England should able to bat out the final two days.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Fine, it was a daft shot, but for heaven's sake we did not lose this match because of Paul Collingwood, fact.

As for your specific question Oliver, I'd expect 400+ runs from Colly in the series at about 40-45. Not unreasonable given his record since last autumn.

I am not suggesting for a moment that we did lose because of Collingwood. But I am also not impressed by his ninety-six runs. You are imploring me to cover him with glory because he made the highest score, I am suggesting he should have made twice as many. And other Englishmen (or at least another) should have made three figures too.

I think Collingwood might not manage 300. That said, regarding that 500 mentioned previously... etc., blah!

[Mike]

I can't agree with Oliver's view about Colly because most experts reckon Colly doesn't have the technique to bat at number 4. They say a number 4 should be able to dominate when necessary and dig in when the situation requires someone to hold an end. Collingwood is a number 6 at best and scores above 50 are something to be celebrated. Collingwood should be applauded for taking on the responsibility of a number 4 and actually playing with some authority at times in that 2nd innings.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Mike

I can't agree with Oliver's view about Colly...

...Collingwood should be applauded for taking on the responsibility of a number 4 and actually playing with some authority at times in that 2nd innings.

There speaks an Australian holding out for an inadequate player to be kept in the opposition batting line-up.

You probably thought Jones, Harmison and Giles were pretty good too.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Oliver

You probably thought Jones, .....Giles were pretty good too.

They haven't been slaughtered for poor performances mainly due to the fact that they "did OK". However, as they were both picked for their batting one would expect more from them. Mediocracy seems to be accepted.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I'll oblige if you want ! Giles, is a bit harder to do because, to be brutally honest, his standards are so low. He did OK, didnt concede alot got the odd wicket. Warne wouldnt be happy with that, but for Gilo thats a good day at the office. Also shared his nerves with the press afterwards. Bless him.

Jones averaged 26 in this match. CLose to his overall average no doubt, so he'll be pleased. That said, I'm struggling to think of another test keeper that would have scored significantly less on that pitch over two innings. Boucher, Dhoni etc etc all would have probably got more, and I'd bet Read would have at least hung around more. But as I said, hisaverage in this match must be close to his overall one - which also must keep dunc fairly content, clearly enough to keep him in for the series.

So actually NE, mediocrosy is just what Dunc appears to be after from some, and miricales from others (like harmison) which is totally unrealistic.

[Notts Exile]

I truly hope that moving forward we don't allow the mediocre to keep out players like Panesar and Davies (who has the batting talent).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Oliver

It is an English disease. Possibly derived from the fact that since the early seventies, in general, the England side has been pretty poor, and a century is usually a sufficient mark to apparently stick a player head and shoulders above the rest.

Oliver - you are spot on the money, England won the Ashes back in 2005 despite their mediocre batting, carried by the seamers.

What happens when the England bowlers? - answer is easy, England fail:

We have seen heroics from the England bowlers for some while now when the chips are down, but nothing except capitulation from their batsmen.

Collingwood is no worse than the rest, Pietersen - Flintoff - Bell are ok when the going is with England but fall like ninepins if they have to hold an innings together.
Strauss looks like an orphan with Trescothick gone.

Oliver (no doubt) is talking about the cream if the England batting getting out hanging their bats miles away from their bodies, or a favourite way England batsmen love to get out, is to be on the back foot and let the ball hit their pads.

The only time England looked like a half decent batting side was when Thorpe and Butcher was in the side, partnerships between Flintoff/Jones Thorpe/Jones Thorpe/Flintoff - mind you that was not against Australian bowlers.

If Australia made 600+ on this pitch, then England should have been able to bat for two days, considering only 5 wickets down at close of play on the fourth day.
The last 5 wickets fell before lunch.

Australia are the best bating side at the moment, their bowling IMO is good to very good, the very good the England batsmen should have grafted down.

McGrath played well he got 6 of Englands first innings wickets - but lets be honest - that pitch was not a 150 all out wicket.
Oliver is right, the English disease has not been cured - despite being administered a tonic by winning the Ashes in 2005.

Not relevent at this time is wheather Giles or Panesar plays, or Read or jones - the problem goes much deeper than that IMI, we all know the shorcomings of the batsmen, will the bowlers recover and give Englands frail batsmen a lift?.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Not relevent at this time is wheather Giles or Panesar plays, or Read or jones - the problem goes much deeper than that IMI, we all know the shorcomings of the batsmen, will the bowlers recover and give Englands frail batsmen a lift?.

Maybe some of us have been doing Fletcher a dis-service? Maybe all along he's been playing Giles and Jones purely because he realises how brittle the top and middle order are. I do hope that Cook and Bell are the answer to this in the longer term. They are certainly the more secure batsmen.

[Ernest]

I also wish Cook and Bell well, the England team needs them to fire - but Cook is unexperienced, and Bell did not do well against the Aussies in England.
IMO if the bowlers are not firing giving confidence to the side, then it's a big ask of both Bell and Cook to do well playing against Australia - in Australia.

[Harmy's Army]

Maybe, just maybe if Read/Panesar replaced Jones/Giles numbers 1 to 6 might think "Hey, we have a long tail - can't rely on Gilo and GoJo to add 30 runs between them now...maybe we up the top of the order should bat with a tad more responsibility and application for a change."

And then I woke up...

Strauss and Colly have come in for some flak after their dismissals in Brisbane, but in recent years how many times has an English batman been dismissed by an absolute jaffa, and how often through apparant stupidity - particularly after he's done the hard yards and played himself in? From personal memory I'm inclined to believe more of the latter than the former. It would be interesting to compare England with the other major test playing nations to see how many "big hundreds" our guys have chalked up in the past say five years. Or even just gutsy time consuming knocks when a wicket has fallen to grind the opposition bowlers down? Usually, when one wicket falls another is iminent. I just wonder if Duncan's emphasis on batting down to number 8 hasn't made the top order complacent and even reliant on runs from the likes of Jones and Giles, when we all know they have the ability to score big if only they bloody well applied themselves.