James Troughton

[badgerhair]

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.

I'm not entirely certain what point you are making with regard to the Bangles, although I can easily see that Barrington was basically boring and the other England players weren't and Barrington had a phenomenally high average.

I'm also not at all clear what point you are making in relation to my post when I talked about "watch them play and see which one looks to have the technique and approach which would allow them to succeed at a higher level".

Anything to do with Collingwood and Test cricket is entirely speculative because he hasn't played any. The game may well be a better judge than quite a lot of viewers (if I understand what that gnomic platitude is intended to mean), but at the moment it has had zero chance to exercise that judgement, and all we have available are the opinions of viewers and some often-misleading first-class stats. (People have already mentioned that Vaughan's f-c record was nothing to write home about when he was picked, even if it had been blindingly obvious to anyone who'd watched him any time since 1995 that he was going to be a fantastically good player when he matured.)

Smith plays a nice-looking shot, especially when bowlers give him the time to play them, but I am much more impressed by Collingwood's grafting and accumulation, which also seems to work when the bowling gets a bit quick or jags about and makes life difficult for someone as slow in his movements as Smith. I consider it much more likely that Collingwood will be able to succeed at the higher level. I was quite surprised to find that his recent first-class stats had been so much more impressive than Smith's, but that only goes to back up the judgement I'd already made.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Tom Halsey]

*Points out that Collingwood's FC average is in the low 30's*

 

[badgerhair]

*Points out that Collingwood's FC average is in the low 30's*

I said "recent first-class stats". If you insist on using career averages to judge players whose careers have hardly got going, you are bound to make a complete idiot of yourself more times than not.

Particularly when you are talking about a player who plays for a weak team, in that weak teams tend to pitch their youngsters in much earlier on the grounds that they haven't got anyone else. Thus it is that they play a load of matches before they're ready for it, don't do all that well, and are then stuck with those youthful failures ubggreing up their stats for several years, particularly if they have a run of injuries or start playing for England and don't get enough f-c opportunities to redress the balance.

In Collingwood's last two f-c seasons when he spent most of the time fit, he averaged over 50. In the same seasons, Smith averaged 40.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Tom Halsey]

When Ian Ward averaged 70 in 2001, I didn't see anyone raving about how he was going to turn into a test-class player, because his carear average was crap

 

[marc71178]

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?

In the selectors eyes this is.

Bell was talked about BEFORE his 2001 season.

Collingwood has looked the part in ODIs and were it not for his injury, would be inked in the Test side by now I reckon.

 

[marc71178]

The fact that Knight and Adams were both proven failures?

Adams proven failure - based on 3 or 4 games?

Vaughan was introduced to International Cricket with a FC average of under 30 - yet is probably our top batsman. FC runs means nothing.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Adams proven failure - based on 3 or 4 games?

Vaughan was introduced to International Cricket with a FC average of under 30 - yet is probably our top batsman. FC runs means nothing.

Very little, not nothing But I understand, as you know.

 

[marc71178]

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.

And look at the way they play, not the scores for a minute (considering you have this stupid obsession with such matters, it beggars belief that you then criticise someone for not using the scorebook)

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)

At the end of the day, his scores in those were 71* and a ton - like it or not he scored them, and besides if the fielder cannot hold on to a chance, is the wicket deserved?

Almost every centruy scored involves a let off, but goes down as a century, so get over it.

 

[marc71178]

*Points out that Collingwood's FC average is in the low 30's*

Points out that Vaughan's was below 30 when he started in Test Cricket.

 

[Craig]

And look at the way they play, not the scores for a minute (considering you have this stupid obsession with such matters, it beggars belief that you then criticise someone for not using the scorebook)





At the end of the day, his scores in those were 71* and a ton - like it or not he scored them, and besides if the fielder cannot hold on to a chance, is the wicket deserved?

Almost every centruy scored involves a let off, but goes down as a century, so get over it.

Not quite, you and I have both seen plenty of batsmen make 100s without some sort of a let off.

And you are 7 years older so I dont expect you to be saying that when you have more then likely seen more cricket then me (based purely on age and location).

 

[Richard]

Case in point - Craig Wishart.

And it's a crying shame, because IMO he could be a really good player.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes. IMO he has Mark Waughesque natural talent. He just inexplicably gets himself out over and over again.

 

[Richard]

And look at the way they play, not the scores for a minute (considering you have this stupid obsession with such matters, it beggars belief that you then criticise someone for not using the scorebook)

You really know how to attempt to befuddle words to make it look like hypocrisy, don't you?
My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with "don't look at the scorebook"; what I said was don't mix the two forms of the game. How you can possibly have found a way to connect those two I don't know and I don't even want to think about it.

At the end of the day, his scores in those were 71* and a ton - like it or not he scored them, and besides if the fielder cannot hold on to a chance, is the wicket deserved?

Almost every centruy scored involves a let off, but goes down as a century, so get over it.

Rubbish - chanceless centuries are nowhere near as rare as everyone likes to think. That phrase is just an excuse so that people can avoid worrying about dropped catches.
If a fielder cannot hold onto a chance, what credit is that to the batsman? It's nothing to do with him. He didn't force the fielder to drop the catch. Whether the wicket is deserved for the bowler is completely irrelevant - any runs a batsman scores after getting a let-off clearly would not have been scored but for that let-off.
And the point is not whether I like it or not, he scored them, it is whether I like it or not he had them against his name in the book. Whether you like it or not he didn't score them through his own skill - he scored them through two fielding lapses. In the first, the 2 runs he scored don't make much of a difference, the * does. In the second, that was 89 runs that, quite simply, would not have been scored under normal circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Adams proven failure - based on 3 or 4 games?

Vaughan was introduced to International Cricket with a FC average of under 30 - yet is probably our top batsman. FC runs means nothing.

No, based on 5 Tests, 8 innings and very rarely looking anything like the part and certainly not threatening to score a half-century.
And you have still failed to answer the question - if FC runs mean nothing, how come most good Test batsmen have good FC records? And how do a couple of anomalies mean more than them all?

 

[Richard]

When Ian Ward averaged 70 in 2001, I didn't see anyone raving about how he was going to turn into a test-class player, because his carear average was crap

Yeah, Ian Ward's career average is crap - a fraction under 40! I wish I was that crap!

 

[Richard]

I'm not entirely certain what point you are making with regard to the Bangles, although I can easily see that Barrington was basically boring and the other England players weren't and Barrington had a phenomenally high average.

I'm also not at all clear what point you are making in relation to my post when I talked about "watch them play and see which one looks to have the technique and approach which would allow them to succeed at a higher level".

Anything to do with Collingwood and Test cricket is entirely speculative because he hasn't played any. The game may well be a better judge than quite a lot of viewers (if I understand what that gnomic platitude is intended to mean), but at the moment it has had zero chance to exercise that judgement, and all we have available are the opinions of viewers and some often-misleading first-class stats. (People have already mentioned that Vaughan's f-c record was nothing to write home about when he was picked, even if it had been blindingly obvious to anyone who'd watched him any time since 1995 that he was going to be a fantastically good player when he matured.)

Smith plays a nice-looking shot, especially when bowlers give him the time to play them, but I am much more impressed by Collingwood's grafting and accumulation, which also seems to work when the bowling gets a bit quick or jags about and makes life difficult for someone as slow in his movements as Smith. I consider it much more likely that Collingwood will be able to succeed at the higher level. I was quite surprised to find that his recent first-class stats had been so much more impressive than Smith's, but that only goes to back up the judgement I'd already made.

Cheers,

Mike

The point I am making when I say "the game is generally a better judge of players than any of it's viewers" is that people can't just look at a player and say "he's talented". The only way you can say someone is talented is if they score runs. If you watch me in the nets on a good day, I'll look the million dollars. Last season I made double-figures twice in 14 innings. You simply can't say a player is good until he scores the runs.
The examples of Bangladeshis was to point-out that practically everyone watches Alok Kapali play a couple of shots and says "he must be their best player"; sometimes they've heard a couple of others say that and this adds weight to their thoughts. However, Kapali keeps playing, and keeps failing miserably. Until he starts scoring a few runs, I'll maintain that Habibul Bashar and Javed Omar are far better players, no matter how good or bad the shots look. People invariably said Dexter and Graveney were better than Barrington and Barrington averaged over 10 more than them. However boring people thought he and Boycott were, he got the runs, and I'd prefer slow runs than no runs.
Yes, we can't say Collingwood is certainly a good Test player but he had a good 2002 and a good 2001. He was poor in the little time he played last season and I find it strange that he gets picked after that. Vaughan was exactly the same. A shade over 40 in 1998, under 28 in 1999, and gets picked after 1999. Fortunately it still worked, and he was picked at just the right time because since he's been picked his FC average has been a fraction under 60. Since 2002 his Test average has been about 60, too.
However, I'd wait and see Collingwood in 2004 before picking him for Tests myself. And hope he doesn't get injured.

 

[Rik]

I was quite surprised to find that his recent first-class stats had been so much more impressive than Smith's, but that only goes to back up the judgement I'd already made.

Cheers,

Mike

Errrm...but they arn't...

Smith has consistantly averaged over 40 or around for the last few years and his FC average is 40.07

In the last 3 years Smith has scored 3827 runs at 44.50 in 53 matches. That backs up my judgement that Collingwood hasn't out-performed Smith. In fact Smith has done better than Collingwood, and he's only had 4 Not Outs in those 53 matches since he bats at 3. Not saying Smith is a better player than Collingwood, but he deserves to be there more. I do think Smith would do better, however.

 

[badgerhair]

Errrm...but they arn't...

Smith has consistantly averaged over 40 or around for the last few years and his FC average is 40.07

In the last 3 years Smith has scored 3827 runs at 44.50 in 53 matches. That backs up my judgement that Collingwood hasn't out-performed Smith. In fact Smith has done better than Collingwood, and he's only had 4 Not Outs in those 53 matches since he bats at 3. Not saying Smith is a better player than Collingwood, but he deserves to be there more. I do think Smith would do better, however.

Collingwood's average over the last 3 years is 49.05. If you change all his not outs to outs, then his average becomes 44.49, which is admittedly a gnat's whisker worse than Smith's but better than his if you disregard Smith's not outs too.

If you want to take the line that Smith's form in 1999 and before was better than Collingwood's (which is why his overall f-c stats are better), I'd ask why that was particularly relevant to picking someone in 2003-4.

I said before that I was surprised by Collingwood's stats, since I'd guessed that they were certainly no better and probably quite a bit worse than Smith's. Discovering that they were considerably better than Smith's over the last 3 years was a shock. Why do you persist in trying to assert that 44 > 49?

You're quite entitled to the view that Smith is a better prospect, and you've given some decent reasons for that opinion. My observations don't square with yours, which is why we have different opinions, but even if I were the type of guy who readily bowed to displays of statistics, I can't see why I should be persuaded to your view by a statistical argument which only goes to bolster my side of the debate.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

You're quite entitled to the view that Smith is a better prospect, and you've given some decent reasons for that opinion. My observations don't square with yours, which is why we have different opinions, but even if I were the type of guy who readily bowed to displays of statistics, I can't see why I should be persuaded to your view by a statistical argument which only goes to bolster my side of the debate.

Cheers,

Mike

Because although you can argue for all your life about stats, they are useless unless you take the circumstances into account. Smith bats at number 3, Collingwood at 4-5. Collingwood bats in the CC 2nd Division, Smith bats in the CC 1st division. I wouldn't be disagreeing if it didn't make sense.

 

[marc71178]

The difference is that Collingwood has shown he has the nerve of International Cricket (he can also bowl a few overs and is a far better fielder)