Paul Collingwood - yay or nay?

What do we think about him? Should he play against the Saffies?

In the last 12 months he's played 13 Tests, avg 37.5 - 1 century.

During that time he averaged:

32 vs India
36 vs NZ
33 vs Sri Lanka
53.5 vs Windies (1 century)

And he's 32 in 4 days. You feel that if he's dropped, he won't be coming back.

However, he is a good player on the sub continent, and we have got a tour of India coming up this winter (though it's only 2 Tests because of some twat somewhere).

As well as that, he scores tough 50s and has taken 12 wickets at 27 in that same time period, which is handy.

What do you think? Drop him if he doesn't get a score at Old Trafford? If so, who would you replace him with?

Drop him if he doesn't score any runs - though I will say that a few times - 3 or 4 - he's been out on the tonk trying to get some quickish runs.

I'd replace him with Shah, obviously. He's just got to be the next man in.

An unequivocal nay - he can't play the moving ball whatsoever. Naturally, I'd replace him with Shah.

But then who bowls his overs? Don't say Pietersen.

I know Shah deserves a run but Bopara might be the better option. Especially as he has a golden arm and has been immense so far this year.

Agree with LLL, Bopara would probably be the better option.

During that time he averaged:
32 vs India
36 vs NZ
33 vs Sri Lanka
53.5 vs Windies (1 century)

It's completely unacceptable from a top 6 player. The question should be, why hasn't he already been asked to step back.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

During that time he averaged:
32 vs India
36 vs NZ
33 vs Sri Lanka
53.5 vs Windies (1 century)

It's completely unacceptable from a top 6 player. The question should be, why hasn't he already been asked to step back.

Those stats could be attributed to most of our top 6 generally!!

Bully the minnows and lesser sides and be carp against the decent ones!

Mick - It's because he bowls a bit and fields well. Also, people have been focusing on Strauss and Bell's form. Colly's gone under the radar somewhat. To an extent, he's still dining out on that double on that flattie at Adelaide, despite doing next to nothing for the rest of the series.

leg glancer wrote:Agree with LLL, Bopara would probably be the better option.

Why would he be?
What's he done that's of any merit in Test cricket - having been given the nod ahead of Shah?

I've always been a Colly fan - even when JKL ridiculed me back in 2005 after Colly was picked for the Ashes series.
The guy is dependable ... a great slip/point fielder ... bowls a bit and is a good team man.
Trouble is that too many people expect/expected too much from him ...
However, if he fails against the NZudders, perhaps (sadly IMO) he ought to be replaced.
But FFS - anyone but Bopara.

PS. There is another in the current team I'd chop before Colly (ring any bells?)... but we won't go there for fear of upsetting LLL.

I do feel sorry for Shah, I feel England are doing a good job in destroying his confidence the same way they did with Ramps. In some ways, I wish they would spare Shah the agony. Not a lot you can do when you are being constantly shafted in and out of the team. We did the same with Kaif.

Merlin wrote:

leg glancer wrote:Agree with LLL, Bopara would probably be the better option.

But FFS - anyone but Bopara.

What happened to building for the future? Ravi is young, has got a good cricket brain, and if he got some decent exposure at test level, I see no reason why he can't become a good middle order batsman.

leg glancer wrote:

Merlin wrote:

leg glancer wrote:Agree with LLL, Bopara would probably be the better option.

But FFS - anyone but Bopara.

What happened to building for the future? Ravi is young, has got a good cricket brain, and if he got some decent exposure at test level, I see no reason why he can't become a good middle order batsman.

Perhaps, but to be fair to Bopara, he'd not been anywhere near as consistent and scored as heavily as others in FCC.

Add to that his shocking run in SL, and he certainly isn't the next cab off the rank.

On the other hand Shah, in his two tests has played brilliantly in India, and then got shafted in the one game at Lords IMO.

England batsman in the last 12 months -

Vaughan - 990 runs at 43 (3 centuries 3 50s)

49 vs India
63 vs Windies
36 vs Sri Lanka
33 vs NZ


Cook - 984 runs at 41 (2 centuries 6 50s)

37 vs India
36 vs NZ
46 vs Sri Lanka
46 vs Windies


Strauss - 659 runs at 37 (3 less Tests than everyone else) (1 century 4 50s)


35 vs India
48 vs NZ
22 vs Windies



KP - 1064 runs at 46 (4 centuries 1 50)

58 vs India
37 vs NZ
25 vs Sri Lanka
66 vs Windies


Bell - 832 runs at 38 (1 century 7 50s)

32 vs India
44 vs NZ
44 vs Sri Lanka
29 vs Windies

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:England batsman in the last 12 months -

Vaughan - 990 runs at 43 (3 centuries 3 50s)

49 vs India
63 vs Windies
36 vs Sri Lanka
33 vs NZ


Cook - 984 runs at 41 (2 centuries 6 50s)

37 vs India
36 vs NZ
46 vs Sri Lanka
46 vs Windies


Strauss - 659 runs at 37 (3 less Tests than everyone else) (1 century 4 50s)


35 vs India
48 vs NZ
22 vs Windies



KP - 1064 runs at 46 (4 centuries 1 50)

58 vs India
37 vs NZ
25 vs Sri Lanka
66 vs Windies


Bell - 832 runs at 38 (1 century 7 50s)

32 vs India
44 vs NZ
44 vs Sri Lanka
29 vs Windies

Interesting Stats really!

Strauss and Bell from those stats DO NOT deserve to be in the side IMO.

A lack of 100's and telling contributions combined with below the 'magical' 40 mark average.

holcs wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:England batsman in the last 12 months -

Vaughan - 990 runs at 43 (3 centuries 3 50s)

49 vs India
63 vs Windies
36 vs Sri Lanka
33 vs NZ


Cook - 984 runs at 41 (2 centuries 6 50s)

37 vs India
36 vs NZ
46 vs Sri Lanka
46 vs Windies


Strauss - 659 runs at 37 (3 less Tests than everyone else) (1 century 4 50s)


35 vs India
48 vs NZ
22 vs Windies



KP - 1064 runs at 46 (4 centuries 1 50)

58 vs India
37 vs NZ
25 vs Sri Lanka
66 vs Windies


Bell - 832 runs at 38 (1 century 7 50s)

32 vs India
44 vs NZ
44 vs Sri Lanka
29 vs Windies

Interesting Stats really!

Strauss and Bell from those stats DO NOT deserve to be in the side IMO.

A lack of 100's and telling contributions combined with below the 'magical' 40 mark average.

To be brutally honest, do England really have anyone worthy of replacing them?

In this era of flat decks and carp bowlers I would say that 40 is the 'new' 35.

Can anyone comment on the circumstances where Colly has made runs recently. That is, has he saved his bigger innings for when England has most needed them? I seem to recall he had a couple of important digs in India.

leg glancer wrote:

Merlin wrote:

leg glancer wrote:Agree with LLL, Bopara would probably be the better option.

But FFS - anyone but Bopara.

What happened to building for the future? Ravi is young, has got a good cricket brain, and if he got some decent exposure at test level, I see no reason why he can't become a good middle order batsman.

Your earlier post has the answer lg.
Shah must get first nod over Bopara ...
Bopara's turn will come - but let's not have a repeat f*ck up - like the Bell fiasco, Ashes '05 series when he abjectly FAILED ...
Orangina/Yawn pointed to their "youth" policy ... (dropped Thorpey) and persevered with Dinga out of sheer bloody-mindedness ...
and he still hasn't proved his worth IMO - despite the over bloated stats against his name.

But to be fair, the stats don't consider form and Strauss seems to have turned the corner.

Not really good enough from Bell. If he'd just turned one or two of those SEVEN 50s into a century, he'd be doing well.

FFS. Bopara isn't being picked over Shah because he's the better batsman. He's being picked so that the team works. We can't have four bowlers without a supplementary 5th. If you're going to pick Shah, you need to play 5 bowlers.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:But to be fair, the stats don't consider form and

Some might say that form is the only thing that stats considers.

JGK wrote:Can anyone comment on the circumstances where Colly has made runs recently. That is, has he saved his bigger innings for when England has most needed them? I seem to recall he had a couple of important digs in India.

He did but that India tour was over 2 years ago.

[quote="taipan

To be brutally honest, do England really have anyone worthy of replacing them?[/quote]

Taips, to be honest its pure conjecture. The problem is, is we don't actually know, because even when this bunch of under performers are actually have a bad trot they don't get the chop as they should and so we only have small titbits to go on.

We have Shah's test in India where he looked the goods, followed by him at Lords against the Windies when he didn't. And Bopara's pishpoor performances in SL.

That is it. But IMO, we do need to see if we do have anyone waiting in the wings, by giving one of them a good run, like this current bunch have had!

Rob I wrote:In this era of flat decks and carp bowlers I would say that 40 is the 'new' 35.

Yup!

holcs wrote:[quote="taipan

To be brutally honest, do England really have anyone worthy of replacing them?

Taips, to be honest its pure conjecture. The problem is, is we don't actually know, because even when this bunch of under performers are actually have a bad trot they don't get the chop as they should and so we only have small titbits to go on.

We have Shah's test in India where he looked the goods, followed by him at Lords against the Windies when he didn't. And Bopara's pishpoor performances in SL.

That is it. But IMO, we do need to see if we do have anyone waiting in the wings, by giving one of them a good run, like this current bunch have had![/quote]

Fair comment, but as an outside observer I cannot see anyone holding up their hand and forcing the selectors to pick him.