Paul Collingwood - yay or nay?

holcs wrote:LLL is becoming increasingly like Feltch!!

PMSL ... you do Felch a gross injustice, Chas!

If one of your batsman is bowling then you know you're losing anyway. ODIs are a different kettle of fish.

I've always thought Collingwood lacked quality. A solid citizen, but only a stop gap cricketer if you're really serious about building a world class side.

With his FC average of 35, he's lucky to have been picked in the first place and more talented batsmen like Shah and Key must wish they'd been as indulged and given such backing over a long period. If Collingwood can scrape an average of 40 in Test cricket, just think what a decent player might achieve...

But he's part of the England furniture now. And once that happens, it's harder to get dropped than it is to get picked.

I don't see any changes in the line-up prior to the South Africa series. England think they're bang on course - and I fear they're about to get a rude awakening.

See the latest article I posted in the deary deary me thread for proof of your last sentence Jay!

Dello wrote:I've always thought Collingwood lacked quality. A solid citizen, but only a stop gap cricketer if you're really serious about building a world class side.

With his FC average of 35, he's lucky to have been picked in the first place and more talented batsmen like Shah and Key must wish they'd been as indulged and given such backing over a long period. If Collingwood can scrape an average of 40 in Test cricket, just think what a decent player might achieve...

You need someone solid in the middle order though. Someone you would back when you're 40-4 and the opposition think they are almost through. You also need multi-dimensional cricketers, unless you have four or five world-beaters in each discipline which we certainly don't.

Take Key for example - doesn't bowl, not exactly athletic in the field, all he has to offer is his batting and his Test average is low 30s despite a double century to his name. If that's the alternative I'd stick with Collingwood any day. OK he's not in great form at the moment but he's proved his value to the side on many occasions.

And that's my big worry despite all charlies 'you'll never know until you try them' ranting!
Is Key really better than Collingwood and would he bring more to the side?

If there was someone so outstanding it hit you in the face then ok, but i'm totally against change for change sake. I want better performances than they've produced the last year or so - they are capable.

IMHO Colly has peaked and he's now in irreversible decline. I can't see him making any more big hundreds at test level. Still worth keeping as a ODI specialist due to his fielding, bowling and slogging capabilities.

I wouldn't have him.

In the team, or in bed, or neither?

I think he will come back from his present malaise. Question is: enough to cement a place? England has still too many twilight players as it is at the moment (and not a new problem)

Well, I know I know nix but I've actually come to think of him as one of our reliables. You know when someone comes to the crease and you sit back and think, "now we stand a chance...."

But I wouldn't want him in any other way if I was sober.

He has a nice voice, and a winsome smile though.

He is certainly in a rut at the moment.

(This is not an indecent pun.)

PeterCS wrote:He has a nice voice, and a winsome smile though.

He keeps saying "andem"

Well, He is a Mackem - he would.

JKLever wrote:And that's my big worry despite all charlies 'you'll never know until you try them' ranting!
Is Key really better than Collingwood and would he bring more to the side?

If there was someone so outstanding it hit you in the face then ok, but i'm totally against change for change sake. I want better performances than they've produced the last year or so - they are capable.

Change for change sake?

We score F'all big runs as a team. Thats not change for change sake. Thats change because the present bunch don't score enough runs.

In an era of supposed flatties, weak bowling etc.. and we have a top 6 that muster 400 runs in an innings once every 10 tests. Thats below poor IMO.

And yes we don't know for sure. But I damn well know that Blobby and Shah have more guts and fight about them than Bell.

I also know that both Key and Shah have averaged in FCC over 50 for a few years (Colly is at 35 I believe).

I also know Key and Shah are in a little bit of form (Colly and Bell aren't)

etc etc etc....

If players who underperform do not get the chop for those who are performing in the next highest level of cricket we have, because we just not sure if they will make it, then you get yourself a situation we're in, where players are cosy and settle for below mediocre, because they avergae p1ssing 40, which isn't good enough these days.

Rant over!

Holc, can I ask - what would your exact team be for the next match and for the South Africans?

LLL, I'm not sure to be honest.

I have an issue with Strauss and Cook opening up. I also think Ali Cook is a much better 3 than an opener, But obviously the God wants to bat there..... So I'd go something like this actually.

Key
Strauss
Cook
KP
Vaughan
Shah
Ambrose
Broad
Sibo
Really could pick any of three or four here and it wouldn't make a difference...
Monsta

Hmmm, interesting side. I wouldn't mind too much if that side was picked. Still think that we'd be less effective and wear our bowlers out with 4 bowlers and no back up though.

Vaughan can bowl well enough.

JKLever wrote:And that's my big worry despite all charlies 'you'll never know until you try them' ranting!
Is Key really better than Collingwood and would he bring more to the side?

If there was someone so outstanding it hit you in the face then ok, but i'm totally against change for change sake. I want better performances than they've produced the last year or so - they are capable.

I think the whole point here is that there have NOT been any changes,
so I can't understand your rant of charlies ranting for changes for change sake!!

Your particular theory that "they are capable" falls on deaf ears now ... bar one or two possibles in the top 6.
They have all had ample chances to perform with consistency - and every time there are failures,
both management and skipper "take positives" from the game .... and continue as if bugger all has happened.

Meanwhile those "changes" you talk about sit in the wings wondering WTF they've got to do to at least catch a selectors
eye ... and so the viscious circle ... where everyone anticipates, but all in vain ... continues.

Define outstanding ?? I'd be more content with consistency ... wouldn't you?
And there are plenty of batsmen out there who adequately showed it throughout last season....
yet they still wait, and wait ... and wait ... and still the call doesn't come ... why?
Because this lot are "capable" ?.... ... against the Kiwis .... FFS gimme a break !!!
With Saaf and the Aussies around the corner !!!
Gawd help us.

monty's limitations were shown up by Potter in the last test

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Hmmm, interesting side. I wouldn't mind too much if that side was picked. Still think that we'd be less effective and wear our bowlers out with 4 bowlers and no back up though.

Perhaps, but both KP and Ace can roll their arms over to be honest.

I also just think, and I may be wrong that Cooks successful period was when he was at 3???

Vaughan can bat anywhere in the lineup, it'll give him his little break that he apparently needs, plus it gutses up our middle order as aalmost a replacement for Colly. And It picks two players in some form whom IMO could be quality at test level, Key is a different player now to what he was then technique wise.

Yeah, I take your points. I wouldn't be against that side playing.

But the difference with Colly bowling and giving other bowlers a rest is that he doesn't need conditions to be economical. If KP and Ace bowled on a flattie with little help for spin, they'd get tonked and force Vaughan to bring his proper bowlers back on.

is the montesaurus really your best spinner