Posted by 
If you’re Paul Collingwood, you have to do a little bit more than other batsmen. He’s hit three hundreds in his last nine Test innings, each in a different country and each against a different attack. People will accept that he can stay in the side for another couple of matches now.
Maybe it’s because he looks ill-acquainted with a cricket bat. It doesn’t move right in his hands. You imagine him opening his kitbag on the first morning of a Test. He looks down at the chunk of willow within and says: ‘What the hell is that?’
We like him that way. We like his awkward punching strokeplay. We like the nurdle, we like the chop and we like the hoist. Every time people say Paul Collingwood has to go because he’s not good enough, he comes back and scores some hundreds and really, that’s all that matters.
One of his problems is that he scores hundreds when others do as well, making everyone thinks that scoring hundreds must be easy. This one came with a bigger one from Strauss. The previous one came in the match when Strauss got two. The one before that was a stand-alone ton, but it was the innings where KP had effectively turned down a century by trying to get it with a six. So all of his centuries get upstaged, and the world continues to see him as a journeyman international sports star (if there is such a thing).
Bert’s right. At the moment, he’s looking like a flat track bully.
I do love the fella (he is leader of my republican army afterall), but I’d rather we had someone who was more fluent looking, more consistent, and didn’t only score hundreds when his career depended on it. For once can we not have a century, when no-one else gets one, or can he follow up this one with another in the next innings.
I think everyone agrees he is not exactly the most aesthetic swordsman to watch. The trouble is that he does tend to only make runs when we already have a solid foundation, but whenever we need him to pull us out of the shit he looks like a rabbit caught in headlights at the crease and invariably scores 5 off 50 balls. I know plently of others failed, but the 1st test is a case in point – he looked like getting out as soon as he came in.
In contrast, Bell hit a magnificent 199 vs best test side in the world just a few tests ago and gets dropped. I’d rather be watching fluent 30s from Bell than ugly single digit scores from Collie. And the thing that gets my goat most is when people mention his part time bowling. For ODIs fine, for test cricket it is a waste of time.
Personally, I’d still kick him out and move King Bell down to 5.
He probably is known as King Bell, but not necessarily in a good way.
Just noticed that we never finished writing the title for this post.
None of you seem bothered.
I thought you were just experimenting with brevity.
I dont see the argument that he gets hundreds when others do well.
What about his debut century in Nagpur? Or the one against SA last summer, under huge pressure? Or 200+ against Aussie? or a winning hundred against WI at the Riverside? he has the biggest cajones in that england dressing room!
Collingwood out!! It is just this sort of non-innings that is destructive for English cricket in two ways: it keeps him in the side; it was so slow that England have scored 70 fewer runs than they should have.
Bell, without the pressure of No.3, would have scored more runs in this match, more aesthetically and more quickly.
Drop him, drop him, drop him!! And i am a Durham fan.
Snappy title KC.
Douglas, I’m with you fella..
Put him in at five, and he’ll perform more regularly than Collingwood ever will.
D Charlton – you speak sense. I’m flying out to Barbados tomorrow so I will have a word in lord Brockett’s shell-like if I get the opportunity!
Speaking of Brockett, his inevitable demise before the end of play on Sunday reminded me of several other times he has made a big ton and got out near the end of play. I have similar memories of Tresco, Vaughan, Bell, Collie & KP doing the same. This is not a criticsm of Strauss – I am one of his few fans. But does anyone remember the last time an English batsman batted through a full uninterupted day’s play, start to finish? Did Athers do it in Jo’burg?
You….
didn’t…
finish…
the TITLE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxwqRVvQugg
I think people talk shit when it comes to Collingwood. People say he only scores when his place is under threat – well it seems to be under threat every match he plays because he’s not as pretty to watch as some. I think he’s a superbly pragmatic cricketer – getting the best out of his less extravagent bating skills and scoring quickly when needed (he’s blasted some big ODI scores) and more circumspectly when apt. He seems to have a batting great partnership with KP and as for this nonsense that he’s a flat track bully? some stats perhaps? Avge versus:
Aus 41
India 46
Pak 51
SA 58
WI 54
and 31 v SL and 28 v NZ, and he’s never played against Bang or Zim.
Erm, ‘extravagAnt batTing’ and ‘great batting partnership’ obviously.
Everyone knows statistics don’t tell the full story. But if you choose to take this tack……
Collie’s overall test batting average is 41.07 in his first 43 matches.
By comparison, Prior averages 39.66 in his first 14 matches. And KP has scored 1,200 more runs in just 4 more matches.
The guy is not good enough to be a test #5 and a scrappy ton made on a pancake will not change my mind.
Matt B, If you want to take stats as a marker, Ian Bell averages 54 with a strike rate of 51 as a no 5 batsman, Paul Collingwood averages 39 with a strike rate of 44.
I know who I’d want.
Stats tell you everything:
He’s played 43 Tests.
In the 13 games Colly’s won – he averages 38
In 15 losses – average 41.75
In 15 draws – 42.90
Current Test not included. And he was not out in the forfeited Oval Test in 2006, which massages these figures.
Basically, when he does worse, England do better because he’s not clogging up one end.
We shouldn’t be applauding England cricketers who aren’t that talented but make the most of what they’ve got – let’s just pick the players who have got lots in the first place – there’s stacks of them playing county cricket.
Test cricket does not have a “tried hardest” award. Ronnie Irani was always “up for it”. That didn’t stop him being shit.
0/10 all round.
You’re arguing opposite cases with a difference in averages of two or three runs either way. It’s neither here nor there.
He is talented. He’s hit stacks of runs against some of the finest bowlers in the world. He just looks like rubbish while he’s doing it.
okay then his last 9 innings paul collywoobles has scored 3 centuries, 1 each against the 2 best teams in the world, and one fifty at 53.
He may have the kind of technique would that makes Anne of Cleves quite a looker by comparison but hes definately not shit at the moment.
What a load of old cobblers most of your correspondents are coming out with – D Charlton and Suave in particular – in fact the whole boling lot of them. Off with their heads Sire!
Colly lost us Adelaide 2006. We’ve never been the same since.
No, you did.
[High-fives imaginary friend in recognition of own razor sharp wit.]
True I suppose – the rest were to embarrassed to play with such an ugly shot maker and chose to perish on their swords….
I thought the IPL lost us Adelaide 2006? Oh and KP was involved somehow.
I assumed this was a “finish the post title” competition.
“Paul Collingwood – yes, it’s hurting; no, it’s not working”
“Paul Collingwood – still hasn’t earned his MBE”
“Paul Collingwood – still expecting to be taken seriously despite wearing pink helmet-sides with that ginger hair””
“Paul Collingwood – still hasn’t taken us up on that dare to wear a tshirt saying ‘morning (colling) wood””
“Paul Collingwood – increasingly resorting to hope that God loves a trier”.