TBH, I don't know that it was 2006\07 to a massive extent. He had three by-and-large poor series in Pakistan (though IMO he didn't do a hell of a lot wrong there), India and Sri Lanka in the winter and summer of 2005\06 and 2006, too. The only time he's scored runs recently has been against the severely weakened Pakistan attack of 2006. He does need to do something of note again fast, otherwise Collingwood will supersede him.
The post wpdavid quoted of yours had Collingwood at 5 though, hence the harshness.
I must have misread your previous, where I thought you were arguing for Cook, Vaughan & Collingwood at 3, 4 & 5. It was the thought of KP being dropped to 6 or just dropped that I considered a bit harsh.
I don't think he will try to out-hit Flintoff. I know the two of them make stupid mistakes but I'm sure that in a crucial part of any test match which the middle order usually get involved in they wouldn't be stupid enough to get into a "competition" Like that it would be horrible and stupid it may provide a bit of quick frill's. But it would be too much of a risk. When you get onto the cricket field to bat in a test match you must concentrate on slowly making runs, you could come out all guns blazing smashing every ball you can and get around a twenty or thirty if you're lucky. Sure it would give the crowd something to watch but it wouldnt make as much of a contribution to the score compared to if you came out in a relaxed frame of mind and slowly play yourself in and make the odd four. If you concentrate on a strike rate you are making a risk to your average. I know whaen I rate test batters I put there average to more importance than there strike rate. In test batting you have to realise that quantity is a more important factor than frills.
Haha, no, no, no. I was saying that I preferred the idea of Trescothick-Strauss-Cook-Vaughan-Pietersen to Trescothick-Cook-Vaughan-Pietersen-Collingwood. That's on the presumption that Bell would have been six in both line-ups.
Agreed. And the reason that Collingwood is good at 5 is because he provides an excellent foil for the more attack batsmen. It's good to have him in a Pietersen/Flintoff sandwich, as he's great at knocking the ball into gaps and running the singles in order to give the strike to Pietersen or Flintoff when they are dominating the bowling, but also provides a steady and calming influence who can play a good innings in his own right if Pietersen and/or Flintoff fail.
Think that's almost certainly the best cdm post I've ever read. (
). No chance of Pietersen and Flintoff getting into said I-can-outhit-you contest IMO. There's only been one occasion in their careers that they've batted together for long and Pietersen played with the intelligence we all know he possesses - Flintoff was biffing it everywhere and scored 68, while Pietersen's contribution to the stand was 34 - half the amount.