Why wasnt Ed Smith not called up?

[Richard]

You can say one of two things if somoene is scoring runs and someone else isn't. Either that the one scoring is a better player, or the one not is out of form.
In the case of Gordon Muchall, Ashley Thorpe and many other rubbish youngsters Durham have taken to picking recently, it is simply that they're nowhere near as good as Love.
In Collingwood's case, the fact that he has averaged nearly 50 the previous two seasons suggests he's merely out of form.

 

[Rik]

Love's performances have no bearing on how well Collingwood was batting.

Same conditions, and Love batted at 3 and Collingwood coming in at 4 for Durham. Both batted in Division 2 which is not noted for strong bowling attacks, and anyway, if you can judge how well a bowler has bowled by the averages of all the other bowlers who have played in games with him, why can't you with batsmen? Or is it because it's Richard you are talking to and of course, and this beggers belief, he might actually HAVE A POINT

 

[Rik]

In the case of Gordon Muchall, Ashley Thorpe and many other rubbish youngsters Durham have taken to picking recently, it is simply that they're nowhere near as good as Love

Love is a superb batsman, should be playing in the Australian side at the moment. You are being harsh on Muchall though, he scored 250 for England U-19 and is very inexperianced. Admittedly very few of their youngsters have come off, but at least they are trying to get English players into the game.

 

[Richard]

Which is better than wasting God knows how much on EU-passport players.
Still, it's no use getting young Englishmen into the game if they're all substandard, and I really don't think much of Peng, Thorpe (they've released him anyway), Pratt, Muchall, Hatch, Davies, Bridge, Pattison and Plunkett.

 

[marc71178]

Same conditions, and Love batted at 3 and Collingwood coming in at 4 for Durham.

Yes, but how well Love bats says nothing about how well Collingwood did.

He could have been in fine form but getting sawn off, or he could've received a great ball to get him out.

Just because Love scored runs says nothing about Collingwood.

 

[marc71178]

Which is better than wasting God knows how much on EU-passport players.
Still, it's no use getting young Englishmen into the game if they're all substandard

So who exactly will play the game then?

 

[Rik]

Yes, but how well Love bats says nothing about how well Collingwood did.

He could have been in fine form but getting sawn off, or he could've received a great ball to get him out.

Just because Love scored runs says nothing about Collingwood.

Except they batted on the same pitch, in the same conditions, against the same bowlers at basically the same time...how much more even do you want it to be? Look up the matches they played together and I don't think you can find a more fair way to judge how Collingwood performed, bar not actually judging.

 

[marc71178]

And that still says nothing about how well Collingwood was batting when he got out.

Form is not necessarily always runs.

 

[Rik]

And that still says nothing about how well Collingwood was batting when he got out.

Form is not necessarily always runs.

So what you are basically saying is that we can ignore every arguement you bring up about bowlers bowling in the same conditions. You don't have to bowl well to take wickets, and obviously if you are batting or bowling in the same conditions against the same batsmen or bowlers, you can't compare them. Is is just me or is this by-passing common sense? Of course you can! If you can't then suddenly all arguements go out of the window.

 

[marc71178]

So what you are basically saying is that we can ignore every arguement you bring up about bowlers bowling in the same conditions. You don't have to bowl well to take wickets, and obviously if you are batting or bowling in the same conditions against the same batsmen or bowlers, you can't compare them. Is is just me or is this by-passing common sense? Of course you can! If you can't then suddenly all arguements go out of the window.

Rik, I know you've had a bad day, but this is crazy speak.

I am talking about Collingwood's form, not how many he's scoring - batsmen can remain in form even if they're getting out cheaply.

Therefore saying Love scored runs has no bearing on Collingwood.

 

[Rik]

I've not had a bad day! In fact it's been a pretty good one! It's the West Indies who had the bad one, and cricket in general.

What's so crazy about what I'm saying? You are stating that no one can compare 2 batsmen batting in the same conditions against the same bowling attack at the same time, an arguement which is increadibly similer to one of your favorites, which involves putting together the records of all the England bowlers, ignoring conditions and the actual content of the list. So surely, if you can do that, Richard can compare 2 batsmen playing together? Didn't he say that? I think he did:

Love didn't seem to have much trouble in the same period.

They had to bat in the same conditions

So, surely, if you are allowed to, why shouldn't Richard? If anything, his case is much stronger than your England Bowlers arguement, since it involves 2 players playing in virtually the same position. Also, if you state that he can't compare these 2 players, then basically no one should be able to and there goes the forum! Give and take. That's the whole point of the forum.

 

[Craig]

Quite possibly, yes, I reckon.
Won't know unless he gets picked in the event that a spot becomes available, though.

If he scores runs it is likely he will get into squads, but if young Rikki can some how get in, Wagh shouldnt give up hope!

 

[marc71178]

You are stating that no one can compare 2 batsmen batting in the same conditions against the same bowling attack at the same time

No, I have never said that. Yet again you as misreading what I've said, no matter how many times I tell what I have said.

The fact Love scored runs has no bearing on how well Collingwood was playing. It is possible he was batting really well then got out - just because he didn't score a ton doesn't mean he wasn't in form.

 

[Craig]

I am starting to think Marc is right.

Just because Love is scoring runs, doesnt mean Collingwood considering they are different batsmen and play a different style and AFAIAC Love is probably a better batsman then Love.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Love is probably a better batsman then Love.

Eh?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It must be one of those deep tricky metaphors surely...

 

[Rik]

No, I have never said that. Yet again you as misreading what I've said, no matter how many times I tell what I have said.

The fact Love scored runs has no bearing on how well Collingwood was playing. It is possible he was batting really well then got out - just because he didn't score a ton doesn't mean he wasn't in form.

I know that, but since he was just back from a long injury layoff, it would be rather odd for him to be in good form. But comparing how he's doing against a batsman who's playing with all the same variables can help work out what type of form he is in, as well as the number of games he played, because good form and low scores don't last, the low scores usually turn into poor form after a while or good form after a run of good scores.

 

[Rik]

It must be one of those deep tricky metaphors surely...

New fangled tricks surely...bah...kids today...:rolleyes:

 

[Craig]

Eh?

Nah I mean Collingwood.

 

[Richard]

And that still says nothing about how well Collingwood was batting when he got out.

Form is not necessarily always runs.

No, I have never said that. Yet again you as misreading what I've said, no matter how many times I tell what I have said.

The fact Love scored runs has no bearing on how well Collingwood was playing. It is possible he was batting really well then got out - just because he didn't score a ton doesn't mean he wasn't in form.

I am starting to think Marc is right.

Just because Love is scoring runs, doesnt mean Collingwood considering they are different batsmen and play a different style and AFAIAC Love is probably a better batsman then Collingwood.

Yes, Craig, IMO quite true that Love is quite a bit better than Collingwood - but still, Collingwood had come close to matching his feats of the past 2 seasons. He's averaged about 50, Love about 60 (something like that).
So, if someone like Love is scoring triple-centuries, then Collingwood should be scoring big centuries.
And marc - the fact that Love scored runs doesn't have any bearing on how Collingwood was playing, but it does have a bearing on how likely he was to get snorting deliveries - if Love didn't get any (and he didn't - because he scored heavily), then it's hardly likely (though not completely impossible) that Collingwood is going to get any.
And if you're saying that you can still be in form and get out cheaply without getting RUDs, then I'm afraid I dispute that. Form doesn't mean looking good - we return to the old adage; it's not how, it's how many. If you watched Matthew Hayden you'd surely never believe he's in form because he looks so awful in just about every shot. If you watch Michael Vaughan you'll never be able to conceive that he could be out of form. But the fact is, if you're not scoring the runs and you're not being unfortunate, you are, quite simply, either out of nick or not good enough.
And as I've said before, this depends on your recent record. If you've done it before, it suggests you're out of nick; if you've not, it suggests you're not good enough.