James Troughton

[Neil Pickup]

No excuse other than "youth"

There were more
"All Rounder"
"Promising"
"Talent"
"Surrey"
"Abhijit's mate"

 

[Rik]

There were more
"All Rounder"
"Promising"
"Talent"
"Surrey"
"Abhijit's mate"

The last 3 being unspoken

 

[marc71178]

And the 1st 2 are stretching the truth more than a little...

 

[Craig]

By that logic, how did Courtney Walsh play for the Windies?

Wins the award for the stupidest comment of the week.

He was picked as a bowler - a great one two and could pick up wickets and do it on a regular basis and to get a run with the great quicks around at the time and he musto f been good.

Where as Flintoff for much of his career as a bits and pieces "all-rounder" and kept getting picked by some stupid view that he is the next Botham.

With regards to Smith and the middle order, of what justification as Collingwood done in first-class cricket to get picked above Smith?

 

[Rik]

With regards to Smith and the middle order, of what justification as Collingwood done in first-class cricket to get picked above Smith?

Collingwood has performed under pressure many a time in ODIs. Although I don't feel performing in either is proof of ability in the other, I feel Collingwood's a safe bet after the quality of his performances.

 

[Craig]

How many times though? about two or three for mine doesnt count as performing "many a time"

 

[marc71178]

With regards to Smith and the middle order, of what justification as Collingwood done in first-class cricket to get picked above Smith?

What had Vaughan and Trescothick done a few years back to justify being selected ahead of the likes of Knight, Adams, etc.?

 

[Rik]

How many times though? about two or three for mine doesnt count as performing "many a time"

I can't remember the number of times, it's the sign of a quality player if he wins you a game and you don't really notice, but you see his name at the end with a "not-out" after it.

I do, however, remember his 70odd not out in India to win the match and his 1st ODI century in Australia as well as guiding England to victory several times that series.

 

[Craig]

What had Vaughan and Trescothick done a few years back to justify being selected ahead of the likes of Knight, Adams, etc.?

The difference is that Knight was tried and failed at Test level. His big technical flaw in not knowing where his off stump is, was his downfall.

 

[badgerhair]

With regards to Smith and the middle order, of what justification as Collingwood done in first-class cricket to get picked above Smith?

Seasonal batting averages for Collingwood and Smith:

2003 Smith 52.89
Coll'd 61.23

2002 Smith 41.30
Coll'd 53.00

2001 Smith 39.03
Coll'd 52.76


Now tell me what Smith has done in first-class cricket to get picked ahead of Colingwood.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

Seasonal batting averages for Collingwood and Smith:

2003 Smith 52.89
Coll'd 61.23

2002 Smith 41.30
Coll'd 53.00

2001 Smith 39.03
Coll'd 52.76


Now tell me what Smith has done in first-class cricket to get picked ahead of Colingwood.

Cheers,

Mike

Collingwood has never played a full season of FC cricket since he's started scoring consistantly, being involved in the ODI set-up as well as injuries. Also he only played 4 games last season (2003) averaging 28.16 from 4 matches, so I don't know where that 61.23 came from!

In 2002 he averaged 53.00 from 7 FC matches, and in 2001 his 1108 runs were scored in 13 FC matches at an average of 52.76

In fact, in the 3 previous seasons to those, the 1998, 1999 and 2000 seasons, he played in 19, 17 and 16 FC matches respectively (a full FC season) and averaged 30.85, 24.71 and 25.22

 

[badgerhair]

Collingwood has never played a full season of FC cricket since he's started scoring consistantly, being involved in the ODI set-up as well as injuries. Also he only played 4 games last season (2003) averaging 28.16 from 4 matches, so I don't know where that 61.23 came from!

I can't read. 61.23 was his scoring rate. Sorry and all that.

Anyway, he was injured all last season.

But in the previous two seasons, he did considerably better than Ed Smith in the first-class cricket he did play. Which answers the question about what he'd done in f-c cricket to get picked ahead of Smith.

Of course, that's mere playing with statistics and ignores Smith being crap and Collingwood reasonably good, which is a better yardstick.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

One example is Andrew Flintoff

Flintoff wasn't picked as a batsman.

He sure as failed enough times with the bat over the years and got plenty of chances.

By that logic, how did Courtney Walsh play for the Windies?

Wins the award for the stupidest comment of the week.

Precisely - Flintoff got continual selection on the basis of... "he's got potential". In your opinion. Thankfully for you lot (selectors and everyone else who wanted Flintoff picked) Flintoff performed at just about the last possible minute last summer. While that was happening no-one could begrudge his selection. I'm very greatful he missed the Bandgladesh and Zimbabwe series', so he didn't get what Harmison did, and now he will simply follow one series of proper Test-cricket with another.
Flintoff failed non-stop (with one series an exception, a third-string NZ attack) for the first 4 years of his Test-career with the bat. He kept being picked. He didn't look any more threatening with the ball than he does now. Certainly not Courtney Walsh-style. Though to be fair his batting-average was about 5 higher than Walsh's.

 

[Richard]

I can't see him getting a go for a while, if ever.

Middle order batsmen (ie 3-6) ahead of him:

Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Flintoff, Clarke, Collingwood.

In the wings:

Bell, Troughton, Pietersen, Wagh, ...

Give some justification as to Bell and Collingwood ahead of him. A good 2001 and a few ODIs. That's it. And that leapfrogs 3 good seasons of First-Class performance, does it?

 

[Richard]

What had Vaughan and Trescothick done a few years back to justify being selected ahead of the likes of Knight, Adams, etc.?

The fact that Knight and Adams were both proven failures?

 

[Richard]

Of course, that's mere playing with statistics and ignores Smith being crap and Collingwood reasonably good, which is a better yardstick.

And how could we come to this conclusion? Why, by examining statistics, of course! A ODI average of 34, compared to a Test average of 17.4.

 

[badgerhair]

And how could we come to this conclusion? Why, by examining statistics, of course! A ODI average of 34, compared to a Test average of 17.4.

Well, that would be one way. Another would be to watch them play and see which one looks to have the technique and approach which would allow them to succeed at a higher level, which is the method I adopted to come to the conclusion that Collingwood is a far better player than Ed Smith.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

It's a sad word if Rikki Clarke gets picked over a batsman like Ed Smith.

Well I look at Clarke's ODI record and realise how many chances he's had and how little he's done and then look at Smith's Test record, and then remember the ways Clarke got out over and over again playing down the wrong line and how his bowling was smashed all over the place, and then wonder how these selectors get away with it.

The difference being that you are comparing an ODI record with a test record. Anyhow, Clarke is 21 or whatever it is, and Smith is 26 or 27.

Indeed but Smith has shown himself to be one of the best English batsmen in domestic cricket for the last few years, whilst Clarke has proven he can score runs against demorilised teams coming in at 300-400 for 5 and was in the 2nd team some of this year because Surrey opted for Azhar Mahmood. I might be harsh to Rikki but anyone who looked as hopeless as he did in his 1st ODI series and who gets considered and then picked over a tried and tested player like Paul Collingwood, with no excuse other than "youth," deserves all he gets.

With regards to Smith and the middle order, of what justification as Collingwood done in first-class cricket to get picked above Smith?

Collingwood has performed under pressure many a time in ODIs. Although I don't feel performing in either is proof of ability in the other, I feel Collingwood's a safe bet after the quality of his performances.

How many times though? about two or three for mine doesnt count as performing "many a time"

OK, having compiled this compilation, here's my take on it:
Yes, very fair point that Smith is a number-three and no matter how good Fulton and Key have been in the 2001-2003 period (the same period of Smith's noteworthy form) they haven't been as good as Butcher, Ward, Shahid, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Hollioake, Brown, Batty and the rest. And Smith's performance has been for 2 seasons, Smith's for 3.
However, I'm surprised that Rik would make a judgement on Collingwood vs. Clarke for Tests based on ODIs, especially when he says he knows that's not a good idea. For starters, Clarke's domestic one-day record is appalling and his selection for ODIs quite frankly baffles belief. Collingwood's is a bit better but Craig is quite right that he's only had one good spell in ODIs - the latter half of VB Series 2002\03 to the Pakistan game in WC2003. He played one good innings of 69 (went down in the 'book as 71*, but Srinath dropped a simple c&b) in India and a century at The WACA (there again, dropped, simple slip catch, on 11)
Smith has been one of the best performers in domestic-First-Class-cricket since 2001. His career FC average is higher than only a few outside the Test fixtures (Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe). Clarke is one of these few. This, while it must be taken in context as I say above, must still be taken account of.

 

[Richard]

Well, that would be one way. Another would be to watch them play and see which one looks to have the technique and approach which would allow them to succeed at a higher level, which is the method I adopted to come to the conclusion that Collingwood is a far better player than Ed Smith.

Cheers,

Mike

IMO the game is invariably a better judge of a player than a viewer. All the looks in The World can be so deceptive.
CsIP: Alok Kapali, Habibul Bashar, Javed Omar; Kenny Barrington, Ted Dexter, Tom Graveney (I'm sure LE will offer us his take on this).
Some players can look terrible but score well. Some can look the million dollars and hardly score a run.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Some players can look terrible but score well. Some can look the million dollars and hardly score a run.

Case in point - Craig Wishart.