Neither Bopara nor Collingwood look likely to ever trouble those who compile lists of leading wicket-takers... but Collingwood has matured into a reasonably competent occasional seamer (intelligent in his use of the ball, relible enough, just lively enough to keep batsmen honest and capable of doing a very tidy job if conditions suit).... and Bopara's ODI bowling has encourged scrutiny of his possibilities as a 5th bowler in Test cricket.

My impression is that Bopara's keener to bowl (possibly thinking that versatility makes his less likely to get dropped)... but the impact of the two in the last Test re-enforces the impression that Collingwood's possibly more competent.

key phrase here. To be honest there is probably not a lot to choose from in terms of ability, but Collingwood has much more experince, in County Cricket, ODI's and Tests, the result is that he has just an edge in canniness, and that makes him the better option at the moment.

It was hoped at one stage that Collinwood would be another Flintoff type player, I remember the press getting exited as he reached the mid eighties in net practice.
But that role was never on really, but he does make a decent spell bowler.

Collingwood should be the better of the two at the moment - like you say FF, he is far more experienced at the higher levels, also he is the better batsman.

__________________
Ern

You do wonder why Moores picked Bopara ahead of Shah. Yes, Bopara can bowl but with Collingwood already in the side how much bowling would Bopara do? We all knew the answer, why didn't Moores?

I am in a bit of a quandary, I really felt Shah should have played in the first Test, instead of Bopara. However... I am totally against picking a player and then dropping him after one or two Tests, players should get a run in the side, and if they fail, then you choose the next player in the list.

So I really want Shah in the team, but I do not feel Bopara should go after just one Test

Not a problem: Pietersen has a broken finger so can be "rested"

Bopara should never have been selected for the Test side in the first place, it's madness, he's not ready, he's not experienced enough for Test Cricket and he adds nothing to the side, so what's the problem with reversing a decision that was wrong to begin with? ODI yes, Test side not yet.

What's all the clamour over Shah? I like Shah, from what I've seen of him he's a decent player and a much stronger batsman than Bopara, but that's strengthening the batting when they need to strengthen the bowling.

If they need batsman cover or replacement, Shah's the man, but I simply don't see the logic in strengthening the batting when it's the bowling that's weak.

I want both of them in the team as i rate both as better players than Shah,might be harsh on Shah but you can only play 11.

I guess if you do go with both that leaves the option of the 2nd spinner playing as between them Colly and Bopara could do the 3rd seamer job better than Anderson did in Kandy.

Not sure I agree that Bopara is a better batsman than Shah, although I'll concede there's not a huge amount of difference between them, I just feel Shah is more suited to the longer game and so far he's taken his opportunities, Shah's the next off the batsmen cab rank.

Unfortunately, that's not saying a lot about Anderson, he can be just as bad and unreliable as Harmison, and just as much a match winner when he gets it right, yet Anderson gets played and Harmison doesn't, which is bizarre when you consider they're also playing two other specialist swing bowlers.

What other international side plays 3 specialist swing bowlers in the sub-continent? I can't think of any, apart from perhaps India with RP Singh, Zaheer Kahn and Irfan Pathan, but I'm pretty darned sure they don't play all 3 together in sub-c conditions. Kahn showed how effective the variation of a left armer can be in early year English conditions, but that's not in the sub-continent.

It's not rocket science that they're playing them for their reverse swing capability, but if it doesn't reverse, (which it didn't do a lot of in the recent game) you're up the creek without a paddle so to speak. Two of the three would be enough to exploit any reverse that may be available and that means one of Hoggard and Anderson has to go.

Moores is simply playing it safe with (or what he considers to be) his best three seam bowlers, (irrespective of their style) but that unthinking strategy can blow up in your face as it has done and he needs to come up with a lot more imagination than that if he hopes to get anything out of this series.

Moores' inexperience in International Cricket, particularly in alien conditions is being exposed. He's up against a stronger side (in my opinion), playing in their own familiar home conditions, with their own home crowd behind them with two particularly effective bowlers in those conditions - Murali and Malinga and to a lesser extent Vaas, who's on the decline now but still very dangerous and highly experienced at bowling on slow two paced sub-c pitches.

He (Moores) deserves to be absolutely slated if he simply continues with his current selection and tactical policies.

As I've said I think he'll do a Kevin Shine and this time next year we will have a new coach. If he persists with meduim pace we will lose this series 3-0. We will probably do OK in NZ with our medium pacers but next summer i anticipate a beating - because of our inability to take 20 wickets.

Moores is very inexperienced in international cricket and he hasnt realised its a differant ball game from county cricket. As Fletcher quickly discovered the trundlers who do well in county cricket dont do much in test cricket. Also how many genuine quicks did Susexx have when Moores was in charge?? Not many that i can think of but the likes of Kirtley and Robin Martin-Jenkins et al are trundlers of the highest order.

__________________
Mark.