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

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Do you know how to spell "hutspah"?

Do you mean chutzpah?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Do you mean chutzpah?

Yes... I clearly do!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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.

That's not what i suggested...

Originally Posted by Rachael

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!

See http://www.world-a-team.com/showpost...&postcount=102

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

That's not what i suggested...

See http://www.world-a-team.com/showpost...&postcount=102

Fair enough.

My apologies for not realising that you'd come round to my way of thinking.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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

You could argue that on a "seamer's paradise" we could leave out Giles, which would happen anyway on such a pitch, and play a specialist batsman e.g. Pietersen. I think our pace attack is good enough, only when the wicket warrants it, i.e. on a seamer's paradise, to play four seamers. Any other time I would ask for five bowlers.

If the pitch was really that good for seam bowling, then England probably have the resources in Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Jones to get away with just them. That might mean we could include an extra batsman, a better one than Collingwood.

But, it might also mean Vaughan/Trescothick/Bell needing to turn their arm over a bit also.

Playing Collingwood for Giles isn't too bad an idea, though, but the situation might call for just a specialist batsman, and a few guys are going to get in that role before Colly.

[Paoli]

England's bowling has clearly outweighed Australia's this series, and as it progresses, I continue to see uncanny Australia-like performances. In the first match, Harmison's magical over where he captured three wickets is another thing that Australia can do; when all is looking well, turn the match on its head. Yesterday, Collingwood bowled perfectly and whilst this probably won't be repeated often, you obviously need someone to be able to hit a 5c piece on the pitch. McGrath does that and takes wickets and is cheap; whilst Collingwood is no McGrath, if he can step up for now, England are in good health for the rest of the series.

England's batting, on the other hand, was un-Australian, yet extremely effective. They played a natural game to get to their total with just four overs to spare. I wouldn't say that it should be commonplace to play that way from here on, but yesterday, with a bit of luck from no balls and dropped catches, it worked. England didn't really take the game to Australia yesterday; instead they just outwitted them.

[cantplaycantalk]

1. Colly is a specialist batsman.
2. If you play 4 bowlers and one gets injured... ?

Colly as the extra batsman when you play 4 bowlers is a useful option, regard him as a batting all rounder.

[DaveGillespie]

If one gets injured, so what? you can't play someone just to legislate for that scenario. That's like saying play Prior instead of (say) Strauss in case GoJo gets injured.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

2. If you play 4 bowlers and one gets injured... ?

What if you play five bowlers and four get injured?? Oh no! Maybe we should play two batsman, Flintoff and eight bowlers.

No I'm kidding. It's a valid point, it's always worth having options and Flintoff has helped over the past few years giving us the option to play five bolwers, whilst the team remains balanced. Collingwood instead of Giles, on a seamer-friendly pitch, is a very good option. I'm just toying with the idea of playing a stronger batsman, like Pietersen.

[John]

Collingwood is a useful one day player an improvement on Elham.
But he is just useful at batting, his bowling very ordinary ( unless he plays Bangledesh) his fielding outstanding.Maybe there is some sort a case as a Test player but only as a batsmen.
Proably the best thing is to settle for a specialist. How many county hundreds has he got?
Another good thing about Collingwood is there no hype round him. You get what you see.