What is wrong with Paul Collingwood?

[Arjun]

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Collingwood doesn't look a great player, but he serves a purpose. The team needs someone who will hang in there and build a large partnership. A middle-order with Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen and a fit-again Vaughan will form a strong combination, with striker Flintoff to come in.

While this is not related, I'd like some comments on his bowling, or rather, how useful it will be. He's done reasonably well as a stock bowler, with those six wickets in a match coupled with a century earlier. With Fletcher keen on multi-skilled players like Giles, he surely can do well, or at least better than Giles, can't he?

[andmark]

Originally Posted by Tomm NCCC

Crap, 10 years old? Is there a ten year old alive who likes cricket?

As for PC, He has the worlds most amusing accent

Hi

[sledger]

Paul Collingwood, not test class, IMO.

[DJellett]

Originally Posted by ripper868

every team needs a ginger though...its the only thing the aussie team is lacking

I'm on my way in there

[Richard]

Haha, this thread was made a few days before I returned and some flybynight posted almost (almost) exactly what I've always thought about Collingwood.

Originally Posted by NZTailender

As for his innings leaving the only outcome possible a draw - maybe thats true. Or maybe, just maybe, it's England's failure to take 20 wickets in those matches.

You can't expect 20 wickets to be taken on exceptionally flat wickets. And other than when he's had let-offs, which has been a few times, those are the only ones Collingwood has scored anything much on. He's scored very big and sometimes not-out too, though, so they do a decent job of disguising his large number of failures.

Collingwood is simply not good enough to combat particularly good seam or spin bowling, especially the former.

[andruid]

Originally Posted by Pothas

What is wrong with Paul Collingwood? because something is, i cant put my finger on it but for me he will never be a world class batsman. He has got a lot of runs this year, recently got a double century and has a very respectable average in the 40s. But there is something wrong with Paul Collingwood. Whenever i hear the name or see him bat i just cant help thinking to myself this man is not a test player.

You are a victim of Sky's propaganda machine

[The Masterplan]

Originally Posted by sledger

Paul Collingwood, not test class, IMO.

Collingwood is a quality batsman he just a bit out of form at the moment.. he is also an invaluble fielder to the england side.. why drop him when the England team has a winning formula at the moment, Colly has a great test record.. so does Bell you cant expect 50's and 100's all the time...

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by valvolux

It's pretty simple - he can only bat when the pitch is dead flat. Put any sort of pace or movement in the wicket and he's just another tail ender. Look at the tons he's scored:

134* n/o vs india - 1273 runs scored in total, match drawn...other centurions - 2 (although there were 4 other scores of 70+)
186 vs pakistan - 1483 runs scored in total, match drawn...other centurions - 4
206 vs aust - 1361 runs scored in total, match lost (should've been a comfortable draw)...other centurions - 3

I realise that the likes of Ponting would've made many a ton on similar pitches...but that's not my point My point is that Collingwood is yet to produce an innings that has influenced the outcome of the game. Like Bell, he finds his runs most often when the hard yards have been done by the batsmen preceeding him, when the runs are already flowing. Put him in a pressure cooker situation with a new ball that's still nipping around and he gets out cheaply more often than not (Bell has improved somewhat however, but the number of times he plays and misses you'd have to say that's more due to luck than anything).

Like many of his English counterparts there's no flexibility in his batting. He bats the same no matter the state of the game - block, block, block. His 206 in adelaide was the most painful innings I have ever seen. For whatever reason he never took any chances to increase the tempo and left England in a position where the best outcome would've been a draw. I don't know if there's such a thing as a century that can lose you a match...but that is as close as you'd come.

As for gingers - isn't one Shane Warne a ginger???? We all know he bleaches his hair, but i'm pretty sure his eyebrows are ginger...and last season he had a goatie that looked awfully ginger...plus his children are gingers. I think he claims to be a strawberry blonde, but i reckon that's just his excuse when he gets a bit slack with the bleaching.

"Collingwood could hardly have done anything more to cement his Test place than he provided in today's innings. Once again he came to England's rescue when they most needed him, floundering as they were at 165 for 6, their most perilous position of the summer." From Cricinfo relating to his 128 against West Indies last summer.

The fact Collingwood has made a career out of digging England out of holes, not necessarily by scoring exhilarating centuries, but by stopping the rot, building an influential partnership, digging in. He isn't the kind of batsman people necessarily flock to see expecting a flurry of audacious drives or elegant strokeplay. But if there is a precarious situation and you want someone to stand up and be counted, Colly's the man.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Woodster

"Collingwood could hardly have done anything more to cement his Test place than he provided in today's innings. Once again he came to England's rescue when they most needed him, floundering as they were at 165 for 6, their most perilous position of the summer." From Cricinfo relating to his 128 against West Indies last summer.

The fact Collingwood has made a career out of digging England out of holes, not necessarily by scoring exhilarating centuries, but by stopping the rot, building an influential partnership, digging in. He isn't the kind of batsman people necessarily flock to see expecting a flurry of audacious drives or elegant strokeplay. But if there is a precarious situation and you want someone to stand up and be counted, Colly's the man.

Id say my thoughts on the matter are similar.

[Richard]

Thing is, though, he's only done this on extremely flat wickets (or, in the case of that 128, against a very weak bowling-attack).

Look at Collingwood's Test scores of note:
Gaddafi Stadium Lahore, 2005/06: 96 (should've been caught behind on 54 but not given) & 80. Did his best to save England but couldn't quite manage it this time. Good effort, certainly, but an incredibly flat pitch. England should never have got themselves into the muddle they did ITFP.
Nagpur, 2005/06: 134* & 36*. Certainly a huge contribution to England's dominance of the match after they had started poorly. But again, an incredibly flat pitch that did nothing for either seamers or spinners. Match drawn easily in the end.
Lord's, 2006: 186 (dropped on 79). A decent innings, certainly, but everyone was scoring this game. Flat pitch and this time rather than digging-out of trouble, he was playing a part along with everyone else in establishing a powerful position.
'Gabba, 2006/07: 96. Decent knock, delayed the inevitable, but the pitch was flat again and the game was already long since lost.
Adelaide Oval, 2006/07: 206 & 22*. First-innings helped set-up a dominant position, second-innings clung-on as said position slipped away. Despite the exceptionally flat pitch, he couldn't save England from defeat.
Lord's, 2007: 111. At least three let-offs this innings, appalling knock worth little. Just FTR, England utterly dominated this match with big scores left right and centre.
Riverside, 2007: 128. Mentioned above. Dead Test, weak bowling-attack.

Apart from these, Collingwood has not passed 70 in Tests, and there are another 58 innings here. In several of his 40s, 50s and 60s he's received early let-offs too. His is one of the classic cases of basic average not really telling you a great deal.

As I said - with Collingwood you get a hell of a lot of poor performances, then an occasional excellent one on a flat pitch, which often comes at a fairly important time. Collingwood is not and never has been someone who can either dig you out of a hole or establish you a dominant position when the bowlers are getting the ball to talk. He certainly can if you've messed-up the chance to utilise a flat deck, which isn't exactly unusual for England. But really, I want more than that in a Test player.

[Woodster]

You can say flat pitch this, weak attack that, dropped on this, should have been out on that, but at the end of the day,flat pitch weak attack - fact is he's still digging England out of trouble, so the top 3 or 4 on that particular day didn't enjoy the flat pitch batters paradise.

You also say appalling knock for his 111, yes it wasn't pretty, but who cares? He scored 111 runs for England which is what he is paid for.

[PhoenixFire]

He has a poor technique when the ball is moving around at pace, a decent player of spin, but his time in the England test team (should be) is limited.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Woodster

You can say flat pitch this, weak attack that, dropped on this, should have been out on that, but at the end of the day,flat pitch weak attack - fact is he's still digging England out of trouble, so the top 3 or 4 on that particular day didn't enjoy the flat pitch batters paradise.

No, they didn't - as I said, one thing Collingwood is good at is saving the day when the rest of the top-order have wasted the chance to score big runs on a flat deck. But this only comprises a tiny minority of his career. For every time he's done this, he's failed to do much of note on 5 or 6 other occasions. Which for mine is not what I'm looking for in a Test batsman.

You also say appalling knock for his 111, yes it wasn't pretty, but who cares? He scored 111 runs for England which is what he is paid for.

He only scored them because he was let-off when he should have been out 3 times. His job is to score runs, and mostly no-one is going to score runs playing like he played that day.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, they didn't - as I said, one thing Collingwood is good at is saving the day when the rest of the top-order have wasted the chance to score big runs on a flat deck. But this only comprises a tiny minority of his career. For every time he's done this, he's failed to do much of note on 5 or 6 other occasions. Which for mine is not what I'm looking for in a Test batsman.

He only scored them because he was let-off when he should have been out 3 times. His job is to score runs, and mostly no-one is going to score runs playing like he played that day.

It doesn't really matter if he's dropped five times every time he gets a hundred, the runs still actually count. If they fail to take the chance it's certainly not Colly's fault.

I think he offers a different style in the batting line-up. He doesn't have to look pretty to score runs, he doesn't mind how he gets them, he doesn't get flustered if he hasn't scored for a while. I think a player of his style is a bonus to any side.

[Scaly piscine]

You're wasting your time arguing with him.

His arguments are solely comprised of vague pseudo-scientific/statistical assertions which he never even remotely bothers to prove and just repeats ad nauseam as if suddenly the burden of proof lies on whoever is disagreeing with him. His processes are never going to result in him constructing a reasonable unbiased opinion of a player, so it's best to perceive him as some sort of amusingly quirky sideshow attraction as most do.