Collingwood is of course the prime example. He didn't have a great technique and he didn't look pretty. His average is also pretty mediocre. Yet he played a massive, massive role in the English team.
The job: Fighting on for when the top order tumbled, helping the lower order keep off of strike and ultimately hitting out for when the top order did their job. The first two decreases the strike-rate and the latter decreases the average. Is it then a fair metric to compare the player with others in the team based on the statistics regularly used? How does this actually quantify the role that they play?
It's an utterly thankless job, at least within the media. It is probably the most team player position you can have; while the top and the bottom order fight for glory, you fight for your team.
There's been quite a few people that suffered worse statistics because they came in down the order. Another example besides Collingwood is S. Pollock, although his bowling made him a valuable asset in any case. I always thought he made for a better bat, but it never really materialised because he never truly had the position to play the role of a glory-hunting batsman.