We have to have someone to blame for the shambles that has been England’s form against Ireland and Bangladesh. Paul Collingwood seems to be the fall guy. His batting has been, frankly, rubbish for quite a while. He is not deserving of his position in the team and batting him at 8 (yes eight) indicates that the ‘management’ don’t think he is any good either.
Batting at eight – isn’t that where the bowlers usually hide? Collingwood did bowl against Bangladesh and his figures were: 7-0-24-0, which was the most economical English figures (and second most of the match). Against Ireland Collingwood’s economy was only bettered by Swann. So bowling a pretty full complement of 10 overs and batting at either doesn’t seem that bad an idea. He might have lost his ability to bat but I think he should keep his place as a bowling all-rounder – at least until the end of England’s world cup (which will be on Thursday if they don’t beat West Indies).
Showing posts with label Paul Collingwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Collingwood. Show all posts
Monday, 14 March 2011
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Some pruning required
After a summer of growth it is often a good idea to prune a tree. Remove the dead wood and make precise decisions about the direction you want the tree to grow in the future. Of course the tree will largely do what it wants but you can but try. So it is with cricket teams. England have just had their most important home series ... until the next Ashes battle, so it’s a good time to wield the axe make some space.
Bell and Collingwood must go. These have been on my personal hobby horse for quite some time, mainly because they are just, well, not very good. Okay, they are rubbish; there you dragged it out of me. People will always say things like ‘ah yes but Collingwood’s effort at Cardiff was instrumental in England saving the game and hence winning the series’, which is true. However, that is largely irrelevant because if you give anyone enough chances they will come up with significant innings. It is not the exceptional performances that matter it’s the everyday ones. Collingwood scored 250 runs at 27.77 and Bell made 140 runs (3 matches only) at 28. That is not only crap, it is what I expected! Put it this way, England have just beaten Australia. If there was a combined XI of the two sides, what are the chances of Bell or Collingwood appearing in it? Exactly.
Cook is one who England has to do something about. On paper he is just as poor as Bell or Collingwood (222 runs at 24.66). He had good series against the West Indies but that was very much the exception. England should consider removing Cook’s central contract and make him work for his place. As it stands he has to do nothing and giving him another year will change nothing.
Harmison, Panesar and Sidebottom should lose their central contract status. All are struggling to make the test side (if at all). Make them justify their place in the side with results as Harmison did recently.
Bopara looks to be a man with talent. He was excellent against the West Indies and awful against Australia. He doesn’t look a natural number three against quality bowling, so maybe he should come in at five (i.e. replace Collingwood). The guy had three consecutive Test centuries earlier in the year so he deserves a chance.
Bell and Collingwood must go. These have been on my personal hobby horse for quite some time, mainly because they are just, well, not very good. Okay, they are rubbish; there you dragged it out of me. People will always say things like ‘ah yes but Collingwood’s effort at Cardiff was instrumental in England saving the game and hence winning the series’, which is true. However, that is largely irrelevant because if you give anyone enough chances they will come up with significant innings. It is not the exceptional performances that matter it’s the everyday ones. Collingwood scored 250 runs at 27.77 and Bell made 140 runs (3 matches only) at 28. That is not only crap, it is what I expected! Put it this way, England have just beaten Australia. If there was a combined XI of the two sides, what are the chances of Bell or Collingwood appearing in it? Exactly.
Cook is one who England has to do something about. On paper he is just as poor as Bell or Collingwood (222 runs at 24.66). He had good series against the West Indies but that was very much the exception. England should consider removing Cook’s central contract and make him work for his place. As it stands he has to do nothing and giving him another year will change nothing.
Harmison, Panesar and Sidebottom should lose their central contract status. All are struggling to make the test side (if at all). Make them justify their place in the side with results as Harmison did recently.
Bopara looks to be a man with talent. He was excellent against the West Indies and awful against Australia. He doesn’t look a natural number three against quality bowling, so maybe he should come in at five (i.e. replace Collingwood). The guy had three consecutive Test centuries earlier in the year so he deserves a chance.
Friday, 1 May 2009
England's newish look
Collingwood, Pietersen, Strauss, Collingwood. They are the England Twenty20 captains over the last year. I know Twenty20 is a shortened form of the game but four captains in a year? I say four because of course the last Collingwood on the list must be a different one to the Collingwood that resigned nine months ago. Picking a captain who has recently resigned because it affected his play would be silly. I think you can guess where this is going...
What is even more strange than Collingwood being made captain again is that there is no obvious other choice. Twenty20 is the new cricket cash cow and everyone is raving about it – so why does England struggle to even find a captain? The fact that Collingwood has only been appointed for the three week World competition is pretty telling – he is a fill-in -- for a World event on home soil! Bizarre. Of course some people will say Rob Key should have got the job, but picking a guy who has never played International Twenty20 cricket is just too far out even for the ECB.
The really big news is that Ian Bell and Michael Vaughan are back in the Test team, who would have predicted that (eh Danny)? I am kidding (for the first Test anyway), in fact they have both been left out along with Steve Harmison. Quite right too, even though I hear Vaughan is hitting it beautifully in the nets... Ravi Bopara has been given the number three position which he deserves after his century in Bridgetown. Onions and Bresnan are also in the Test squad and let us hope they both get a game – in early May you really would expect only one spinner to be played and so presumably Panesar will miss out. An unexpected May Test recall against the West Indies two years ago was the making of Ryan Sidebottom, Onions and Bresnan will be looking to take their chance next week.
What is even more strange than Collingwood being made captain again is that there is no obvious other choice. Twenty20 is the new cricket cash cow and everyone is raving about it – so why does England struggle to even find a captain? The fact that Collingwood has only been appointed for the three week World competition is pretty telling – he is a fill-in -- for a World event on home soil! Bizarre. Of course some people will say Rob Key should have got the job, but picking a guy who has never played International Twenty20 cricket is just too far out even for the ECB.
The really big news is that Ian Bell and Michael Vaughan are back in the Test team, who would have predicted that (eh Danny)? I am kidding (for the first Test anyway), in fact they have both been left out along with Steve Harmison. Quite right too, even though I hear Vaughan is hitting it beautifully in the nets... Ravi Bopara has been given the number three position which he deserves after his century in Bridgetown. Onions and Bresnan are also in the Test squad and let us hope they both get a game – in early May you really would expect only one spinner to be played and so presumably Panesar will miss out. An unexpected May Test recall against the West Indies two years ago was the making of Ryan Sidebottom, Onions and Bresnan will be looking to take their chance next week.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Rubbish
Ian Bell and Alastair Cook are rubbish. Paul Collingwood and Andrew Strauss are also rubbish. Their statistics demonstrate this very clearly. You can argue about them being ‘good players’ or ‘batsmen with a sound technique’ until the cows come home but they are still rubbish. A Test average of just over 40 after a good number of Tests is grounds for de-selection, not retention. Not only are they rubbish, they have been rubbish for years – literally. Look at the graphs below. Rubbish.
Why are they rubbish? That is a more difficult question to answer because all four of the mentioned players have played good innings; innings after which people have said ‘xyz has come of age’, ‘what a quality player xyz is’. Strauss and Cook made centuries on debut and have averaged over 50 in Tests. Bell made 162 not out in his second match and 199 against South Africa last summer. Collingwood has a double century against Australia. There seems to be a paradox – they are rubbish but somehow can produce innings of quality. I suppose you could argue that if they play enough innings they will occasionally make big runs; they certainly have been given plenty of chances.
My dad’s favourite hobby horse is that they don’t play enough cricket. Whether he is correct or not, one thing is for sure – they don’t play much. In 2008, Cook played twelve test matches: three in March, seven spread between mid-May and mid-August followed by two in December. Cook also played four games for Essex. That is sixteen first-class matches, twelve of which were Tests – and not a century any of them. Is that enough to maintain form? How is Cook going to progress if he doesn’t play much cricket? There has been the suggestion that the England players don’t need to play much and can just turn up and ‘turn it on’. I would suggest that they are simply wrong and if you look at other sports players progress by playing. Top footballers do not become world class players by avoiding games and only playing once in a while. Top tennis players do not dominate their sport by only playing the odd tournament. Why should cricket be any different? The current players and system is not working. Maybe my dad has a point.
Why are they rubbish? That is a more difficult question to answer because all four of the mentioned players have played good innings; innings after which people have said ‘xyz has come of age’, ‘what a quality player xyz is’. Strauss and Cook made centuries on debut and have averaged over 50 in Tests. Bell made 162 not out in his second match and 199 against South Africa last summer. Collingwood has a double century against Australia. There seems to be a paradox – they are rubbish but somehow can produce innings of quality. I suppose you could argue that if they play enough innings they will occasionally make big runs; they certainly have been given plenty of chances.
My dad’s favourite hobby horse is that they don’t play enough cricket. Whether he is correct or not, one thing is for sure – they don’t play much. In 2008, Cook played twelve test matches: three in March, seven spread between mid-May and mid-August followed by two in December. Cook also played four games for Essex. That is sixteen first-class matches, twelve of which were Tests – and not a century any of them. Is that enough to maintain form? How is Cook going to progress if he doesn’t play much cricket? There has been the suggestion that the England players don’t need to play much and can just turn up and ‘turn it on’. I would suggest that they are simply wrong and if you look at other sports players progress by playing. Top footballers do not become world class players by avoiding games and only playing once in a while. Top tennis players do not dominate their sport by only playing the odd tournament. Why should cricket be any different? The current players and system is not working. Maybe my dad has a point.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Off the hook?
I wonder what was said just before England went out to start India’s second innings? Do you think KP said:
“Right guys, we have India in trouble. They need nearly 400 and there is no way they are going to get them. We need to get Sehwag early – he is a bad starter and quite often goes for a single figure start. He loves to have a bit of room, so ‘Big Steve’ and ‘Jim Bob’, I want you to bowl short and wide outside his off-stump. I want you to really telegraph your intentions too so that he is already on the back foot waiting to slap it for six. It will be a difficult task to bowl so poorly, but we are counting on you two guys.”
It is probably the worst spell of new ball bowling I have seen for a while. They fed Sehwag rubbish and he gladly consumed it. I always think Sehwag is a bit like Symonds (but with more talent, obviously) – he is dangerous when he gets to twenty-odd but has no real idea how to get there. Along come Harmison and Anderson who invite Sehwag to an all-you-can-eat square-cutting buffet.
Now that ‘Captain Block’ (Collingwood) has saved his career for another few matches I have a job for him. He is a hard-as-nails northerner and so should become the teams enforcer. Whenever Panasar pitches the ball a foot outside leg stump and appeals for LBW, Collingwood should run over and clip him behind the ear and say ‘idiot’. Similarly when he appeals for a catch and the ball has not got within a foot of the bat -- whack. In addition, whenever Anderson or Harmison bowl a short wide ‘hit me for six’ ball he should catch them at the end of the over and dig them in the rib and say ‘no!’.
“Right guys, we have India in trouble. They need nearly 400 and there is no way they are going to get them. We need to get Sehwag early – he is a bad starter and quite often goes for a single figure start. He loves to have a bit of room, so ‘Big Steve’ and ‘Jim Bob’, I want you to bowl short and wide outside his off-stump. I want you to really telegraph your intentions too so that he is already on the back foot waiting to slap it for six. It will be a difficult task to bowl so poorly, but we are counting on you two guys.”
It is probably the worst spell of new ball bowling I have seen for a while. They fed Sehwag rubbish and he gladly consumed it. I always think Sehwag is a bit like Symonds (but with more talent, obviously) – he is dangerous when he gets to twenty-odd but has no real idea how to get there. Along come Harmison and Anderson who invite Sehwag to an all-you-can-eat square-cutting buffet.
Now that ‘Captain Block’ (Collingwood) has saved his career for another few matches I have a job for him. He is a hard-as-nails northerner and so should become the teams enforcer. Whenever Panasar pitches the ball a foot outside leg stump and appeals for LBW, Collingwood should run over and clip him behind the ear and say ‘idiot’. Similarly when he appeals for a catch and the ball has not got within a foot of the bat -- whack. In addition, whenever Anderson or Harmison bowl a short wide ‘hit me for six’ ball he should catch them at the end of the over and dig them in the rib and say ‘no!’.
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Turning around the supertanker 'England Fail'
A few years ago, England had a good Test side. This culminated in the 2005 home win against Australia. Since then the side has been in decline. England’s loss against South Africa is the second home series loss from the three series and by any yardstick England’s Test side should be considered a failure. That probably sounds a bit harsh ‘failure’ but it is accurate. England can only beat weak Test sides and make that seem difficult. The latest loss was typical of England – a poor first innings, it looks like the opposing side are easily going to get a big lead before Flintoff performs some heroics, a second innings which includes a century by someone in ‘Last Chance Saloon’ and finally a successful run chase by the opposition who manage to win despite multiple attempts to lose.
The selectors have tried the ‘do absolutely nothing at all unless we really, really have too’ strategy. That is not a bad way to treat nuclear waste but has been hopeless for England’s Test side. Here are a few ideas:
Give Strauss the Captaincy
Michael Vaughan is a good captain but his form is terrible. On form alone Vaughan shouldn’t even be considered for the England side, let alone be a permanent fixture. Strauss does have his bad form runs but he did play well when captain and in reasonable form right now. However, Vaughan has the ability to be the best player in the England side. Anyone who doubts this should go back and see what he did before becoming captain. His run of scores was remarkable and took him to number one in the world. I think Vaughan is worth another series as a player. If he can capture that old form he will be brilliant.
Drop Collingwood and Bell
You don’t drop a bloke after making a century. I would - mainly because I wouldn’t have picked him in the first place. Collingwood and Bell both just do enough to be picked. Their averages are poor. With his recent century, Collingwood now has six centuries in seventy innings – that is about one century for every six Tests. Rubbish. Bell has eight centuries in seventy-five innings and whilst he may look good when batting he rarely produces the goods when it matters.
Commit to Ambrose, or not
Lots of people seem to dislike Tim Ambrose. I am not one of them. I want my wicket-keeper to catch the ball. Specifically, I want him to not drop the ball when it has been edged. The previous incumbents, Prior for example, were unable to catch the ball when edged. I would much rather a wicket-keeper have an average of 26 and catch Jayawardene when he has 15 than have an average of 40 and drop the Sri Lankan captain allowing him to make another 150. The key point here is to pick a wicket-keeper who is good behind the stumps and stick with him.
Cut central contracts to six-months
Giving out central contracts for a year makes no sense to me. The ‘logic’ is that it gives stability to players who then know where they stand. I don’t agree, if a player is good enough it will make no difference to them. If they are not good enough it is better to cut them free after six months. As it stands the ECB will have to commit another twelve months to Vaughan in a month or so. That seems madness given his current form. Hoggard and Harmison, both centrally contracted players, have not played for England since the start of March. The money they have been paid would be much better spent if it went to Ambrose and Broad. My point is: award contracts at the start and end of the season(ish).
None of this will happen of course...
The selectors have tried the ‘do absolutely nothing at all unless we really, really have too’ strategy. That is not a bad way to treat nuclear waste but has been hopeless for England’s Test side. Here are a few ideas:
Give Strauss the Captaincy
Michael Vaughan is a good captain but his form is terrible. On form alone Vaughan shouldn’t even be considered for the England side, let alone be a permanent fixture. Strauss does have his bad form runs but he did play well when captain and in reasonable form right now. However, Vaughan has the ability to be the best player in the England side. Anyone who doubts this should go back and see what he did before becoming captain. His run of scores was remarkable and took him to number one in the world. I think Vaughan is worth another series as a player. If he can capture that old form he will be brilliant.
Drop Collingwood and Bell
You don’t drop a bloke after making a century. I would - mainly because I wouldn’t have picked him in the first place. Collingwood and Bell both just do enough to be picked. Their averages are poor. With his recent century, Collingwood now has six centuries in seventy innings – that is about one century for every six Tests. Rubbish. Bell has eight centuries in seventy-five innings and whilst he may look good when batting he rarely produces the goods when it matters.
Commit to Ambrose, or not
Lots of people seem to dislike Tim Ambrose. I am not one of them. I want my wicket-keeper to catch the ball. Specifically, I want him to not drop the ball when it has been edged. The previous incumbents, Prior for example, were unable to catch the ball when edged. I would much rather a wicket-keeper have an average of 26 and catch Jayawardene when he has 15 than have an average of 40 and drop the Sri Lankan captain allowing him to make another 150. The key point here is to pick a wicket-keeper who is good behind the stumps and stick with him.
Cut central contracts to six-months
Giving out central contracts for a year makes no sense to me. The ‘logic’ is that it gives stability to players who then know where they stand. I don’t agree, if a player is good enough it will make no difference to them. If they are not good enough it is better to cut them free after six months. As it stands the ECB will have to commit another twelve months to Vaughan in a month or so. That seems madness given his current form. Hoggard and Harmison, both centrally contracted players, have not played for England since the start of March. The money they have been paid would be much better spent if it went to Ambrose and Broad. My point is: award contracts at the start and end of the season(ish).
None of this will happen of course...
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Paul Collingwood
The graph below shows the Test career of Paul Collingwood. As can be clearly seen his recent form is very poor with his three match average only just in double figures. In the four completed Test innings this summer Collingwood has scored a total of 39 runs. The strange 'zero average' at the start of his career is when he was 12th man in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
