England v New Zealand, 4th ODI, The Oval, 25th June

Henry wrote:I really wouldn't have any problem with England sacking Collingwood. Apart from the unsavoury run out incident, he's a pretty ordinary captain. How often do you see him react to situations rather than think ahead. So unimaginative.

Hard to see who the alternatives are in the current side though. Pietersen is the only candidate I can really think of and he doesn't need the added responsibility at the moment. Otherwise what do you do, bring Vaughan or Strauss back into the side as captain or take a gamble on someone from county cricket who is outside the current setup?

@ Henry: It was just as well, England did not win this.

Colly has probably done enought to save his job by going straight into NZ's changing room to apologise.

what a finish!

collingwood was probably wrong when looking at the spirit of the game but then again in football you got players diving, surrounding the ref trying to get opposition players sent off etc...not sure how much role the spirit of the game has in the modern game when theres so much at stake. probably too much being made of it though.

i remember a similar incident when sachin got run out by shoaib (kolkata was it?) after colliding with him. spectators threw a hissy fit and the rest of the day was played behind closed doors after sachin unsuccessfully tryed to cool down the crowd

way too much being made of it though imo and what was wrong with vettoris reaction at the end ?? there was no need for an apology for expressing emotion after a tense win

Good copy and paste job, Ash.

Colly has probably done enought to save his job by going straight into NZ's changing room to apologise.

Aye, fair do's, but only AFTER THE EVENT.
Hindsight, as the saying goes, is a beautiful gift.

There is absolutely no excuse which absolves Collingwood from his insisting on appealing for the run out in the first instance - at the time of the incident.

Sheer common sense and good spirit SHOULD have prevailed over that all demanding feeling of "winning at all costs" - which was clearly his immediate concern when appealing.

A sad chapter which has now been papered over with an apology post match.

Doesn't detract from the fact that Collingwood, at best, is a crap ODI captain.
HTF he got the job in the first place is a mystery.

Henry wrote:Good copy and paste job, Ash.

its your fault for starting another thread!

Actually now that I think about it, Collingwood spent 2 minutes talking with Mark Benson right after the incident, so it was hardly heat of the moment stuff. Benson would probably have said that going by the laws, Elliott was run out, and Collingwood made his decision from there. But the look Benson had on his face when England made the appeal suggests that he clearly thought it was against the spirit of the game.

Exactly my point.
Colly HAD TIME to deliberate his appeal.
He appealed, regardless.

Merlin wrote:Doesn't detract from the fact that Collingwood, at best, is a crap ODI captain.
HTF he got the job in the first place is a mystery.

As I said earlier, he was the only candidate!

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Fair play Colly. He apologised and said he made the wrong decision in front of the whole ground. Takes balls.

Should be the end of the matter now.

Completely empty apology. Wouldn't have changed the result had England won.

I don't really care. It's hardly bodyline is it?

No-one's suggesting it is.

Mmmmmmmm....... Bodyline ......!

That single and solitary word has a somewhat pleasing and melodic ring to it !

I'll say this much, as apologies go it might not stand up in court!

Threw too many 'maybes' and 'perhaps' in there for that

Too much stylistic analysis. Colly is the diffident sort at the best of times.

Diffident Strokes?

"What you talkin' about, Bob Willis?"

Oh nicely done. A disconsolate Luke Wright, reflecting on the balls up off the last delivery and Benny Benson drops by: "Ere you go, have this f*ckin' hat back - I'm not taking it with me."

Alternatively.

Here you go son - might turn you into Kapil Div.

Hopefully more like "off to the mines with you boy".

I agree that Collingwood's words at the presentation ceremony went some way to take the heat out of the situation and may be enough to justify his appearance at Lord's. However I wonder whether his contrition and emollient appearnce in the New Zealand dressing room was prompted by reflection or whether he had received a few homme truths from Moores (whom the ECB might also hold accountable for failing to instill into the players the importance of upholding the spirit of the game at all times) after coming off the field.

Collingwood's task was made easier by the fact that New Zealand had won the match. Had they not sneaked it off the last ball Collingwood's proffered hand might have been continued to be spurned. However England have put up a lacklustre performance in this ODI series which adds to the failure in the ODI series in New Zealand. Collingwood seems to be unable to carry over the momentum from a winning Test side into an ODI series with basically the same team against the same side.

He has not been helped by some inexplicable selections by Moores. Cook is not an ODI player and should never have been included, Wright if he plays at all should bat at 7, Shah should bat at 4 and why was Mustard dropped in favour of Ambrose? Moores, like his predecessor, seems to have an obsession with Australian-born baby-faced wicketkeepers that verges on the highly dubious. However, apart from the Elliot incident, there are sound cricketing reasons for dispensing with Collingwood's services.

Yet there is a history of forgiving if not quite forgetting the behaviour of England captains who commit faux pas. Gatting survived the Shakhoor Rana affair (which was not mainly his fault) to captain in the Bicentennial Test and the series against New Zealand before a Leicestershire barmaid did what Shakhoor Rana failed to do and deprived him of the captaincy after the first home Test against the West Indies. Atherton survived the "dirt in the pocket" incident at Lord's against South Africa in 1994 and carried on as captain for a further three and a half years until he jacked it in himself (although still being recalled as a stand-in in 2001).

Greig's action at breaking the wicket at the non-striking end whilst Kallicharran was walking off the park thinking that it was close of play in the 1st Test at Port of Spain in 1974 (an act more analgous to the Murali runout at Christchurch in 2007 which Sky latched onto as an example of pot calling the kettle black - in the Greig case, after frenzied overnight consultations, the appeal was withdrawn, largely to prevent a riot, and Kallicharran was allowed to continue his innings) did not prevent his eventual accesion to the captaincy (he was v-c at the time of the Kalli incident). It was his off-the-field association with Kerry Packer that eventually brought his downfall.

The only England captain I can recall who was dismissed for on-field behaviour "contrary to the spirit of the game" was Brian Close who was sacked in 1967 after deliberate time-wasting in a championship match for Yorkshire at Edgbaston based solely on a newspaper report by John Woodcock of "The Times". However I think the selectors were looking for a suitable excuse to dispense with his services.

I agree that after Vaughan was made the scapegoat for the WC failure Collingwood was the obvious replacement. If Collingwood were to be dropped as captain (though not necessarily as a player) Moores and Miller would be faced with the choice of reunifying the Test and ODi captaincies and bringing Vaughan back into the ODI side or appointing Pietersen as Collingwood's replacement for the ODI side. I suspect that faced with a dilemma they will opt for the status quo and persist with Collingwood although the prospect of KP captaining against the Saffies would be intriguing, to say the least.

Collingwood, however, may have blotted his copybook if, for whatever reason, Vaughan were to give up, or be removed, from the Test captaincy, especially now Strauss appears to have recovered his form. Saturday may be a good day for England to win, not only fair and square, but with a MoM preformance from their captain.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote: I don't really care. It's hardly bodyline is it?

What's wrong with bodyline? That was a legitimate tactic at the time, originally devised by Aussies, which could be countered if you had the ability. Nothing to do with running someone out who's sprawled on the ground after a collision and then letting the appeal stand. Different as chalk and cheese.

Yeah, because cricket would be so great to watch if bodyline was still legal...

Was pretty disgusted with the whole situation really, especially as Benson, could be seen to almost be pleading with Wobbles to withdraw the appeal.

I think SiBo, once he realised what happened was a little bit uncomfortable with the situation.

But what is most poignent about the game for me is Collingwoods captaincy on the field. 30 of 45 balls needed, 2 wickets to get, and he's go gaps all over allowing the Kiwi's to stroll singles. The only reason we were in this game, is because the snoozers have spome sort of mental implosion when they get their noses in front.

It was also apparent that England have no hitter in their lower middle order. If the Hacker Wright must play he has got to bat at 7.

All in all a pretty poor affair for England with no one really doing themselves justice, bar maybe Swanny's bowling in the End.

When will the useless qunts that pick these squads realise that our Test players are not good enough to play in the OD team, and look at those who have consistently performed in the FC game in this format?!

It also looks like Wobbles will miss the final game in the series for slow over-rates, and maybe the first test against SA!!