Bring in Collingwood for Giles?

[aussie]

Collingwood isn't Test class with either bat or ball. There's no point in having a fifth seamer and no spinner. We've got 5 so called top batsmen a so-called world class allrounder as well as a wicketkeeper chosen primarily for his batting. If they can't make the runs then Collingwood isn't going to make any difference. If he plays at all it would have to be in place of Bell.

agreed with everything except for 2 pints:

1. Colly has been unfairly written off has a test player since he never really truly got the chance to really prove himself at test level.If you remember after the 2 test he played in SRI which he looked quite competent againts the spin if not devastating, then when ENG went to the WI he was in the running for a place in front of Hussain but wasn't given a chance due to Nasser's experience. Then Finally he was also in the running for a place in the 1st test againts the Kiwis when Vaughan was injured, but Strauss got the nod & he has since drifted down the pecking order for a test place.

2.You say their is no point having a 5th seamer & no spinner, but what if the spinner seems to have no value which in Gilo case after his performaces at lord's is evident...

 

[roseboy64]

Vaughan's a handy spinner if he somehow manages to get in a few. Short spells though.

 

[age_master]

Collingwood for Giles with Jones still in there - no, Jones is in there for his batting so effectivley your already playing 7 'batsmen'.

 

[twctopcat]

Giles won't be dropped for his home ground, especially after bowling so well there last year.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well I'm going to put my hand up as the only Collingwood supporter on the forum then. In the times I've seen him bat, he's always looked calm and composed at the crease and ready to fight. I would have thought that the Natwest final would have proved that to anyone. He has shots (I've seen him smack some massive 6's) and not just in one area; he is excellent through point and off the front-foot through cover plus, hits his glances and on-drives well. The big part of his game missing is his play against the short stuff and maybe that's why he's not been given a decent go. Everyone is well aware of his fielding abilities.

That said, it's hard to know who to drop. I wouldn't drop Giles because England needs the variation he brings (and no, Vaughan or Pietersen's offies are not good enough against the Aussies. Plus, they don't need that on top of having to bat) and none of the batsmen should be dropped based on one Test and recent form. The only other vulnerable spot might be Hoggard but again, it's too early to consider dropping him.

Maybe it'll be more clear after the second Test but if the England batting falls over again, it's clear to me they need a scrapper and for mine, Collingwood fits the bill better than Joyce or others, particularly since he has international exposure and some measure of success against the Aussies over them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Collingwood isn't test standard imo. Certainly giving him a go if there were no other options would be fine, but with Joyce dominating in CC, if you want an extra batsman he's your man. Picking Collingwood as an all-rounder would be daft.

I think Giles is likely to get smashed around in this series, but if Edgbaston is a turner and England go in without a spinner it's just going to be a joke. You can't prepare turners for a visiting side with a world class spinner in their ranks and pick an all-pace attack with a military medium guy playing as an all-rounder batting at 8.

 

[Top_Cat]

Collingwood isn't test standard imo. Certainly giving him a go if there were no other options would be fine, but with Joyce dominating in CC, if you want an extra batsman he's your man. Picking Collingwood as an all-rounder would be daft.

Ed Joyce is doing well but check out the batting stats in First Div;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat.../STATS/ENG_LOCAL_CC1_AVS_BAT_HIGHEST_AVS.html

Looks like it's a good year to be a batsman. I'm just saying that maybe we should get too carried away. Picking Joyce with no international exposure against Warnie and McGrath could backfire.

But yeah agree with the allrounder bit; if he's to be picked, he has to bat top 6 or 7 at worst with Jones at 8 or something.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But if you put him in there and it turns out to be a turner like last year, what happens with no Giles?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting Joyce is going to be a success or anything, just that he's a better pick than Collingwood if they want a batsman to replace Giles. Either way, replacing Giles with a batsman on a pitch that might turn is a bad idea. At Lords it would have been a fair call.

 

[Top_Cat]

Who said anything about dropping Giles? I certainly didn't. In fact, quoting myself thusly;

I wouldn't drop Giles because England needs the variation he brings (and no, Vaughan or Pietersen's offies are not good enough against the Aussies. Plus, they don't need that on top of having to bat)

Indeed I thought I was one of the few who thought that dropping Giles would be a huge mistake, even for the rest of the series unless they plan on replacing him with another spinner. I mean, the pace attack is good, yes, but it's nowhere near good enough to play four pacemen with nothing more (such as the WI attack of the 80's).

 

[roseboy64]

I don't think anyone's suggesting Collingwood should go in for the next Test. However if a vulnerable spot fails to produce then he should be given more than a thought.

 

[howardj]

Smacks of pressing the panic button to me. Ffs Giles has been playing the best cricket of his career over the last year, I see no reason to drop him after one match against the best side in the world.

Mate, you don't select sides based on cliches like "pressing the panic button" or "chopping and changing". The only criteria when considering Collingwood for Giles is: does it improve the team? Yes it does. Giles is not respected by Australia- they won't let him settle with the ball. Not only can't/won't he get wickets, but he can't/won't tie up an end either. As for his batting, Australia are all over him like a Hong Kong suit with the short ball - he's a sitting duck...both on the pitch and the scoreboard.

By contrast, Collingwood bolsters the batting. He was all class during the Natwest Final - he has credit points against Australia. Furthermore, after peeling off 180, his confidence is at its zenith. Geez, anyone who watched the ODI's and the First Test knows that England must fortify their batting for Edgbaston. It's so straightforward - people should stop over analysing things and making them complicated. They finally have an attack that can take 20 wickets, but what's the point if they're a batsman short?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Mate, you don't select sides based on cliches like "pressing the panic button" or "chopping and changing". The only criteria when considering Collingwood for Giles is: does it improve the team? Yes it does. Giles is not respected by Australia- they won't let him settle with the ball. Not only can't/won't he get wickets, but he can't/won't tie up an end either. As for his batting, Australia are all over him like a Hong Kong suit with the short ball - he's a sitting duck...both on the pitch and the scoreboard.

By contrast, Collingwood bolsters the batting. He was all class during the Natwest Final - he has credit points against Australia. Furthermore, after peeling off 180, his confidence is at its zenith. Geez, anyone who watched the ODI's and the First Test knows that England must fortify their batting for Edgbaston. It's so straightforward - people should stop over analysing things and making them complicated. They finally have an attack that can take 20 wickets, but what's the point if they're a batsman short?

I see where you're coming from, but equally you can't select sides on one test showing. If it turns at Edgbaston we'll need Giles, if they "don't let him settle" and it turns, he'll get wickets. I realise Australians don't respect him, that's up to them, I still feel Giles will play his role as the series progresses.
As for Colly, sure he did okay with the bat in a few one-dayers, but facing Warne and McGrath in tests is a different kettle of fish and I'm not sure he'd be good enough, he's still a bits 'n pieces player after all. As for his bowling, well there's no match at Headers' this series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

By contrast, Collingwood bolsters the batting. He was all class during the Natwest Final - he has credit points against Australia. Furthermore, after peeling off 180, his confidence is at its zenith. Geez, anyone who watched the ODI's and the First Test knows that England must fortify their batting for Edgbaston. It's so straightforward - people should stop over analysing things and making them complicated. They finally have an attack that can take 20 wickets, but what's the point if they're a batsman short?

Look, that's fine, but it doesn't alter the fact that it puts a lot of pressure on players like Hoggard to only have four bowlers, as he will be required to bowl extensively even when the ball isn't swinging, and also it completely defies logic to produce an uneven turner as is quite likely at Edgbaston and drop your only spinner going into it. Speaking hypothetically, what happens if the pitch turns out to be a big dusty turner after a couple of days? What if it's bright and sunny, the ball is doing nothing off the pitch for guys like Harmison and Flintoff, while Australia have Warne?

You need to have a spinner in the team when you're going into a couple of tests on pitches that turn, simple as that.

 

[Kevin_Pietersen]

I think Collingwood deserves to be given a go in this series because he played well against the Australians in the Natwest Series and he deserves to have a crack.I don't think Collingwood should come in for the next match because there is no point dropping anyone now...wait till later in the series and then consider bringing in Collingwood.

 

[howardj]

Look, that's fine, but it doesn't alter the fact that it puts a lot of pressure on players like Hoggard to only have four bowlers, as he will be required to bowl extensively even when the ball isn't swinging, and also it completely defies logic to produce an uneven turner as is quite likely at Edgbaston and drop your only spinner going into it. Speaking hypothetically, what happens if the pitch turns out to be a big dusty turner after a couple of days? What if it's bright and sunny, the ball is doing nothing off the pitch for guys like Harmison and Flintoff, while Australia have Warne?

You need to have a spinner in the team when you're going into a couple of tests on pitches that turn, simple as that.

Geez, you're making Edgbaston out to be the SCG . I seriously doubt Edgbaston will be a raging turner - doubt it will turn any more than Lords did. And, as you could see when Warne was bowling, Lords turned quite a bit - yet England still managed to bowl Australia out twice (and it would have been cheaply in both innings if catches were held) even though Giles contributed precisely nil.

And really, you're just picking Giles because he is a spinner. You don't pick players based on what category they fall into (ie spinner; batsman; swing bowler) you pick them on the basis of how effective they are likely to be. Giles - spinner or not - was not, and in my view will not be, effective against Australia. Also, as for "only having four bowlers", that's how many bowlers teams usually have - five is a luxury, not the norm.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And really, you're just picking Giles because he is a spinner. You don't pick players based on what category they fall into (ie spinner; batsman; swing bowler) you pick them on the basis of how effective they are likely to be. Giles - spinner or not - was not, and in my view will not be, effective against Australia. Also, as for "only having four bowlers", that's how many bowlers teams usually have - five is a luxury, not the norm.

I agree with all of that. However, effective or not, if you play on turners you need to have a spinner, otherwise it's just a joke. On a turner Giles could prove a bit more effective (although I agree he still won't be much of a force), and four bowlers might be the norm for other teams, but England are used to it, and guys like Hoggard are easier to hide when they are bowling poorly if you have a fifth bowler. Giles is coming off a good year, and deserves more than one match to show that he can do a bit against Australia. If Edgbaston does turn and he gets picked and fails, then you might have a case, but not until then.

Having said that, I too think Giles will get shelled, but you never know.

 

[Craig]

Would definatly pick Giles for Edgbatson - as the reasons stated he could offer something to England.

 

[howardj]

I agree with all of that. However, effective or not, if you play on turners you need to have a spinner, otherwise it's just a joke. On a turner Giles could prove a bit more effective (although I agree he still won't be much of a force), and four bowlers might be the norm for other teams, but England are used to it, and guys like Hoggard are easier to hide when they are bowling poorly if you have a fifth bowler. Giles is coming off a good year, and deserves more than one match to show that he can do a bit against Australia. If Edgbaston does turn and he gets picked and fails, then you might have a case, but not until then.

Having said that, I too think Giles will get shelled, but you never know.

I reckon the selectors have got to be ahead of the game - like they were with Pietersen, and they were rewarded for it. They didn't wait until someone failed and until the Ashes were gone, to get him in there. Rather, they were bold and took action prior to the event. I reckon they should do the same thing, and be similarly bold here - read the tea leaves that Giles won't contribute against Australia, and drop him before, not after, the event. Anyway, it's all irrelevant....we both know, on the basis of his stats in the last 12 months (which, granted, are very good) he will play.

 

[Richard]

Ed Joyce is doing well but check out the batting stats in First Div;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat.../STATS/ENG_LOCAL_CC1_AVS_BAT_HIGHEST_AVS.html

Looks like it's a good year to be a batsman.

Same story since 2002.
Runs, runs and more runs.
No wonder there are no decent-looking bowlers knocking around outside the obvious.

 

[Richard]

If Edgbaston does turn and he gets picked and fails

Rest assued, that's an extremely unlikely occurrance.
Whether Edgbaston will turn is a question no-one can possibly answer until we see someone bowl on it.