I’m still not convinced by that innings. If he was contributing to setting a target, it wasn’t all that brisk at an SR of 60 - Bell scored at 80, Prior at nearly 130. And ultimately, even if he had got out for 0, we’d still have won by an innings. Hence the reason that I don’t think it was much of a contribution.
That said, these things can be viewed differently by different people; your view is certainly tenable.
I take your points about Morgan being thrown in though - it’s certainly one way that it might pan out.
On the other hand, with the Ashes on the line in 2009, we threw in Trott and he performed. In 2005, we dropped a proven Test match batsman (Graham Thorpe) and put in the, at that point, unproven Kevin Pietersen. We have stuck in guys who look like they can cope with the pressure in potentially big spots. Morgan has already shown that ability in ODIs. I reckon he could come good for us. The only way we’ll know for sure is to find out by putting him in. I agree, that they’re probably not going to pick him unless there is an injury - but if Collingwood does continue to underperform, then I wouldn’t be surprised if Morgan gets picked - even if there is a must win game in the offing.
Meh, when Collingwood came in England only had 350 on the board, so he shouldn’t have been throwing the bat in that situation. No sense in giving the opposition encouragement. Bell came in at 450, scored at a SR of 70, not 80, and Prior came in knowing we were about to declare.
Agree Morgan is a player we should look to develop, but we should only bring a new player in if there is a decent chance they will improve the team. Collingwood isn’t a great batsman, but has a proven record of scoring important runs in tight situations, and adds value with his fielding and bowling. Morgan hasn’t shown he can do the same at test level. You’re talking about ending Collingwood’s career here, and that’s not something that should be done on a punt. There is a lot to be said for continuity of selection. Would you have axed Cook and Hussey before this series? (Last Summer, I was thinking we had to drop Cook, as his technique was completely shot and he’d be better off getting his form back in county cricket. Looks like I was wrong.)
Apologies for the typo - will teach me to check what I am typing more carefully - Bell indeed scored at 70.
On the second part - I couldn’t really care less whether we are talking about ending Collingwood’s career, this is about results. A different regime ended Thorpe’s career (a far better bat than Collingwood ever has been or will be) on a punt too - and they turned out to be right, despite the fact that Thorpe was averaging 50+ over the previous year and a half and had just knocked up a century against South Africa, in South Africa. I want England to have the best chance of winning. I don’t think Collingwood’s form warrants a place in the side, as he isn’t contributing with the bat - Morgan is a very good fielder too though in different positions to Collingwood - and Collingwood’s value with the ball in hand is limited to allowing short rest to the frontline bowlers. I think Morgan has the chance to compensate for that with better performances with the bat. It also allows us to move Bell up to 5, where he should arguably be playing anyway. You don’t agree, and that’s fine as your points are equally valid in the opposite direction to mine - it’s best to leave it there really, as I don’t think we’ll convince each other either way. And as you almost certainly are correct to point out, the selectors likely will not make the change anyway.
On Cook: no, I wouldn’t have dropped him before this series. He’d just scored a ton against Pakistan for starters - crabby and less than fluent though it was having been in the stands to watch him, he got his runs. Also there are no decent replacements in the opening slot - that is the difference between his position and Collingwood’s. I’ve seen Carberry play a few times at county level and I’m not convinced he will make it at Test level. Denly has regressed. Only James Hildreth looks like he has the weight of runs to demand a look - and he’s in the Performance Squad, so the selectors obviously don’t think he is ready to be in the Test Match squad - unlike Cook.
I, like you on Cook, would have been wrong on Hussey - as I would have dropped him. As it stands, there are now reasonable grounds for him to be a stop gap captain if the Aussies get rid of Ponting and Clarke’s back is giving him so much trouble that he can’t play to the standard required.
I would dearly love to be proved massively wrong right now. Trott and Collingwood at the crease. 57-3. Chasing 324 more to win. Need big innings from these two.
So much for batting better in the 2nd innings. Oh well, at least this series is a real contest now. I think we still have a slight edge as we have more players in form, but it’s suddenly looking very tight. Tremlett has been excellent, but Finn is looking tired and Swann was very poor in the second innings. Hope he can put that behind him, the 4 man attack relies on Swann keeeping it tight when he can’t take wickets.
I think this is where we differ, as I see continuity of selection as an important part of building a winning side. But we all like to play armchair manager. It’s quite possible that Collingwood is past his best and we should be looking for a replacement, but I wouldn’t consider it until the end of the series myself.
Ah, crappity. Midway through day 1 the Ashes were safely in the bag, and now they’re out again and no mistake. Blown away in one session plus ten overs - not exactly what we were looking for.
Holy crap, doesn’t that make you choke on your Christmas leftovers!
10 wickets, all caught behind the wicket, only Hughes’s not being of a defensive prod.
Was worse to watch than the Centenary Test.
As a traditionalist, I’d argue it’s a consequence of playing so much limited over cricket with concrete flat decks and no fielders in the cordon causing batsmen who simply lack the technique and patience to bat defensively.
No, you see, saying “take the urn back, see if I care”, now *that’s *sour grapes.
Does it help to know that as Englishmen we’ve had to put up with this time and time again? Nice for the shoe to be on the other foot and we can remark on things like Prior taking six catches and all the other four dismissals being catches too - and at that, two were put down before the first wicket fell.
It ain’t all over yet, but the fat lady has been spotted with her throat spray, rehearsal pianist and sheaf of music…
My grandfather was still narky over what you lot did to us at The Oval in 1938 when he passed away aged 96 in 1996! (England 7 wickets declared for 903 from 335.2 overs Len Hutton scored 364 and when Australia only had 9 fit players (Bradman and Fingleton were injured during the innings), and Hammond only declared because he knew neither of them would be able to bat.)
Then there was that schmoozle in 1956 named fusarium that appeared once and only once in Ashes history.
You’ve got a whole culture, ethos maybe even, based on being not terribly good at the really good sports you invented. Shithey, you had your empire, you fired nuclear weapons on our turf; was a bit of humility in giving us a few compensatory peanuts in the forms of the odd lousy win too much to ask?
And I still remember those bloody long, late, miserable mid-winter nights in the 1980s when we were worse than we are now. It had all morbid attraction of a F1 crash. It was too awful to watch, but you knew it would only be worse if you averted your eyes and another wicket fell, often a pathetically disfunctional run-out or if in the field another simple catch went down.
All in all it was a bit lucky that the record crowd didn’t eventuate. It would have been a real pity if there’d been over 100,000 Mexicans having to spend the rest of their dismal lives in denial that they’d actually been there at the ground.
Your boys looked to be staging a fightback just before I turned the lights out last night, with Strauss and Cook going early, but since then Trott, Pietersen and Prior have all chipped in - shame about Bell’s rare failure but I guess we can live with that. Mitchell Johnson was throwing pies again last I saw, including one horrible fling that it was an insult to Haddin to call four byes, tho’ from the scorecard he’d pulled it back a bit as he was no longer shedding a run a ball.
And we’d need a thread to ourselves to go over all the Anglo-Australian grievances…
And to add injury to insult Harris has broken his foot and may never play Test cricket again. Probably means Australia are effectively seven down and still 246 behind. Free admission for the fourth day?
Why in gawd’s name a batsmen (Watson) will elect to not play a shot at a delivery that’s going to hit top of middle stump confounds me. Then to ask for a video referral to confirm to all the rank stupidity and further penalise his team.
Shit. IMHO he should have called for a shovel, though there’d have been a queue to dig the hole for him.
And that’s the Ashes. Haddin and Siddle at least staved off a record defeat, but going down by an innings twice in the series is going to smart. Naturally, I’m heartbroken.
Let’s just hope they take a leaf out of the Aussies’ book and keep their boot firmly on the other guy’s throat. A 3 - 1 series win would be highly enjoyable.
As easy as it is to bag Australia’s pathetic performance, and as painful as it is for this Aussie to congratulate the Poms, they did play quite well. Especially impressed with Trott.
But aren’t the Poms a revelation. They look younger, sharper and fitter than us. They even look cooler - when Anderson bowled Smith he didn’t get excited, just walked down the pitch like it was inevitable. Someone pulls of a sharp bit of fielding and two or three guys will run 20 to 30 yards to backslap them and run back to where they are fielding. They just look like winners.
