Styris or Collingwod-who's the better player?

[Prince EWS]

they are both reasonably efficient players, problem is if someone told me i had to watch either of them bat i would just groan, not sure why....they both play decent shots half the time....but the idea of watching them bat just strikes me as being entirely tedious.

I can understand that with Collingwood; he doesn't have a classic technique, nor would he appeal to the good-timing/fast-scoring/six-hitting crowd. He scores reasonably quickly these days but his batting is built around a lot of singles, a lot of nudges into the leg side and a lot of genuine thought about what is required. When he's out of touch, he's absolutely horrible to watch in general. Good batsman, but not really pleasing to the eye for many tastes at all - even if becoming easier and easier to appreciate.

I don't really get it with Styris though. I seem to have a totally different opinion on Styris to most people. A lot of people say he's a determined grafter, while others like to think of him as a big hitter. I don't see him as either. He has a very, very good technique, is quite orthodox and doesn't hesitate in playing his shots. He strikes me as someone that most cricket fans would/should enjoy watching. No-one seems to agree with me though which is rather perplexing. I understand why people share my joy in watching Daren Ganga for example, but I never understood the lack of Styris love. Maybe it's because he has a head like a rooster's arse...

 

[Richard]

Well Ben likes him at least.

TBH, it's always mystified me that Styris hasn't made more runs, and didn't become a batsman earlier in his career (likewise, it's always mystified me that his bowling ever had any success at any level other than as a container, and that only sometimes). As Rob says in the above post, he's technically good, has a decent range of attacking strokes played in a pretty orthodox manner. Yet I've always thought about him "how does he have any right to be so good?" This, I simply cannot explain.

 

[jammay123]

if my team was in a situation like england were yesterday i would be much happy to see colly come out to save the innings than styris i feel that collingwood is alao by far a better feilder but styris is a better bowler but because he isnt what he was as a bowler id go with collingwood in both tests and odis however i wouldnt mind if they both played for england

 

[thierry henry]

I think Styris carries about 3 cliches at once- "ugly", "New Zealander", "bits and pieces player", that somehow combine to make him the prototype of the unfashionable cricketer.

It is an utterly bizarre stereotype because he is one of the best genuine cricketing talents NZ has. The fact he has safe hands in the field (people in this thread seem to be implicitly criticising his fielding, which is odd....he has lost some mobility, of course, but in terms of safe hands, accurate throwing and general ball skills and attention to detail he is second to none) and bowls medium pace shouldn't count against the fact that he is a very versatile bat. Somehow, people regard these useful additional talents as detracting from his batting and making him "bits and pieces". He is orthodox and solid, able to pace one day innings well, yet is a big hitter (both orthodox and unorthodox) in both forms of the game.

Honestly, Collingwood is 10 times more "unfashionable" than Styris. His medium pacers are even more "part time" and his batting is light years behind Styris' in terms of natural talent and aesthetic appeal.

 

[Matt79]

People probably only criticising his fielding in comparison to Collingwood.

 

[Flem274*]

Some stats here:

Test

Scott Styris

Matches-27
Innings-44

Bat

Bat average-38.17
SR-51.83
Runs-1527
HS-170
50's-6
100's-5

Bowling

Bowl Average-49.05
Wkts-20
BB-3/28
Econ-3.08
SR-95.30

Paul Collingwood

Matches-24
Innings-45

Bat

Bat average-45.50
SR-44.48
Runs-1820
HS-206
50's-4
100's-5

Bowl

Bowl average-158.00
Wkts-2
BB-1/33
Econ-3.44
SR-275.50

ODI

Scott Styris

Matches-133
Innings-114

Bat

Average-31.89
SR-78.65
Runs-3158
HS-141
50's-19
100's-4

Bowl

Bowl Average-32.62
Wkts-116
BB-6/25
Econ-4.72
SR-41.40

Paul Collingwood

Matches-124
Innings-113

Bat

Average-34.27
SR-73.90
Runs-3016
HS-120*
50's-15
100's-4

Bowl

Bowl Average-39.04
Wkts-64
BB-6/31
Econ-5.01
SR-46.71

Never knew Collingwoods test average was so high, I thought it was still in the 20's.

 

[Goughy]

Some stats here:

Test

Scott Styris

Matches-27
Innings-44

Bat

Bat average-38.17
SR-51.83
Runs-1527
HS-170
50's-6
100's-5

Bowling

Bowl Average-49.05
Wkts-20
BB-3/28
Econ-3.08
SR-95.30

Paul Collingwood

Matches-24
Innings-45

Bat

Bat average-45.50
SR-44.48
Runs-1820
HS-206
50's-4
100's-5

Bowl

Bowl average-158.00
Wkts-2
BB-1/33
Econ-3.44
SR-275.50

ODI

Scott Styris

Matches-133
Innings-114

Bat

Average-31.89
SR-78.65
Runs-3158
HS-141
50's-19
100's-4

Bowl

Bowl Average-32.62
Wkts-116
BB-6/25
Econ-4.72
SR-41.40

Paul Collingwood

Matches-124
Innings-113

Bat

Average-34.27
SR-73.90
Runs-3016
HS-120*
50's-15
100's-4

Bowl

Bowl Average-39.04
Wkts-64
BB-6/31
Econ-5.01
SR-46.71

Never knew Collingwoods test average was so high, I thought it was still in the 20's.

Where did you get those stats from?

Collingwod has now played 27 Tests and has 6 Test wickets (not 2) over halving his bowling average to 70.83

 

[Flem274*]

Where did you get those stats from?

Collingwod has now played 27 Tests and has 6 Test wickets (not 2) over halving his bowling average to 70.83

CW stats spider

 

[Perm]

I'd be interested as to why so many people have chosen Collingwood over Styris TBH. I feel that Styris is by far the more accomplished bowler, whereas in the ODI batting they are reasonably equal. Collingwood has the better Test batting record, and is the better fielder, but Styris is very safe in the slips.

 

[Goughy]

CW stats spider

Interesting, should be updated ASAP

 

[Matt79]

I'd be interested as to why so many people have chosen Collingwood over Styris TBH. I feel that Styris is by far the more accomplished bowler, whereas in the ODI batting they are reasonably equal. Collingwood has the better Test batting record, and is the better fielder, but Styris is very safe in the slips.

Collingwood's bowling is visibly improving and Tests > ODIs in people's minds would be two reasons I guess.

 

[Perm]

Collingwood's bowling is visibly improving and Tests > ODIs in people's minds would be two reasons I guess.

His bowling is improving, but it still isn't at the level where Styris is at. One feels that if New Zealand played more Tests and Styris didn't have a bad back and dicky knees that he would be lead ahead in this poll. He should have more votes than this anyway.

 

[open365]

I'd be interested as to why so many people have chosen Collingwood over Styris TBH. I feel that Styris is by far the more accomplished bowler, whereas in the ODI batting they are reasonably equal. Collingwood has the better Test batting record, and is the better fielder, but Styris is very safe in the slips.

Imo Collingwood is clearly a better bat than Styris is.

 

[Perm]

Imo Collingwood is clearly a better bat than Styris is.

How?

 

[Flem274*]

How?

Average I bet. Or his double century against Australia. Those would be my guess of his arguments.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood's scorebook Test average grossly flatters him because of the amount of luck via let-offs he's received and his official ODI average is obviously misreprisentative; his average against ODI-standard sides is far lower.

Styris has never hugely impressed me as a Test batsman TBH despite being technically good, but (though he hasn't scored a chanceless double-century against Australia, which flat pitch or no flat pitch was still one hell of an achievement) I've still tended to rate his Test batting > Collingwood's.

As a ODI batsman, I cannot fathom how anyone can compare the two TBH. Styris wins hands-down. Since his coming-of-age innings of 85 in West Indies in 2002, he's averaged in the high 30s, performing against everyone except (unfortunately) Australia. Collingwood's never had a spell of more than 5 or 6 games of real performance.

As bowlers, both are decidedly mediocre, really, and though Collingwood's obviously far better than he once was, he's still very much not a full-time bowler. Styris never has been really.

 

[Athlai]

Styris plays for New Zealand, he is more often put in a match saving role for his team, while Collingwood isn't, a median average could be a good indicator here?

 

[thierry henry]

Styris was decidedly poor over the first 40-50 ODIs he played. Since then he has averaged less than 30 with the ball and high 30s with the bat which makes him a really outstanding ODI all-rounder tbh. Collingwood really isn't close.

As test batsmen, Collingwood has had a hot run of form which puts him ahead, but will that last?

 

[Flem274*]

Styris was decidedly poor over the first 40-50 ODIs he played. Since then he has averaged less than 30 with the ball and high 30s with the bat which makes him a really outstanding ODI all-rounder tbh. Collingwood really isn't close.

As test batsmen, Collingwood has had a hot run of form which puts him ahead, but will that last?

Depends really. If the England batting stays stable then it will be easier for him to continue his good form as there is less pressure on him to score. If it doesn't then anything could happen.

If I had to choose one to bat for my life then I'd choose Styris TBH. Offers less chances and is more consistent. If I had to choose one to field for my life then its Collingwood. If I had to choose one to bowl for my life then I'd resign myself to the fact that I'm as good as dead.

 

[The_Bunny]

Collingwoods resistance vs Australia in both the tests and Odi's is still to fresh in the memory for mine.
That and the feilding takes it for mine