Collingwood or Thorpe- Who would you want batting........

Dello wrote:4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

A better ratio of hundreds to Tests in that period than Stewart, Gower or Atherton across their careers. Interesting definition of "not much to write home about".

It's strange, because South Africa have one of the best attacks going around, and Colly's record against them is excellent, so it's not like he isn't good enough to play the best bowling. Sometimes players just can't seem to buy a run against a particular team. Colly's bogey teams would appear to be New Zealand and Sri Lanka. They hardly have the world's best attacks......

When he produces performances like he has done in the last 6 months, you can see why England kept so much faith in him when he was struggling. Harsh on a guy like Owais Shah, who wasn't given a fair go at all compared to Colly, Bell, and Cook, but then again I have a feeling Shah's lack of opportunities wasn't just due to poor form with the bat.

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

A better ratio of hundreds to Tests in that period than Stewart, Gower or Atherton across their careers. Interesting definition of "not much to write home about".

Oh come on, you can't possibly compare the quality of Test match bowling that Gower, Atherton and Stewart had to face with today's era.

Henry wrote:Harsh on a guy like Owais Shah, who wasn't given a fair go at all compared to Colly, Bell, and Cook, but then again I have a feeling Shah's lack of opportunities wasn't just due to poor form with the bat.

Shah had his chances and pissed them away with a combination of poor scores (against a weak Windies on featherbeds), appalling running, clown fielding and a tenancy to retire hurt with cramp if he batted for more than an hour.

I guess England decided that, for all the potential runs he could offer if he came off, the amount of baggage they would have to endure by having him around just wasn't worth it.

Dello wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

A better ratio of hundreds to Tests in that period than Stewart, Gower or Atherton across their careers. Interesting definition of "not much to write home about".

Oh come on, you can't possibly compare the quality of Test match bowling that Gower, Atherton and Stewart had to face with today's era.

I didn't and haven't. I'm saying that saying that picking a time when Collingwood had a lean spell and criticising a rate of century making as being nothing to write home about when it's superior to that of those I mention - plus Thorpe, Bell, Hussain and about the same as Cook is a bit peculiar. You've picked a time when he was out of form and struggling.

It's true, my sympathy for Shah lessened in the last year or so, but the time when he really should have been given a decent run was after his debut test match in India almost 4 years ago. Shit, was it that long ago? Where has the time gone....

Apparently before that match Fletcher was unhappy because Shah hadn't been expecting to be picked, and therefore took it easy in the warm ups. It was all about attitude to Fletcher, never mind performances......

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Dello wrote:4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

A better ratio of hundreds to Tests in that period than Stewart, Gower or Atherton across their careers. Interesting definition of "not much to write home about".

Oh come on, you can't possibly compare the quality of Test match bowling that Gower, Atherton and Stewart had to face with today's era.

I didn't and haven't. I'm saying that saying that picking a time when Collingwood had a lean spell and criticising a rate of century making as being nothing to write home about when it's superior to that of those I mention - plus Thorpe, Bell, Hussain and about the same as Cook is a bit peculiar. You've picked a time when he was out of form and struggling.

I know he was struggling - that was the point that Lever was making: Collingwood was just about getting by for two years. I merely backed that up with the numbers. England dropped Strauss when his average finally dipped below the "magic 40" mark, and Collingwood was barely keeping his head above water for a long time, in that context.

And four hundreds in two years, where he got to play at home against the two weakest sides in Test cricket (in fact 10 of his 22 games were against WI and NZ), isn't anything special, I don't think.

I would challenge you to find any cricketer whose worst spell is something special. But over that period, he did OK and scored hundreds at a rate that compares favourably with many of England's better players. I'd have thought most Test cricketers would take that, I'm not really seeing your point.

Shoeshine wrote: But over that period, he did OK

Really though, you need your experienced cricketers to do a bit more than 'ok' to crack on as a side. I'm not saying I wouldn't have him over Bell in the trenches at all, far from it. Just think he'd got into this habit of producing when his own position was under threat.

I don't think anyone can argue that he's been the glue holding us together somewhat since the start of the Ashes last year but it was about time.

Henry wrote:........for your life?

I'd go for Thorpey. Almost invariably came through for England when under pressure. Tough as teak, and better to watch than Colly.

Trev, you need two batsmen to bat for your life. I'll take them both. Thanks.

Dello wrote:Cashed in against the Windies, didn't he?

Back to back series with 60+ averages.

Followed by 27 against Australia.

But it's true to say he was just about getting by for a long while. 2007-2009 he scraped an average of bang on 40. Which isn't shit, by any means, but 4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

F*ck sake Dello, have read some shit on this forum in my time but I expected better from you.

For starters - it was hardly back-to-back series against the Windies. The 2 Tests in England weren't a series and he didn't score lots of cheap runs - 2 innings, 8 & 60*. Not really worth mentioning in the context of the last 2 years. The important statistics when considering Collingwood's recent performance are these:

Series Averages - Last 6 Series for Paul Collingwood
vs South Africa in England = 58
vs India in India = 43
vs West Indies in West Indies = 61
vs West Indies in England = 68
vs Australia in England = 28
vs South Africa in South Africa = 57

Any way you slice that up it is an exceptional record. Against the best teams in the world he has consistently performed. Even the West Indies series away was a pressure series - West Indies were the better side and England were constantly batting under pressure to chase the game. Even Colly's one lean series he produced the single most pivotal innings of the contest - an innings no-one else on the England team could have played, and without which the Ashes would have been a distant dream.

Gary 111 wrote:

Dello wrote:Cashed in against the Windies, didn't he?

Back to back series with 60+ averages.

Followed by 27 against Australia.

But it's true to say he was just about getting by for a long while. 2007-2009 he scraped an average of bang on 40. Which isn't shit, by any means, but 4 hundreds (2 against the Windies, 1 against SA - all at home - and 1 against India) in 22 matches over the course of two years isn't exactly much to write home about.

F*ck sake Dello, have read some shit on this forum in my time but I expected better from you.

Which part of what I posted isn't true?

As I said before, I was merely contributing to a discussion that went something like this:

(JKLever): "For a good 2 years prior to the Ashes series last year he was doing just enough every time his place was up for grabs."

(Shoeshine): "that was more because Collingwood made ugly runs than that he was doing particularly poorly."

(JKLever): "What was his highest score last year?"

(Shoeshine): "161"

(JKLever): "Blimey, when did that happen?"

And then my contribution that he cashed in against the Windies. Which he did.

I then proceeded to back up Lever's not unreasonable claim that Collingwood had a pretty unamazing period for about two years there - 2007-2009 - during which he mostly scraped by - and was dropped, once (for one game only). Justifiably so, I believe the general consensus was at the time.

Series Averages - Last 6 Series for Paul Collingwood
vs South Africa in England = 58
vs India in India = 43
vs West Indies in West Indies = 61
vs West Indies in England = 68
vs Australia in England = 28
vs South Africa in South Africa = 57

Any way you slice that up it is an exceptional record. Against the best teams in the world he has consistently performed. Even the West Indies series away was a pressure series - West Indies were the better side and England were constantly batting under pressure to chase the game. Even Colly's one lean series he produced the single most pivotal innings of the contest - an innings no-one else on the England team could have played, and without which the Ashes would have been a distant dream.

This is all well and good. But it has nothing to do with what I was posting about. No-one would argue that Collingwood hasn't become a very decent and important contributor in the last handful of series (bar the Ashes).

And no-one was.

It is shit because anyone can slice statistics and misrepresent a point. You have to take them in context and look at them fairly. Quoting Collingwood's average over 2 years and then saying he had back-to-back series against the Windies where he averaged over 60 is disingenious when one of those 'series' = 1 completed innings.

His recent performances include excellent performances against the best bowling attack in the world, home and away, and a century against the No 1. team in their own backyard.

And you can't even say he wasn't an important contributor in the Ashes. Take him out of England's team an they would have lost. Not even any doubt about that.


Thorpe vs Collingwood? Thorpe every time for me. But that doesn't take away from the fact Collingwood has been immense for England these past few years.

In fact re: Thorpe, I would go as far as saying that apart from Gooch's 4 year purple patch and possibly Robin Smith he's been England's best batsman since Boycott.

Definitely the one you'd want to bat for your life.(Disclaimer - unless the game was taking part in Australia while his wife was at home practising her tennis game)

Gary 111 wrote:It is shit because anyone can slice statistics and misrepresent a point.

I'd love to know his average at the point the noose was being readied...

JKLever wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:It is shit because anyone can slice statistics and misrepresent a point.

I'd love to know his average at the point the noose was being readied...

40.39

Cumulative Career Average

For those respective series I mean. I wouldn't mind putting a bet on that it was mid 20's early 30's before he did his career rescuing act.

2007/08 winter he averaged 33 in Sri Lanka and then 41 in New Zealand.

Then the summer of 2008 it was 11 vs New Zealand (only 3 completed innings) then 58 vs South Africa.

Scores before his 135 at Edgbaston.

29,0,2,66,59,65,22,6,24* (possibly the ugliest innings of all time),2,0,7,4

Collingwood is a better version of Faisal Iqbal...thats about it.

Only difference is that Collingwood is NOT Graham Gooch's nephew.

JKLever wrote:Scores before his 135 at Edgbaston.

29,0,2,66,59,65,22,6,24* (possibly the ugliest innings of all time),2,0,7,4

Quite. He was justifiably dropped - and I don't recall much of an outcry when it finally happened - after a period of not really pulling his weight. 20 Tests in a row @ 33.

And he's bounced back stronger and never looked back - which is how you'd love a bloke to respond to being dropped.

I don't see how mentioning any of this is remotely contentious, but there you go.

The contentious bit was suggesting he cashed in against the West Indies - not that he had a spell when he was struggling. Collingwood has tended to perform better against the better sides, he's not a flat track bully type player.

Quote stats until the cows come home if you like, but Thorpe was a better player than Collingwood. Fact. Period. End of.

Thorpe played more quality bowlers than Colly has. There's another fact for you.

Thorpe or Colly playing for my life? Thorpe every time.

He'd also be my pick to shag around behind my back for my life.

Dello wrote:He'd also be my pick to shag around behind my back for my life.

Wayne Larkins.