England miss Colly

I told you we'd miss Colly! Morgan a quality fielder so he seems the prime candidate to try to take up where Collingwood left off....

Anderson and England make life difficult for themselves

Looking at the scorecard from England's match against Bangladesh I assumed that Strauss had done his usual and set defensive fields when England needed to take the final 2 wickets, and made a mistake in not letting Collingwood bowl out. It wasn't quite as bad as I feared, but it would be great if bowlers like Bresnan don't have to plead with their skipper to have a slip, as happened in the 48th over. Although there were no attacking fielders in the closing overs, Strauss was quite attacking by his standards as there was a slip in when Raqibal Hasan was bowled by Shahzad and again when Swann bowled Shakib. And taking Collingwood off, even when he was bowling economically, was the right move too. So still some way to go but a slight improvement I reckon.

But what is the skipper meant to do when players let him down with poor performances? Prior cost England several runs with missed attempts to take the ball behind the stumps and, with Prior's help, the bowlers racked up 23 wides. James Anderson's 7th over was one of the worst of all time, and swung the game in Bangladesh's favour....with Broad out England desperately need Anderson to find his range, but it's not looking hopeful. And to make matters worse, Shahzad dropped his caught and bowled and Trott missed a stop at 3rd man as things got tight....Strauss must have been tearing the hair he has left out.

Elsewhere in England's group Ireland felt the cost of dropping Kieron Pollard in the 20s and Asoka de Silva's inability to remember that the batsman can't be out LBW when they're playing a shot and are hit outside the line. England should still qualify if they beat West Indies, but the way they are playing, and with Pollard in form, I can't say I feel confident!

I'd love to see Bopara opening rather than Prior, and Strauss to attack (much) more but, more than anything, Anderson needs to bowl properly and byes, dropped catches and misfields need to be a thing of the past. Strauss had some good company today in going defensive - Dhoni suddenly lost his bottle at the end of India's game against South Africa and suffered the consequences. Harbajan had to bowl one of the last 2 overs with 17 needed and South Africa having 3 wickets in hand. But instead he turned to the expensive Nehra with 13 needed from the final over, and he went for 4,6,2,4 to allow South Africa to win the game with 2 balls to spare.

Will England make it through?

England improving...

England couldn't finish the job having got themselves into a winning position but England supporters can take heart from the main part of the batting display which was perfectly paced. As an Englishman I'm used to match-changing collapses and the arrogant way that the likes of Botham, Hussain and, to a lesser extent, Atherton, assumed England would walk it - with Bell and Strauss batting well going into the final 10 overs - grated.


Sure enough two wickets in two balls saw England's set batsmen depart and the game started to slip away from England. The powerplay worked against the in-coming batsmen (not that it exactly helped the set ones), with Prior in particular drilling the ball straight at fielders inside the circle, and England couldn't have made more of a mess of the part of the game that's meant to work to their advantage. That's where they can make huge strides forwards in their future games. Losing 4 wickets in the powerplay was disasterous, especially when India had to return to their less experienced bowlers once it was over as Khan and Harbajan were bowled out.


The powerplay out of the way and with nothing to lose, Swann and Bresnan belted sixes off the Chawla over that England surely must have been waiting for and expecting big things from. But just as England were getting themselves into a good position Bresnan got bowled leaving 14 required off the final over. England managed to get 15 off the Chawla over but only scored off 4 balls. Shahzad displayed his cool with a straight six in the final over (hopefully England can learn from that - a low risk maximum rather than a swish across the line), and in the end England will feel they could have won given 2 needed off 1 ball. But with 29 needed with 2 wickets in hand and 11 balls to go, they'd have taken a tie every time.


Where does this put England? In a far better position than they were going into the match. Their bowling and fielding still has a long way to go, and I'm sure a level-head like Flower will be able to point out the shot selection issues as the pressure came on in the powerplay and at the end. That's good news - they aren't even playing that well and yet they tied with the tournament favourites.


It would be great if Strauss could show a little more flexibility in the field and to get the best side on the pitch he and Flower need to work out if they have confidence in Collingwood as a bowler. If you're going to give him just 3 overs rather than allow him to take the heat off Anderson given his off day then it is questionable whether they should pick Collingwood at all. On batting alone, Bopara is the more fluent so Collingwood should only be playing if they consider him an all-rounder and Strauss will give him the ball on days like today when one of his bowlers has an off-day. Only Strauss can answer what's going on in his mind in the field, but his batting has been fantastic and long may he remain top run scorer in the competition.


So take heart England supporters - loads of room for improvement and still tieing with India - it could be worse.

England's selection and batting order

I'm a little confused by some of the discussion about England's batting order - I thought the top 7 picked themselves in whatever order....Strauss, Pietersen, Trott, Bell, Bopara, Prior, Collingwood. But several observers seem to be missing Bopara from their potential team - Michael Vaughan seems to be expecting Bopara to miss out. And others don't seem to think Collingwood gets in.

When Bopara came in as a better 6th bowler than Trott, I thought it would mean that doubts about the selection of the top 7 would be banished, but apparently not. I can't quite work it out - the home sides all use all-rounders to fill the 5th bowling slot and many use up to 8 bowlers in a match. England can do the same using Pietersen, Trott and Bopara as necessary.

I have faith that Andy Flower will get this right, but we'll have to see!

England shaping up poorly for the World Cup

Before The Ashes some people were worried that England's preparation was too smooth and of course they went on to dominate the series. Quite the opposite has happened in the run up to the World Cup. The side that is playing these matches has only one or two of the likely bowlers for the World Cup. Both sides are playing on wickets where even slower ball bouncers are in danger of being given as wides for getting too high, where as the wickets for the World Cup will be slow and almost certainly low. So the only advantage to be taken is one of positive morale and England have lost the huge positivity that came from The Ashes win...imagine if they'd had a good break before the two World Cup warm up matches and gone there with fresh players, many of whom were recent Ashes winners and/or World Twenty20 winners?

Instead, England will go to the World Cup jaded and low on confidence after a drubbing from Australia. So are there any positives to come from the incredibly drawn out series of ODIs in Australia? Possibly two.

First, Jonathan Trott is batting sensationally and has proven that he can bowl three or four overs without being a liability. But that's only possibly a positive because it remains to be seen if the confidence he will have going into the World Cup will translate into runs given that the wickets will be almost exact opposites of the Australian wickets he's been successful on.

And second, England may have realised they can play Collingwood as a bowler batting at seven who can be relied upon to bowl his 10 overs just as much as any of the other bowlers. He was England's most economical bowler in the 4th and 5th ODIs and, although that stat doesn't always hold up these days with some bowlers bowling nearly all their overs in powerplays and others not bowling any powerplay overs, he's certainly bowled well. As long as England play on grounds with normal size boundaries, England should have confidence in Collingwood as a bowler, knowing they can get a few overs out of Trott and Pietersen if necessary (and understanding that those guys are just as likely to be needed to fill in for one of the "bowlers" as Collingwood).

Do those possible positives outweigh the negatives? Not at all. If England really had to play 7 ODIs (not to mention two Twenty20s) then they needed to play them over a far shorter period of time and get home for a rest before heading to the World Cup. Winning or losing, 3 days was never a sensible amount of time to return to the UK for.

And what of Australia? They have the positive morale from winning of course, but they also have a couple of other positives - Hastings has found his feet and Michael Clarke has come good. But they also have the problem that form on Aussie wickets may not translate to form on slow sub-continent wickets, and one of their key bowlers - Nathan Hauritz - is now a major injury worry. So there will be positive noises of course, but Australia could have also benefited from a shorter or non-existent ODI series.

I wonder if there are odds on England playing a seven match ODI series the next time they visit Australia?

Two sides with a couple of positions to finalise

As has been pointed out on King Cricket, a massive 7 ODI series just before the World Cup can only be assumed to be a set of practice matches for the two teams, allbeit in conditions completely different to the World Cup. England will be using the matches to finalise their best XI, and will soon announce their World Cup 15-ma squad.

Massive Collingwood fan though I am, I think they did the right thing dropping Collingwood. He'll definitely go to the World Cup and in those conditions his bowling will be an excellent option, far more so than in Australia. So there's even the possibility of him batting as low as 7 and still being an important part of the side as a core bowling option depending on the wickets. Certainly if I was picking between Wright, Bopara and Collingwood, for me it would be the ginga ninja every time. England have all but announced Collingwood will be in the World Cup squad so it's just a question of his role and whether he'll make the starting XI.

In some ways the 1st ODI will have done Collingwood's chances of making the World Cup 1st XI a lot of good, as he watched from the sideline. Jonathan Trott isn't as good a bowler as Collingwood so England had just the five realistic bowling options with Pietersen and Trott in reserve....no doubt that left Strauss feeling a little uncomfortable. They would definitely want to go in with Collingwood as the 6th bowler if they could find a way to make that happen.

So with that in mind I wonder if they have at the back of their minds that Eoin Morgan has done some occasional wicket-keeping. It's not something they will consider unless Davies has a very poor Australian series, but it may just surface if that is the case, and that would allow Collingwood to slot in at 6 and Strauss to have his 6th bowler. It's not ideal but you never know.

Although I think England are unlikely to spring a surprise with their World Cup selection, I would be considering Bopara carefully myself, but would very narrowly overlook him for Shahzad. So the 15 would be Strauss, Davies, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Morgan, Bresnan, Yardy, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Collingwood, Shahzad, Tremlett, Tredwell (assuming Broad is fit). Woakes can consider himself unlucky and could still get a call up if there are injuries.

Australia, despite their brilliant victory are far less settled. Ponting is already injured and Mike Hussey is now struggling to be fit for the World Cup. And any side batting Steve Smith at 4 clearly hasn't got the right line up - he should have batted 7 on merit. What will Australia's 15 be? Assuming the selectors have got over their strange hatred of Nathan Hauritz, my guess is that they will ignore David Hussey unless his brother is injured and go with Watson, Haddin, Ponting, Clarke, White, Hussey M, Smith, Johnson, Hauritz, Lee, Tait, Bollinger, Paine, Doherty, Siddle. Personally, I'd find a place for David Hussey ahead of one of the pace bowlers, pick him ahead of Smith or Doherty, or go without Paine, but I'll be surprised if they do that (although I'm not sure what the rules are about replacing the keeper if he gets injured).

Another great Colly article!

I'm sure you're getting sick of the Colly articles but I liked the tone of this Paul Collingwood piece on The Wisden Cricketer site, written by Alex Bowden of King Cricket.

Strange how a guy can deem himself surplus to requirements in one format, and yet he's now skipper in two other formats until Strauss returns as the Test and ODI skipper is now chilling out in his Melbourne property. Nice to have a home-from-home...perhaps Strauss buying a place there was also part of the meticlous Ashes planning?!

8 reasons to miss Paul Collingwood

8 reasons to miss the Ginga Ninja from the Wisden Cricketer....

Collingwood retires

It was on the cards, and Paul Collingwood has said that the Sydney Test will be his last. Here's just a couple of the things written about him so far...

On Cricinfo....and on Reverse Sweep. Much more to follow no doubt....

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Interesting to see that when the England players are ranked on their performances in The Ashes on the PCA website, the stats don't appear to entirely back up the view that Finn and Collingwood are England's most at risk players. Finn is considered England's second most valuable player according to the table, and Collingwood is 10th out of 12, with Prior and Broad below him.

Interesting to see what a few pros have said about the FTI MVP stats. What I'd add to their comments is that when looking at England Test performances in The Ashes, it's a 5 Test series and we're only just over half way through the series, so the value of each player in the series still has enormous potential to change - the final standings will make interesting reading.

England selection for Melbourne

With Australia levelling the series in Perth, attention is suddenly on the make up of the England side - amazing how one result shifts focus. While last week I was defending Ponting and Clarke, this week it looks like it will be the likes of Collingwood and Finn!

Paul Collingwood

Let's start with Collingwood. England have chosen to go with 4 bowlers which means they pretty much have to play Collingwood. He's proven that his canny medium pacers can do more than give the main bowlers a rest - he really should have had 2 wickets in Australia's 2nd innings in Perth if Swann could catch. He also went at a miserly 0.5 runs per over. In any team with four bowlers, there has to be a batsman who can be relied on for a few overs and Collingwood is that man for England.

Now let's look at Collingwood's fielding. He's the best allround fielder in the England side - people like Bell and Anderson (and Morgan) are as athletic but less good catchers...people like Strauss are as good catchers but less athletic. And given Andy Flower's emphasis on statistical analysis I expect he has a metric of some sort to demonstrate that Collingwood's value in the field is second-to-none - we'll never know if Ponting would have gone on to a huge innings but for Collingwood's one handed stunner, but he may well have done.

And finally the batting, which I've deliberately left until last because it's the two paragraphs above which clinch why Collingwood should be selected. Morgan is the anti-Collingwood - ultra-talented but a little loose - they have two completely different styles. I would put them as equals in terms of Test match batting, but I know which of the two I'd want batting for my life.

So for me - and I'm sure Andy Flower - it has to be Collingwood, but it's possible they'll look at moving him to 6 given Bell's good form. I'd consider that as an option for two reasons....first, Bell doesn't seem at his best when batting with the tail. He's always looked class but he starts to play pretty strange shots when with 10 and 11 and, although there's been much talk about him running out of partners, he was the 8th wicket to fall in the 1st innings in Perth. And in Brisbane in the 1st innings he was the 9th wicket to fall when Anderson was holding up an end nicely for him. I've Burbled before about how top-order batsmen get their tactics wrong when batting with the tail, and I think Collingwood is more likely to get that right. The second reason is of course Bell's good form. He's not in Michael Hussey world-beating form, but he's looking a class act and averaging 71.

Steve Finn

I couldn't work out if Finn was fully fit at Perth. He grimaced a few too many times and his run up - which is never that fluent at the best of times - looked laboured. He bowled too short and leaked runs, but he's the leading wicket-taker in the series. He's 21 and the odd poor performance shouldn't mean he gets dropped. But Broad's absence demonstrates that without him England's tail is longer than we've got used to in the last couple of years and Bresnan would certainly strengthen that area.

For me it all comes down to fitness - if Finn is fit then he needs to play in Melbourne and bowl at the top of off. If he isn't fully fit then pick Bresnan and take the benefits he offers, which is more swing and a stronger batting line up. But with 7 batsmen (after all I don't think anyone in England would suggest that Prior is Foster's equal at wicket-keeping), England shouldn't be worrying too much about the bowlers' batting capabilities.

So fitness excluded, the same side again for England at Melbourne. It won't stop there being a huge amount of talk in the press about possible changes though!

Collingwood interview

Everything you hear from Paul Collingwood always seems to make sense and I admire him for his sense of calm and perspective, along with his determination. I thought I was in a small minority in admiring him, but the comments at the bottom of this interview with Collingwood suggest that many see his merits these days. He's done well a few times in Australia so let's hope the same happens again.

What marks out an international player?

Once again it appears to be the determination to make it, reading this piece about the impression that Paul Collingwood made when he played club cricket in New Zealand more than a decade ago. Apparently "he didn't have the obvious stamp of class" and "get him on the piss and you couldn't shut him up"!

Interestingly the comment on the bottom, goes to his Wikipedia entry and tells of how he won the Jack Ryder player of the league when he played club cricket in the Melbourne Premier League a couple of years later for Richmond. A good omen for the Ashes - he seems to play well in Australia if that and his last tour for England are anything to go by!

Ian Bell in form, Ijaz Butt out of form

Apart from punching the air after hitting boundaries before the end of the game on Saturday, it sound like Ian Bell's innings was pure quality and given the form he's in, it seems inevitable that he should be brought back into England's ODI side. So who makes way? If Bell plays, it looks like they need one from three in Collingwood, Bopara and Wright. They'll be reluctant to drop Collingwood given his fielding and (strangely) they seem to have more confidence in his bowling than Bopara and Wright's. But Wright played a handy little knock in the last match while his team mates fell at the other end. It'll be interesting to see which way they go, but the great news is that England have a squad with depth for next year's ODI World Cup.

Sadly it was inevitable that people might question England's surrender at The Oval given their collapse from a seemingly comfortable position. But for it to be the Chairman of the PCB, Ijaz Butt, and a public statement that England threw the game is somewhat worrying. His position has been called into question many times but knowing how to conduct himself as a public figure is surely a prerequisite for the job, so for cricket's sanity to return, he needs to go. And that remains the case even if the unthinkable happens and England are found to have thrown the game.

Bopara has chance to shine

It will be interesting to see how Ravi Bopara goes today, assuming that he comes into the England side and bats at 6 given Bell's injury. I appreciate that I'm in a minority, but I see him as Collingwood's ultimate replacement whenever the ginger ninja decides to retire - a completely different approach but a batsman who can bowl a bit and is also a good fielder - he should start his career batting at 6 and then move his way up the order to 4 as he gains confidence and is successful just like Collingwood has done. And let's not forget, he was one of the successes of the 2007 World Cup for England, only to fade away again.

He's been in good form for the England Lions, winning one match in which he got 150+ and 4 wickets almost single-handedly, although as always he's been a bit hit and miss. But he should be confident given that he scored a hundred for Essex yesterday in the Twenty20 with the next highest score from his colleagues being 21.

Duckworth Lewis honours

I doubt Paul Collingwood will be sending a letter of congratulation to Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis after they've received MBEs....

England rest players for Bangladesh Tests

I don't disagree with Andy Flower's stated aim of having fresh and fit players to compete for the Ashes come November, but I do disagree with when they're rested. There's no England Test match between 9th June - 28th July so that would seem like an ideal time to rest them if necessary.

I'd be particularly annoyed if I was Collingwood as he's 2 days off his 34th birthday and he hasn't got limitless Tests ahead of him like Broad should have. Not only does Collingwood miss out on another couple of caps v Bangladesh, but he misses out on the chance to make stacks of runs and up his career average, while instead (in all likelihood) watching Morgan get the runs he would have got which will raise questions about Collingwood's place in the team.

So good idea, but I disagree on the details of when the players are being rested. Rest who you like during Twenty20s and ODIs, but if home Tests aren't being played by 1st XIs then they really shouldn't be given the status of Tests.

Momentum means little in Twenty20

Paul Collingwood has rightly said he wanted to beat New Zealand despite already having qualified so that England kept up their momentum. And Graeme Swann is talking up the team's chances. But the reality is that one off Twenty20 games aren't always won by the best overall side, but more the best on the day - something that will be beneficial to England if they play Australia.

So how much does momentum really matter?

Collingwood finally makes IPL debut

Good to see that it went well (he scored a half century) - although it looks like the game will rightly be remembered for David Warner's century...

England middle order - well played Ian Bell

Having predicted that it would be Anderson, Trott and Collingwood that would have to save the game, Ian Bell's innings was a revelation. Good on him - hopefully he can become England's version of Damien Martyn as I've Burbled before and come back all the better for a break (all be it a much shorter break). It was great to escape with a draw but as always there's room for improvement and Flower has already called for Bell to go on from here.

What I think England need to look at is how they lose wickets in clumps - with 7 batsmen and 2 all rounders they shouldn't be collapsing in the way that they did whatever the match situation, and it's certainly not the first time. It all seemed so easy until Collingwood's wicket, and what was interesting listening to TMS was the almost reverential praise from Duncan Fletcher to Collingwood. Praphrasing he said he's always positive, a great member of the dressing room, doggedly determined, very thoughtful and tactically aware, and would make a great coach. Michael Vaughan is a mate of his but made similar comments about how crucial he was to England's middle order, and Andy Flower has also praised him. In fact what Bell no doubt won't be happy about is the fact that all the TMS commentators thought it was vital Collingwood stayed with Bell to "talk him through" despite the fact Bell has played 50+ Tests.

Interesting. It's pretty clear that Collingwood has total respect in and around the England changing room and yet he's seen as an also-ran by most of the watching public. As a Collingwood fan, I'm very pleased that his place appears a lot more secure than I thought.