NatWest Challenge 2005/1st match-Headingley Thursday 7th July.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

I love Flintoff, as you well know Ern, but right at this minute is just might be Colly!!

I'm sure Flintoff will get his batting mojo back again soon, so no worries!!

Thing is Kirsty,Colly has staked a claim, but what vacanvy is there, it's between the inexperienced Bell, Pietersen, likely to take a game out of reach, bit with little experience, and Thorpe who has been the backbone of England, I think Keys place is safe, for the 1st Test or so at least.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

I would play Collingwood ONLY in conditions that are not likely to favour spin. I would play him as a 5th seamer batting ahead of Flintoff and Jones. (For the freddy fans a Q who is more likely to throw it away Fred or Colly?) [...] I would use him instead of Giles.

Collingwood's strength (batting) is - fairly clearly - Flintoff's weakness: temperament / judgement. On orthodox strokeplay with the field in close I suspect Flintoff is superior.... especially against ordinary bowling on good batting strips. When it comes to scoring against defensive field placements (finding gaps, improvising) Collingwood has a clear edge... and I think that edge has to be extended to playing on pitches that favour the bowlers (on temperament more than technique).

Of the two I suspect Collingwood would make the better top order bat... but that strikes me as pretty irrelevent when you consider the bowling Flintoff offers: he would have to bat like Bradman for the difference between his batting and Flintoff's to outweigh the difference in their bowling!

What I hope is becoming clear, though, is the potential for Collingwood as an understudy to Flintoff at 6... or as a no 6 ahead of Flintoff at 7 if Flintoff ever ends up playing as a specialist bowler. That's not to suggest that the attack wouldn't notice the change if Collingwood was the 4th seamer... but merely to suggest that the Durham man is good enough to be a 5th bowler behind three decent seamers and Giles.

[Lemming]

Although I believe he plays an important role in the ODI team, I feel he is quite a distance away from the test team. His style of play makes him a better one-day player than test player, I think. He is a good option for the test side, but with a guy like Flintoff taking the allrounder spot we have enough balance to play a better batsman or bowler than Collingwood.

[Aussie-Yank]

This is not comparing Collingwood with Watson from Australia, but in regards to ODI versus Tests. Watson is in the ODI to do the same type of Job that Collingwood supplies England.


However, Watson will never get into the Australian side on a regular bassis. Like Collingwwod, he supplies a all rounder avenue (Not talking about the traditional all rounder role - ie Flintoff, Botham) for ODI that does not exist in the Test Arena.

[English_Al]

Just came back in to see the highlights, we won easily in the end! Cant get too excited though as we clearly had the better conditions today. But I agree with Maranello earlier, the main points to be happy with were our 3 batsmens' much better play today. The openers actually were ready for Oz's tactics and just hit the bad balls, and Vaughan just played himself in slowly which he needed to do to gain a bit of confidence - and score some runs!
I think part of the reason that they've been going for shots against the Aussies is that they wanted to show some 'intent' and aggression to them, but that obviously didn't work so they've finally reverted to playing normally again.

The only batsmen I'm a bit concerned about is Flintoff. He's bowling brilliantly at the moment, but he hasn't really batted much in all the Bangladesh tests/ODI's & against Oz. He needs to spend some time in the middle in the next couple of games to get his eye in for the tests I reckon.

The Aussie bowling is struggling a bit at the moment, only McGrath is bowling pretty well. I definately think Englands bowling attack is better than Oz if they perform near their potential.

As for Collingwood, he is a cracking ODI player and I think cemented his place. Not sure about a test player though...

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Thing is Kirsty,Colly has staked a claim, but what vacanvy is there

As I said in my earlier post, I think Colly has been a bit unfortunate, because a few years ago, he would have made the side as an all-rounder, even though he isn't really quite up to that standard. He isn't quite a good enough batsmen to make it in to the side on the merits of his batting alone, but he remains a very valuable One Day player, as he has demonstrated this summer. So I agree with you, Ernest, I was just winding you up a bit

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by English_Al

the main points to be happy with were our 3 batsmens' much better play today. The openers actually were ready for Oz's tactics and just hit the bad balls, and Vaughan just played himself in slowly which he needed to do to gain a bit of confidence - and score some runs!

I think part of the reason that they've been going for shots against the Aussies is that they wanted to show some 'intent' and aggression to them, but that obviously didn't work so they've finally reverted to playing normally again.

Well said. It's taking both sides a while to realise that aggressive play is a luxury to be enjoyed bya side involved in a mismatch with weaker opposition... not a sound approach to a series that ought to be seriously contested.

The Aussies have been so far ahead of the rest these last few years, and so successful in destroying opponents, that this fundamental truth has been challenged by folk who've been lured into thinking it is "the only way to go". In Sri Lanka they got a wake up call: proper Test cricket was required. These ODI series are emphasising that point.

Question is... how do two teams largely built around dominating second rate opposition cope with facing genuine opposition that demands greater respect?

We'll hopefully find out soon :-)

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

We'll hopefully find out soon :-)

If you must play Collingwood in the Test matches, don't play him for Flintoff. Flintoff is a crucial part of the team, not just for his batting (which you don't rate) but for his bowling, his close catching and, most importantly, for the spirit and (I don't know how to spell) "hutspa" he adds to the team cause.

If you must play Collingwood in the Test matches, play him, for Ashley Giles, on a seamer's paradise.

I think we saw the true merit of Ashley on a seamer's paradise yesterday. What merit was that?

Nothing! Niente! Rien!

Michael Vaughan take note. You are the England captain. Ashley Giles is (for better or worse) your best mate.
But yesterday was a "seamer's paradise" and you didn't bowl your best mate... you didn't open the batting with him, and apart from occasionally tailing the ball as it disappeared towards the boundary, while your less-experienced colleagues (in English conditions? ) hurled it in short, big Ash did absolutely nothing.

Michael, does that tell you anything?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I think we saw the true merit of Ashley on a seamer's paradise yesterday. What merit was that?
Nothing! Niente! Rien!

LOL - and even as an admirer of the wheelie bin Imust concede.... Headingley isn't his pitch!

What i want to know is why Lewis wasn't playing... he'll almost certainly NEVER see more favourable conditions for his style!

Originally Posted by Rachael 56043

What I hope is becoming clear, though, is the potential for Collingwood as an understudy to Flintoff at 6... or as a no 6 ahead of Flintoff at 7 if Flintoff ever ends up playing as a specialist bowler.

Seems we share a common take on Flintoff vs Collingwood...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Seems we share a common take on Flintoff vs Collingwood...

Not quite.

You see Collingwood as a replacement for Flintoff, when the selectors finally get their heads in gear.
I see him as a replacement for a completely ineffectual bowler on a seaming paradise.

Which I suppose you could take to mean that I think England should go into the game with an extra batsman and one fewer bowler... as Collingwood is a pretty ordinary seamer for Test level - probably about as good as Butcher, (or Thorpe and Trescothick before they decided their front knees were best used for pushing off for quick singles.)
Which I don't. As I have made plain on many threads, I think England should pick five bowlers including Flintoff and seven batsmen including Flintoff and Geraint Jones.

I wouldn't pick Collingwood at all in Tests. Not against any of the top five nations.
You on the other hand would play him, from this day forth, ahead of Flintoff, so long as ye both shall live.

No, I don't think we agree.

Do you know how to spell "hutspah"?

Aha, my spell-checker does have "Yiddish" - it's chutzpah!