Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nope, Collingwood has still done very, very little in the way of influencing matches against ODI-standard teams.aussie said:the rest are debatable but you got to be joking about Collingwood..
Nope, Collingwood has still done very, very little in the way of influencing matches against ODI-standard teams.aussie said:the rest are debatable but you got to be joking about Collingwood..
What is debatable is whether he has the talent to do it consistently - many people have the talent to do it a few times.Mr Mxyzptlk said:So he's taken 3 wickets a number of times then. That's a level of success, so whether or not he has the talent to be effective, he is effective in that regard.
His fielding, yes. His batting is growing in effectiveness, which has pleasantly surprised me, so yes again. He also keeps some handy marmite up his sleeve.Dean said:anyone would kill to have Paul Collingwood in their team...
What the hell has being 36 got to do with anything? Have you even seen him bowl? He has an action that will cause age to have little effect.steds said:Simon Jones is injured. I agree with Kabir Ali. Ealham's 36, ffs. Let him be put out to graze in peace. Wharf:
why keep refering to the past?, since the Natwest series last year Collingwood has been doing pretty well in ODI & is improving all the time.Richard said:Nope, Collingwood has still done very, very little in the way of influencing matches against ODI-standard teams.
No, they don't.Dean said:Okay, so I read my earlier Post (Attention All South Africans), and the question was posed "why isn't England playing good one day cricket?".
Sure, they have a wonderful line up
Turning them down to appear on reality TV and you complain that he cops some stick for it?Richard said:Nah, that was only a shortish thing.
Still copped more than his share of rubbish about not caring enough about playing for England.
the problem with the majority of people(including the England selectors) is that they fail to realise that tests and ODIs are completely different. I've always maintained that as a batsman there are 2 qualities(either one) that make you successful in ODIs- being able to hit the ball in the air and being able to nudge,nurdle and what not to pick up quick singles. Players like Vaughan, Strauss etc are clearly incapable of doing that in ODIs, while having Geraint in the side despite the fact that there is clearly a far better batsman and keeper is bordering on lunacy.Dean said:Okay, so I read my earlier Post (Attention All South Africans), and the question was posed "why isn't England playing good one day cricket?".
Sure, they have a wonderful line up, I'm a massive Strauss fan (even though he avereges close to hundred against my team), good strikers in Petersien and Flintoff, wonderful bowlers in Jones and Hoggard (I don't rate Harmison, sorry! )
Then we have the West Indies, who in all fairness, are pretty useless at the moment, but with a batting line up which includes Lara, Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan, why is it that they are consistantly beaten and bowled out for low scores, sure, they don't have the best bowling attack, but even if they did they would have nothing to bowl to!
So, why are England succeeding in Tests and not in ODI (even when full strength), and why are the Windies batteling so much in both forms- Lara isn't going to last forever, and then what lies ahead for the Windies!?
It doesn't make sense!?
When will people give up on wavell? Odds are that if you have been useless for 6 years in a row you will continue to remain useless for the rest of your career.aussie said:with england they have the talented players to definately be a top ODI team, just haven't produced the results. All they need is some consistency & i think they will be able to do that sooner rather than later.
Windies also have some shot gun in their side like Gayle, Sarwan, Dwayne Smith etc, enough talent to a capable ODI side i think since they seem to struggle in tests since their batsmen are aggressive. Looking at the WC & seeing what they have in their ranks if the Windies field this side at home they could be a force:
Gayle
Hinds
Sarwan
Lara
Chanderpaul
Ramdin
Bravo
Smith
Bradshaw
Collins
Edwards
whether or not collingwood has been brilliant in ODIs recently, how many better options exist in domestic cricket? Further i'd take collingwood over Strauss and vaughan in any form of the game please.Richard said:Err, what?
Collingwood was poor in 2005 and scarecly any better in Pakistan.
Was he asked "are you appearing on SCD?" and replied "no"?marc71178 said:Turning them down to appear on reality TV and you complain that he cops some stick for it?
Not just that, but lieing about it all.
And guess who's just been called-up... yes, it's two more First-Class specialists (Shah and Solanki) both of whom have been tried and failed in ODIs before...tooextracool said:the problem with the majority of people(including the England selectors) is that they fail to realise that tests and ODIs are completely different. I've always maintained that as a batsman there are 2 qualities(either one) that make you successful in ODIs- being able to hit the ball in the air and being able to nudge,nurdle and what not to pick up quick singles. Players like Vaughan, Strauss etc are clearly incapable of doing that in ODIs, while having Geraint in the side despite the fact that there is clearly a far better batsman and keeper is bordering on lunacy.
I'll grant you that Collingwood is a better ODI batsman than Vaughan and Strauss (plus can occasionally bowl OK) but I really don't see that having 2 good Tests (both on very flat pitches) qualifies him to be ranked above Strauss and Vaughan in the Test arena, however useless both have been recently.tooextracool said:whether or not collingwood has been brilliant in ODIs recently, how many better options exist in domestic cricket? Further i'd take collingwood over Strauss and vaughan in any form of the game please.
There's a lot of merit to Wavell Hinds in the middle order. You have an odd concept of useless.tooextracool said:When will people give up on wavell? Odds are that if you have been useless for 6 years in a row you will continue to remain useless for the rest of your career.
Less ignorance please. At least watch the kid bowl in recent times before spouting your opinions. In New Zealand he has been quite superb for the most part.tooextracool said:as far as Edwards is concerned, do you actually believe that he has the accuracy to be even remotely threatening in any form of the game? personally corey collymore and merwyn dillon are far better options.
Wavell Hinds should never have been made to open for so long.Mr Mxyzptlk said:There's a lot of merit to Wavell Hinds in the middle order. You have an odd concept of useless.
Will he sustain it?Less ignorance please. At least watch the kid bowl in recent times before spouting your opinions. In New Zealand he has been quite superb for the most part.