Collingwood at three?

My first choice would be Cook, with an in form Vaughan opening with Strauss, but if MPV doesn't fire at the start of the season, then how about Collingwood at first drop? He has the number three trait of being able to both defend and counter-attack depending on the situation. Also, it would mean either Bell, Shah or Bopara could slot in at 5, which is probably where they are best suited (Bell averages 50 lower down the order). I think Colly would relish the challenge as well. He bats at three for Durham, I think.

How about-

Strauss
Cook
Collingwood
Pietersen
Bell/Shah/Bopara
Prior
Flintoff

Thoughts?

Cricket or AFL?

No, no. He hardly has the solidity of technique for a 5, never mind first drop.

Quick first wicket down, and he'd be likely to walk in and walk out again in pretty short order.

And England would be on the skids sooner than you can say Oh No.

taipan wrote:Cricket or AFL?

I don't know what context such a heading would appear in the AFL but I think Collingwood looks particularly vulnerable against the moving ball, and when he's had to face the new ball during his innings coming in at #6, sometimes even when he's been set. So I doubt that first drop would be a suitable slot for him.

PeterCS wrote:No, no. He hardly has the solidity of technique for a 5, never mind first drop.

Quick first wicket down, and he'd be likely to walk in and walk out again in pretty short order.

And England would be on the skids sooner than you can say Oh No.

In form, his technique works.

But that's usually after 20-30 runs, isn't it?

A dangerous choice at 3, if so.

Yeah, think 3 is asking a bit too much.

Gritty player - makes the most of what he's got but not a number 3.

He hasn't got the flair to be a number 3.

Who says a number 3 needs flair? What is 'flair', anyway? I always thought it was aesthetic. Doesn't affect how many runs you score.

Actually the "flair" batsman is normally at 4.

taipan wrote:Actually the "flair" batsman is normally at 4.

Gower batted at #3 for a while but certainly we had the so-called aesthetically pleasing Mark Waugh for years at #4 and the very elegant Chappellg.


It's interesting that some scribes have always said that the best batsman in the side usually bats at #3 but the likes of Tendulkar, Pietersen and Greg Chappell disprove this notion.

Maybe Collingwood doesn't lack the flair so much as the ability to be able to dictate or dominate at first drop when the situation cries out for it. Many still maintain that it was his dithering which went a long way to causing England's problems on the last day in Adelaide during the last Ashes series.

Henry wrote:Who says a number 3 needs flair? What is 'flair', anyway? I always thought it was aesthetic. Doesn't affect how many runs you score.

Ian Chappell ....it's why he hated Langer at 3

Enough of this Colly flair cheese.

Maybe a circular argument, because "flair" can mean various things, can't it?

> watchable elegance/"elan" of strokes
> pizzazz, aggression, oomph, "going for it" or whatever you call taking the initiative.
> versatility and flexibility of play (number of strokes, according to bowling)
> "class" as a batsman - which might be a mix of the above - or something else
> ???

lardbucket wrote:Enough of this Colly flair cheese.

They did have Bell for quite a well. Wouldn't they settle for some stickability?

another number 3 ... Boonie ... was certainly famous for his 'flairs'

lardbucket wrote:another number 3 ... Boonie ... was certainly famous for his 'flairs'

It's an Aussie beer?

Henry wrote:
Thoughts?

Sure, why not? England put 'limited' Peter Willey in at #3 against WI in the Blackwash II series.

taipan wrote:Actually the "flair" batsman is normally at 4.

So why do SA put Kallarse there?

Oh yes, because KP plays for England.

Not sure it would really work, and we would also be losing the benefit of having him at 5 which is where we need him most, for those 30-3 situations!

I'd like to see them try out a new opener and put Strauss or Cook at 3. Australia would probably go for that approach in a similar situation, but our selectors obviously won't until the series is lost, so it's a choice between the "seen better days" and the "tried and failed" for the pivotal number 3 position!

Rob I wrote:

Henry wrote:
Thoughts?

Sure, why not? England put 'limited' Peter Willey in at #3 against WI in the Blackwash II series.

taipan wrote:Actually the "flair" batsman is normally at 4.

So why do SA put Kallarse there?

Oh yes, because KP plays for England.

You are beginning to sound as twattish as Red with your anti SA obsession.

number 3s right now

aus - ponting
ind - gambhir
nz - guptill
pak - younis
sa - kallis
sl - sanga
wi - sarwan

The One wrote:number 3s right now

aus - ponting
ind - gambhir
nz - guptill
pak - younis
sa - kallisAmla
sl - sanga
wi - sarwan

Fixed

Amla is quality, probably after Ponting, the best Number 3 out of that lot.

GG and Sanga wouldn't be far behind though, nor Sarwan in his current Test form.

The One wrote:number 3s right now

aus - ponting
ind - gambhir
nz - guptill
pak - younis
sa - kallis
sl - sanga
wi - sarwan

You don't even know the number 3 of your own team? It's Dravid......

Whilst we're at it, Amla is South Africa's number 3, and Flynn is New Zealand's number 3.