Dont think Collingwood was very good to begin with tbh. Hes always been a middling cricketer who contributes a fair bit in all aspects on the field. He rose above his usual level for one series and quickly dissolved back into the depths of mediocrity that fit his career like a solved jigsaw puzzle.
I wonder if we expect certain things from certain players (dependant upon nationality). We all know that England hasn't been very good at ODIs for a long time, but of late, I think that they have improved - displays against India at home and South Africa. But for batsmen, I would be suprised if England had Australian like averages; 40 average or 35 average with a 90+ strike rate.
Who expects any English players to average the above?
Then again, to be a good ODI side, you need players to average such. It is my belief that that likes of Shah, Bopara, Patel and to an extent Bell (alongside the 'regulars') good be a better ODI outfit if positioning was well. You can't have Patel and Bopara at 7/8.
So that goes back to Collingwood. In the international sphere, he is a decent player, but for England to take the next few steps, they probably need to shed him.
you reckon colly's done ?
I'm not 100% sure. He is a safe option, maybe not so much now. He did well against the Aussies in the CB series, but I don't think that form is likely to return to him. Assuming that he is batting at number 6 on a regular basis (what position is he batting?) or whatever position he is in, I'd rather see Patel there (assuming Bopara and Shah are fixtures) in Collingwood's position.
The above is based solely on batting. I don't think either's bowling is all that important in selection - honestly, where has this come from. It seems that ever since Fletch was in power of England, this has become a staple in selection.