What is wrong with Paul Collingwood?

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Richard]

Much as you'd like it if they did, I'm afraid they don't.

As for reasonable unbiased opinions of players, well, no-one's ever managed to construct an argument that holds so much as a single drop of water as to why or how I'm biased towards any certain genre of cricketer. With certain people, though, it's rather easier. For some, it's very obviously as simple as Durham player = automically appears to that person to be far better than they are.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's his fault for giving the chance, though, and mostly when such a thing happens chances are taken. Almost no-one is going to be let-off 3 times in an innings very often, so mostly if you need 3 let-offs to score centuries, you're not going to get many.

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.

But if he's only making runs on a tiny minority of the occasions, that's still not much use. I'm completely unbothered about style - I've never cared how players make runs when it comes to selecting them. As long as they make the amount of runs required, that's all well and good. But I do not think Collingwood makes runs often enough to demand a place.

 

[Woodster]

It's his fault for giving the chance, though, and mostly when such a thing happens chances are taken. Almost no-one is going to be let-off 3 times in an innings very often, so mostly if you need 3 let-offs to score centuries, you're not going to get many.

But if he's only making runs on a tiny minority of the occasions, that's still not much use. I'm completely unbothered about style - I've never cared how players make runs when it comes to selecting them. As long as they make the amount of runs required, that's all well and good. But I do not think Collingwood makes runs often enough to demand a place.

I'm also sure he will not give three chances every time he makes a score! What will it be next, the amount of times he was beaten, how many balls failed to hit exactly in the middle of the bat ?

As recent as 2007, Collingwood finished in the top 10 for highest run scorers in the calendar year., he was sixth in 2006. I think that indicates he scores a fair number of runs on a consistent basis.

 

[Richard]

I'm also sure he will not give three chances every time he makes a score! What will it be next, the amount of times he was beaten, how many balls failed to hit exactly in the middle of the bat ?

No, of course not, none of those are ever going to get you out. And of course he won't need three let-offs every time he gets a score - else he'd not get many! But that particular one did, so it wasn't a good innings. A very poor one, in fact. Other innings of his have been much better.

As recent as 2007, Collingwood finished in the top 10 for highest run scorers in the calendar year., he was sixth in 2006. I think that indicates he scores a fair number of runs on a consistent basis.

It doesn't, though - being a high calender-year scorer means you've played lots of innings. England almost always play more than other teams. The reason I don't think he scores runs on a terribly consistent basis I've outlined - through his career, he's made lots of nothing-much scores but when he's cashed-in he's cashed-in big-time. That isn't consistency.

 

[Woodster]

No, of course not, none of those are ever going to get you out.

Neither are people dropping catches!

 

[Woodster]

It doesn't, though - being a high calender-year scorer means you've played lots of innings. England almost always play more than other teams. The reason I don't think he scores runs on a terribly consistent basis I've outlined - through his career, he's made lots of nothing-much scores but when he's cashed-in he's cashed-in big-time. That isn't consistency.

You're right it is an advantage that we play so many Tests, especially in 2006 where I don't think Australia played a great deal, but he still outscored a number of so called world class players and only batted a couple of times more, but I take your point on board.

I think his problem recently has not been cashing in when he's got set. Since his last hundred he has made scores including 28,63,62,40,45,52,23*,29,66,65,5930,22,24*.
I hardly think he's cashed in here, just been relatively consistent but without the big score he needs.

 

[andruid]

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.

He is amusing isn't he...

Much as you'd like it if they did, I'm afraid they don't.

As for reasonable unbiased opinions of players, well, no-one's ever managed to construct an argument that holds so much as a single drop of water as to why or how I'm biased towards any certain genre of cricketer. With certain people, though, it's rather easier. For some, it's very obviously as simple as Durham player = automically appears to that person to be far better than they are.

Opinion is subjective at all times. Objective opinion is a fantastical lie given the variance of what is deemed objective. Point hardly anyone shoud really give a sh*t if the opponents can't catch to save their lives, chuck pies all day or if the batsman's shot making is gruesome enough to make Tarantino cringe what matters at the end of the day is the runs on the board and the results they produce.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

It's his fault for giving the chance, though, and mostly when such a thing happens chances are taken. Almost no-one is going to be let-off 3 times in an innings very often, so mostly if you need 3 let-offs to score centuries, you're not going to get many.

Napoleon once said, "Give me lucky generals".

I assume you are not Napoleon.

 

[NZTailender]

Completely unrelated. ITSTL.

 

[Smudge]

Completely unrelated. ITSTL.

"I'm the invisible man, I'm the invisible man, incredible how you can, see right through me..."

 

[tooextracool]

Paul Collingwood has what can be described as a Nasser Hussain technique with his tendency to be squared up as well and the ability to score ugly runs. That explains why both Nasser and Collingwood look like they are holding a broom at the crease when they are out of form. This is why I am a strong supporter of players scoring big when they are in form. Someone brought up Collingwood's scores since his last 100, and unfortunately those 50s and 60s are simply not good enough. For mine, if anyone in this current England side needs to be dropped, its not Paul Collingwood, its Ian Bell. All the talk about him not being able to score runs under pressure is pure BS, he simply cant score centuries unless the bowlers are wayward or tired.

 

[tooextracool]

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

I disagree. Having watched this innings : http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1885
one can be sure that Collingwood can play good seam bowling. Collingwood has merely struggled on wickets that have offered more pace due to his bottom handed technique. Hes not very good with the cuts and pulls and is a much better player driving along the ground.

 

[NZTailender]

IIRC, this is the first time Collingwood has averaged under 30 in a series since Sri Lanka in England 06. Arguably Englands best batsman in the tests in NZ as well. Most consistent, anyway.

 

[Furbag]

Calls for Collingwood to be dropped are almost as bad as calls for Ponting to be dropped were recently

 

[Richard]

Neither are people dropping catches!

But when a catch is given, it's normally taken. When a play-and-miss happens, it's never going to result in a wicket.