The Ashes 2006/07: The Brisbane Test Thread - Day Four

[Trescothick]

Collingwood shows us why he is not a world class player... This test could have been his game, the one where he really proves himself and gets that massive hundred, or double to prove himself but he showed he isn't up to that by getting stumped... All the others have done this too with the exception of Bell who was unlucky to get out early on and Cook who was unlucky... Pietersen and Jones are only hope, so therefore we don't have any.. Jones will be out for 30/40, Pietersen will be out to a big shot while playing with the tail and it will be game over just before/after lunch.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Trescothick

Collingwood shows us why he is not a world class player... This test could have been his game, the one where he really proves himself and gets that massive hundred, or double to prove himself but he showed he isn't up to that by getting stumped...

Many, many world class players, especially early in their Test careers, feel the pressure of the "nervous 90s" and end up getting out to rash shots: that is NO reason to question Collingwood's ability.

Of far greater concern was the way he looked to play "on the walk" both in his first-innings dismissal and early in this second innings... but even that is no huge cause for alarm: once the nerves settled so did Collingwood... and let's face it.... even Hayden (wild front-foot drives to wide balls) and Langer (even wilder forcing-strokes off the back foot) sufferred from early-innings nerves!

I'm actually far more concerned that folk like Boycott, Atherton and Marsh just don't think he has the best technique for taking on new-ball bowlers on fast, bouncy pitches... but if he can consistently overcome that limitation through sheer beligerance (as he did today, rather in the manner of Hussain) not even they would question his place in the side.

ps. Let's not overlook the technical 'positives' with Collingwood: the very things that count against him on fast bouncy wickets (looking to play with low hands and a slight backlift) actually work FOR him when the ball has gone soft, or on slower and lower wickets (especially against the spinners).

[Occasional Fan]

It could be as the Sunday Telegraph website shows on its sports front page. They have a scorecard showing Andrew Strauss Timed Out. As it has never happened in test cricket, I am surprised their scorecard programmer even included it as an option. But there it is!

[Collyisamackem]

Firstly I'll say I hope that storm turns up tomorrow, or Geraint Jones pulls out the performance of his life. Secondly, I have this to say:

You people are being unbelieveably harsh on Collingwood, he has the highest English score in the match at the moment and without him and KP batting for ages we'd have been all out by tea! I think this quote sums up the ridiculous criticism (which could instead be ained at Strauss or the 'captain' Flintoff!!!), though sadly I forget the source:

"The problem with these [unappreciative] people is that if you walk on water they will say that it is only because you cannot swim."

"

For months and months I have been rebutting senseless claims that Collingwood is not a test batsman, but having played wonderful cricket for the past year against Shoiab Akthar, Danish Kaneria, Irfan Pathan, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Muttiah Muralitharan (albeit not quite as well as the others) and now Lee, Warne and McGrath when 500 runs behind in an Ashes test down under, I think it's time you people gave him some credit. What a joke.

What would you do on 96 not out against Shane Warne when you're carrying the team?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

You people are being unbelieveably harsh on Collingwood

Not guilty. I cite Atherton, who merely said the guy's technique was going to make life tough for him on Aussie pitches.. not that he couldn't triumph despite this limitation. I cite Boycott, who (on the radio this morning) was gushing in his praise for Collingwood's attitude, determination, character and the rest... and was simply honest enough to note that these things were allowing Collingwood to make the most of his talent and hold his own amongst significantly more talented and accomplished (though under-achieving) colleagues. I cite Rod Marsh, who didn't discount Collingwood as Test player... merely suggesting that Collingwood's technical limitations would be exposed if he played as high as 4.

I've been a staunch defender of Collingwood since his first Tests in Sri Lanka: I thought he did well out there and argued his corner (successfully) in a subsequent WAT 'A team discussions. One can appreciate the guy's virtues without going over the top and pretending he's as accomplished as Bell!

[Trescothick]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

What would you do on 96 not out against Shane Warne when you're carrying the team?

Lets be clear I'm not being harsh on Collingwood and I believe he should eitehr be in the team or be first change in the team for our batsmen. He is almost test class however I just believe when you're set, 40+ you should be looking for 100+ and to get out to a stupid shot is ridiclous especially given circumstances. If I was on 96 against Warne when my team is 500 odd runs behind (which will never happen, I would be out for a first ball duck) I would play balls on each individual merit rather than thinking about my own century to boolster my own chances of team action. I would not charge the pitch... But anyway, Strauss and Flintoff's mistakes were even bigger than Collingwood, as Strauss was supposed to set the tone of cautious play but was stupid and Flintoff was looking to see out the day and was just as bad... so I have no real issue with him, just feel it was foolish and decreased our chances of winning from 5% to 1%.

[dickies dragons]

Well,
It was our best day so far!
Well batted Colly!
I ve been a supporter of Geraint/Ashley,so they both need to perform,if Pieterson stays after lunch,who knows a draw is a possibility.
Whats news on weather?Heard thunder may be possible,must get my rain dance mat out.....
another sleepless night is in order.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Trescothick

Strauss was supposed to set the tone of cautious play but was stupid and Flintoff was looking to see out the day and was just as bad...

We're assuming that... but we're not privy to the team talks: it may well be that Strauss was specifically directed to try and dominate McGrath off the back foot (as he did in a recent ODI) in the hope of giving the Aussies some concerns of their own. The way Pietersen and Collingwood started throwing the bat in their big partnership suggests something of that sort was being attempted (as neither were playing for the draw)... and Flintoff's mad fling (a drive on the up pretty much first ball, a wild swipe that took a thick edge through gully and a couple of other forcing shots prior to his ignominious exit) was all part of the same strategy.

Even if this WAS the strategy you could question some of the execution... but let's allow that the England side might have decided on a strategy of looking to ride their luck in the hope of inflicting a psychological blow rather (accepting defeat) rather than a strategy of valueing their wickets highly in the seemingly hopeless cause of batting out almost 6 sessions.

Of course... having got out in ways that made them look like muppets they ain't likely to admit anything on the tactical front :-)

[cantplaycantalk]

I remember Collys early days in the team when people were writing him off as just a "bits and pieces player".

I also remember people calling hime the best fielder in the world.
Those of us up at Durham new that neither point was correct, Colly is an excellent player and every mistake he makes he learns from. We also remember tell you guys that Colly wasn't even the best fielder at Durham, and that was before Gary Pratt was drafted in to be a sub fielder in the ashes.

Frankly the way Colly plays he is a thinking player, with ball, bat and in the field and it surprises me that nobody has seriously considered him as an England captain.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I cite Rod Marsh, who didn't discount Collingwood as Test player... merely suggesting that Collingwood's technical limitations would be exposed if he played as high as 4.

I was generalising and do recognise your fair stance on Colly, so apologies if you felt unjustly scorned there. As for him being exposed at 4, I really fail to see that being the case as he only perished to an incredible moment of pressure - Trescothick, I would love to see you thinking so maturely in that situation but I personally would wait until I got to it to see what state of mind I was in - in this innings and outscored all of his more esteemed colleagues.

He has come in against the new ball (at 4 and 5) in Pakistan, India, at home and now in Australia and made hundreds, and I really fail to see any noticeable difference between the two positions myself as opposed to the difference between 3 and 4. Colly has batted 3 for a long time at Durham but I'd back him as a test number 4 any day. The problem is that we need an anchor between KP and the reckless wonder at 6 (okay, harsh, but you get the point), so maybe Colly should bat at 5, I just don't doubt him at 4 and fail to see how the evidence contradicts me.