[Athlai]

Are there any correlations in what you've found? Presumably the likelihood of someone being dropped could be taken into account for all stats.

Everyones probably been dropped or what not at some stage.

 

[The_Bunny]

Of course they are!

How many times do I have to say it?

Sorry my bad, just say the other post

 

[Richard]

Are there any correlations in what you've found? Presumably the likelihood of someone being dropped could be taken into account for all stats.

Everyones probably been dropped or what not at some stage.

Oh, they certainly have. Some are dropped far more than others, though, and it's hence unfair to compare all scorebook averages as equal.

 

[Goughy]

What are Hobbs, Bradman, Compton, Boycott, Viv Richards, Tendulkar and Ponting FCA?

A nice cross section there from across the ages to compare.

 

[Richard]

And it'd be a project I'm sure Bill Frindall would be fascinated with - it's too difficult for someone who's not a full-time statistician though. Some of the required data would be almost unobtainable.

 

[Athlai]

Oh, they certainly have. Some are dropped far more than others, though, and it's hence unfair to compare all scorebook averages as equal.

But if you delve into such variables would it not be advisable to also look into pitch condition? I mean if its an easy pitch to score off then comparatively that score should carry less weight than one hard to score off.

Or weather conditions? A batsman might have trouble with heat which may affect the way he plays, or how clouds overhead so often help the ball to swing. We would then need to weigh scores differently according to cloud cover.

How about edges, every single edge that comes off was only fractions of a centimetre from flying straight into the wicket keepers or slips hand, everytime they edge the ball they should be given out. The opposite of a dropped catch, the wild ball that goes to no one.

Your over complicating the stats Richard, there are always going to be variables and you just need to look at them and say well there's a 10% margin of error in the numbers I am looking at. Trying to sift through to find more 'real' stats, you'll only end up finding your missing more and more.

 

[Richard]

There's a very substantial difference between a dropped catch \ bad Umpiring decision and all of the above. I've said this many times too.

A chance is finite - mostly when you give a chance, you're out. The fewer let-offs, the higher that means the calibre of cricket is - surely virtually everyone would agree that a bad Umpiring decision is always undesireable, and a dropped catch almost equally so; it's almost universally agreed that the worst feeling in cricket is dropping a catch. (This isn't really related to the matter at hand BTW - but I thought I'd drop it in)

Everything else is an intangible; it's on a scale with no descrete points and no minumum value. A chance is a simple on\off variable - the batsman did give a chance or he didn't (usually meaning he was out or he wasn't).

Of course, all other intangible variables need to be looked-at when assessing the value of runs, and I'm a stickler for this too. But let-offs are a value far above all of them, for the reasons discussed above.

 

[Athlai]

There's a very substantial difference between a dropped catch \ bad Umpiring decision and all of the above. I've said this many times too.

A chance is finite - mostly when you give a chance, you're out. The fewer let-offs, the higher that means the calibre of cricket is - surely virtually everyone would agree that a bad Umpiring decision is always undesireable, and a dropped catch almost equally so; it's almost universally agreed that the worst feeling in cricket is dropping a catch. (This isn't really related to the matter at hand BTW - but I thought I'd drop it in)

Everything else is an intangible; it's on a scale with no descrete points and no minumum value. A chance is a simple on\off variable - the batsman did give a chance or he didn't (usually meaning he was out or he wasn't).

Of course, all other intangible variables need to be looked-at when assessing the value of runs, and I'm a stickler for this too. But let-offs are a value far above all of them, for the reasons discussed above.

Hitting the ball onto his stumps? Hitting the ball so it misses his stumps by milimetres? Unlucky (and lucky) for sure are these going to be counted, the difficulty of the catch? Will it include freak catches that only a handful of fielders in the entire world could have feasibly landed?

 

[GIMH]

Great thread. Really enjoying reading this stuff