The all in one Consolidatorised Cricket Thread Page 10

Australia 172 - 7
Almost there now.

On the Collingwood question BF brought up earlier, I wish England could be brave and decisive about this, I really do. He did brilliantly in making himself into a decent test cricketer and proved a lot of doubters such as Geoff Boycott wrong in the process and gained a lot of fans.

I think he was worth his place for about 50 tests but has been indulged far too long now. His lack of natural class with the bat means he goes through long troughs of bad form until his tenacity and fighting spirit pulls him back in. England cannot afford any of their players to have such long lapses on a regular basis.

The guy's got nearly 70 tests now, that's more than a lot of far more talented cricketers got for England, such as Dermot Reeve and Dominic Cork on the all rounder front and Robin Smith, Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash on the middle order batsman front, although only Smith became a great test batter.

Collingwood well exceeded his test potential for most of his career and it was a good riposte to the over usage of constantly under performing star players such as Hick and Ramprakash but he has now become almost a political selection, not a selection based on form, and he knows he's being carried by his devoted team mates. Make the next test his last, because England need to develop now.

Collingwood will bow out from the England XI after this series, most likely, and probably won't be too upset about it. He's been a great servant for England - a bit of a journeyman in some senses, but a vital one - and can go back to county (or possibly retire completely) in the satisfaction of being a three times Ashes-winning player. Not many England players can say that.

Change the side after Sydney by all means, but let the guys - including Colly - have their moment there. By the way, Colly isn't easy to replace in an era with no genuine all rounder (and don't get me started about Broad/Bresnan/Swann/a.n.other being good enough to bat at 7. They aren't, and they won't be).

Do we really need a proven all-rounder though? We seem to do OK so long as we have 4 established bowlers working as a solid unit. Broad as a developing all-rounder is surely enough? We've always seemed more worried about having all-rounders when we haven't had either an effective batting top order, or a strong pool of reliable bowling talent. Colly has been a magnificent servant in the field during this series, but the harsh reality is that he's getting on and doesn't seem to be having a very good time with the bat. Of course, that may just be a spell, but if we're going to become the best team in the world, then the momentum has to continue in terms of building and blooding a squad.

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 30 2010, 1:35 AM GMT

Do we really need a proven all-rounder though? We seem to do OK so long as we have 4 established bowlers working as a solid unit. Broad as a developing all-rounder is surely enough? We've always seemed more worried about having all-rounders when we haven't had either an effective batting top order, or a strong pool of reliable bowling talent. Colly has been a magnificent servant in the field during this series, but the harsh reality is that he's getting on and doesn't seem to be having a very good time with the bat. Of course, that may just be a spell, but if we're going to become the best team in the world, then the momentum has to continue in terms of building and blooding a squad.

View original

Sorry Tim if you have missed my drift. I am all for Colly, but I also acknowledge hje might not have a place in the side much longer. My argument is more that England have been successful without an all-rounder, so don't try to replace him with someone who isn't. I don't think we should ever try to pick an all-rounder unless there really is one (see selection policy between Botham and Flintoff for the ills of that thinking).

Ah... Reading your post again, that makes sense. Completely agree.

England have indeed been obsessed with finding a place for an all rounder in the team but two world class all rounders in 30 years is still a very good average, with about 200 tests with 600 wickets and a few thousand runs between them in that time. Both were the best in the world in their day and many other test sides have tried just as hard to develop their own.

They can be tremendously useful to a test team. I can't blame England one bit for constantly trying to develop an all rounder in the side. But Collingwood was never a true all rounder, unless you count his superb fielding, which was indeed very useful to have.

Interestingly enough, by far the least successful of the major test nations at producing all rounders have been Australia, who have never managed to produce anything like a Botham or a Flintoff. The best they've managed is probably a Pringle (Symmonds).

Of course I wouldn't put it past Colly to score a double hundred, take a hat trick and the catch of the century in the last test.

The thing is you simply can't go into a test without a "fifth" bowler. If, as happened on this tour with broad, one of your seamers breaks down you are screwed beyond belief. Colly therefore has a massive trick up his sleeve there.

KP is not good enough to be the "fifth" bowler on his own. However, as a point aside, if I was Andy Flower I would get him working on his bowling, espcially for one day games.

Trott has also bowled in test matches. But again no good for more than 2 or 3 overs.

Therefore. There are two options.

A Colly like for like - which really when it comes to batting probably only means Ravi. ( although, I think he has pissed someone off somewhere down the line.) Luke Wright? A wonderful one day player but not really a test player.

A bowler, who can bat a bit. Which, thanks to that wonderful reverse swing, has to be Bresnen. Reverse swing is an amazing tool, look at Simon Jones. Wickets win test matches and if England are serious about becoming no1 in the world then a bowler it has to be.

I have to disagree with Badge about Broad batting at seven. I see no problems with that, the man has scored 160. A 7,8,9 of Broad, Bresnen and Swann looks very strong to me. I remember the days we had malcom and tuffnel bat at 10,11. Two free wickets!

One the strengths this team has is a little depth, which is for t the first time in ages. I would bring broad back in and retain Tremlett. And give Finn another year or two on the county circuit.

Finally to become best in the world England have to go and win in India and SriLanka. And that means a second spinner, but we will leave that for another day.

Beware the Aussies in this next test. New Captain, new players, places on the line. They are going to be hard work.

It maybe unfair to bowlers but everyone has to bat sooner or later. I think it should be a given requirement for any England player that he has at least hit two hundreds in his first class career. One could be just his lucky day. Two shows application. Surely they play enough cricket for this to be achieved. I think armed with this knowledge you'd also see a hell of a lot more bowlers going for it in first class cricket.

From the BBC website . . .

0028 Commentary

PS. If indeed that is his real name, please send my condolenses.

Nip and tuck.

Shame about those last two Aussie wickets.

2 days gone though. A nice bit of rain would be good.

So it is almost done.

Many congratulations England!

And big up to Paul Collingwood - nice to be able to say that you are going rather than being told.

Would like to see them playing 5 bowlers. I think that we can do it if that 5 bowler is Bresnen. I have been impressed since he came in. Reverse swing is a massive plus.

Quote: bigfella @ January 4 2011, 7:17 AM GMT

Nip and tuck.

Shame about those last two Aussie wickets.

2 days gone though. A nice bit of rain would be good.

View original

Rain!? With only three wickets to go!?

Are you insane?

Look at the date of that post Mark!