James Troughton

[Rik]

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)

If you remember, Collingwood's International Career hardly started with a bang, but he was perseveared with. Smith has not had that luxury.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting one that.

He started with 20 in 4 games, then had a good run (274 for 4 times out), then 38 in 5 outs.

he;s currently in a good tun of form, but does appear to be an extreme player.

 

[badgerhair]

Because although you can argue for all your life about stats, they are useless

Yes, I rather agree.

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.

Seriously, though, I quite agree that if one must deploy statistics, let them at least be sensible ones with decent context.

I don't think it's reasonable to take into account Collingwood's performances after recovering from injury at the dog-end of last season, the only point of which were, as far as I could see, to prove to the selectors that he was actually fit enough to go on tour.

In the previous two seasons, Collingwood averaged 50 batting at 4/5 in div 2 while Smith averaged 40 batting at 3 in div 1. (In 2002, Collingwood's record is uncomplicated since he had no not outs and still averaged about a dozen more than Smith.)

On the raw numbers, Collingwood wins hands down. BUT, but, but HOW do you assess whether a div 1 40 is better, worse or the same as a div 2 50? Is the difference between the divisions really so large that it accounts for being 25% better? I'd happily concede 10%, but I wonder whether 25% isn't pushing the bounds of credulity a little far - given that both men's seasons included matches against several of the same teams over the two years owing to promotion and relegation.

I've just had a little dig through Smith and Collingwood's big scores in 2001 and 2002. I'm slightly interested to note that all of Collingwood's three centuries were against teams which had at least one current or very recent Test bowler (Vasbert Drakes, Andy Bichel and Vaas/Zoysa/Chuckera), whereas Smith's four were against one side with no international bowler, one against Glamorgan boasting Steve Watkin who hadn't played for England for yonks (and Collingwood managed a 99 off them himself), one against Leics involving Ormond and Devon Malcolm and 103* coming in at #7 (not #3) against a Yorkshire attack with 2-3 Test bowlers in it.

As samples go, that's not very big, so it would be daft to draw any hard-and-fast conclusions, but there is at least a hint that Collingwood is a little more successful than Smith against international class bowling.

And of course, just looking at the scorecard doesn't tell you anything about whether the bowlers were actually bowling well (although wickets seem to have fallen more rapidly around Collingwood than Smith, for what little that may be worth) or what the conditions were like. For all I know, one of Smith's 40s could have been a far more accomplished innings than his ton against Leics.

I can't find any way in which you can sensibly slice the statistics in Smith's favour - except in that Collingwood was a later developer and has more early failures on his statistical conscience which probably ought not to be considered all that relevant today. In order to get the figures to work in Smnith's favour, it seems to me, you have to add qualifications and adjustments, which means you then also have to find out whether the assumption (Div 1 > Div 2, #3 vis-a-vis #4) is what's really at work - and when you do that, lo and behold, there is prima facie evidence that the assumptions are not in fact valid in this particular case however reasonable they might seem as generalisations.

I'm very grateful to you for this debate, as it has pushed me into doign a lot more research about Collingwood and Smith than I'd ever considered doing before, and I'm fascinated to find that each new angle of argument seems to reflect more and more favourably on Collingwood. It's been very educational for me indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

I'm very grateful to you for this debate, as it has pushed me into doign a lot more research about Collingwood and Smith than I'd ever considered doing before, and I'm fascinated to find that each new angle of argument seems to reflect more and more favourably on Collingwood. It's been very educational for me indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

Same here, it's made me realise actually how well Collingwood's done of late. But I'd still rate Smith, looks a lot better when batting and averages 44.50 for 3 seasons against Teams like Surrey with Saqlain and Bickers. I know Ramps once said 2nd Division cricket shouldn't even be classed as FC. Now I don't agree with that but it does illustrate the gulf in class between the 2 divisions, as well as the difficulty teams have had in staying up after being promoted. I really do feel Smith has had to work for his runs more than Collingwood, who, although having obvious class, I doubt would find it as easy if he wasn't facing the basement attacks on a regular basis. I would have no problem with Collingwood playing, (anything to get rid of that infernal passanger, Clarke), but as I've said before Smith has the record and from what I've seen, the class and almost classical style, that reminds me why batting can be so attractive at times. I also think he's been given a rough deal, but then you could say that about Anthony McGrath, but let's just not go there!

 

[badgerhair]

Same here, it's made me realise actually how well Collingwood's done of late. But I'd still rate Smith, looks a lot better when batting and averages 44.50 for 3 seasons against Teams like Surrey with Saqlain and Bickers.

Continuing on the educational theme rather than attempting to argue anything in particular, Smith's average v Surrey 2000-2003 is 29.20 (I'll ignore his 1997 failures as being prehistoric). Though he did get 135 & 0 against their full-strength attack last season, so he is getting better, since he'd been averaging under 20 against them before that.

I know Ramps once said 2nd Division cricket shouldn't even be classed as FC.

Would that have been said at a time when he was attempting to justify leaving Middlesex, at all, do you think, and might there have been a teensy-weensy bit of special pleading going on there, just a tad?

Now I don't agree with that but it does illustrate the gulf in class between the 2 divisions, as well as the difficulty teams have had in staying up after being promoted. I really do feel Smith has had to work for his runs more than Collingwood, who, although having obvious class, I doubt would find it as easy if he wasn't facing the basement attacks on a regular basis.

I don't think the reasons that Yorkshire are in the second division have much to do with their bowling attack, which is considerably better than most Div 1 attacks.

Worcs went up as champions, having had an attack including Andrew Hall, Nantie Hayward, Kabir Ali, and Gareth Batty.

Somerset had Richard Johnson and Nixon Maclean, and Northants in the second half of the season have Brown and Swann, who are no mean spinners these days. Sure, there's a load of carp masquerenhasing as an attack at Hants and Glos, but it's not true that all the second division attacks are awful - and next season one of the relegatees at least has a fair old battery.

I think one has to look very carefully at div 2 performances, because it's much more likely that the attack is abysmal than in div 1 (though it can happen there too), but there are always two or three decent line-ups in the basement against whom good performances definitely count for something.

I would have no problem with Collingwood playing, (anything to get rid of that infernal passanger, Clarke), but as I've said before Smith has the record and from what I've seen, the class and almost classical style, that reminds me why batting can be so attractive at times.

I don't think that's a bad reason for wanting to pick him at all.

[QOUTE]
I also think he's been given a rough deal, but then you could say that about Anthony McGrath, but let's just not go there! [/QUOTE]

I have a suspicion we are going to see a number of people getting apparently rough deals in the next couple of years. Most of us can rattle off at least half a dozen new names we strongly suspect of being future England middle-order bats, I'd guess, and between us we'd name a dozen. And they can't all fit in.

Which is the lesser evil? Being pretty rough on people who don't make an immediate positive impression, or giving a chance to one of the many plausible candidates? Is it better to have been picked and dropped than never to have played at all, and some people inevitably won't if they give Smith/McGrath/Afzaal (hee-hee) any more goes instead.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Rik]

I'm just gutted England totally dropped Smith. Rob Key didn't do much yet got on tour for the winter and into the Tests in the summer and even into the ODI side for some barmy reason, yet Smith is dumped totally. One of the few batsmen which reminds me of the England greats of yesteryear in style and poise (as well as education and accent), isn't even sent to the Academy to iron out his flaws. Hardly makes sense.

 

[Craig]

I've just had a little dig through Smith and Collingwood's big scores in 2001 and 2002. I'm slightly interested to note that all of Collingwood's three centuries were against teams which had at least one current or very recent Test bowler (Vasbert Drakes, Andy Bichel and Vaas/Zoysa/Chuckera), whereas Smith's four were against one side with no international bowler, one against Glamorgan boasting Steve Watkin who hadn't played for England for yonks (and Collingwood managed a 99 off them himself), one against Leics involving Ormond and Devon Malcolm and 103* coming in at #7 (not #3) against a Yorkshire attack with 2-3 Test bowlers in it.

Just because they played or play Test cricket doesnt nesscarily make then Test standard bowlers (exceptions to Vaas and Murali).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just because they played or play Test cricket doesnt nesscarily make then Test standard bowlers (exceptions to Vaas and Murali).

IMO Chaminda Vaas is too inconsistent to be classed above Bichel and Drakes as the only world-class bowler of the 3. He may be better than the other two, but I don't think he's as good as people make him out to be.

 

[marc71178]

Same here, it's made me realise actually how well Collingwood's done of late.

Same here - a pretty good record he has, and I think he's next in line for a Test spot because of it (he would've been there by now but for that freak injury)

 

[Craig]

Didnt Collingwood injure himself in a car accident or Iam thinking of something else as my memorey is not helping me?

 

[marc71178]

Training Ground injury I believe.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Injured in a warm up/friendly game I think

 

[Richard]

Same here, it's made me realise actually how well Collingwood's done of late.

I didn't realise fully, either.

 

[Craig]

I'm just gutted England totally dropped Smith. Rob Key didn't do much yet got on tour for the winter and into the Tests in the summer and even into the ODI side for some barmy reason, yet Smith is dumped totally. One of the few batsmen which reminds me of the England greats of yesteryear in style and poise (as well as education and accent), isn't even sent to the Academy to iron out his flaws. Hardly makes sense.

Absolutely.

Everything in there is spot on and even the "hardly makes sense" comment sums up selectors.