In message <j1kideFrhaeU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 09/12/2021 17:03, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <j1epg7Fo92qU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> On 09/12/2021 11:20, Richard Dixon wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 10:48:04 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think England probably need to score 517-1 in their second innings to
>>>>> save the game. Sadly, without Cook, Strauss and Trott at the top of the
>>>>> order, I can't see that happening.
>>>
>>> Even with those three, and against an attack of Hilfenhaus, Siddle,
>>>Johnson, Watson, Doherty and North that was rather less convincing
>>>that the current one, it still seems amazing.
>>>
>>>>> (Of the current XI, probably only
>>>>> Root and Stokes would get into that 2010-11 side.)
>>>
>>> Root for Collingwood is straightforward.
>>> Stokes for Bell? Given that Bell averaged 65.80 in the series, I'm
>>>doubtful that that would have proved to be a good move.
>> I was thinking more in terms of Root for Bell and Stokes for
>>Collingwood.
>
>Yes, you may be right if Collingwood was ahead of Bell in the pecking
>order going into the series, which their positions in the batting order
>suggest he was.

My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
natural to compare them. (Though you could argue that Root is pretty
much an all-rounder too.)

>
>>>> I reckon Robinson would squeak in there.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it would have been tough on either Finn or Broad.
>>>
>> Robinson would probably come in for Finn, but at the expense of
>>reducing the variety in the attack. I suppose you could also make a
>>case for Wood in place of Finn.
>
>I'd be struggling. Finn went into the series with 32 wickets @ 23, even
>if they were against Bangladesh and a shambles of a Pakistan batting
>line-up.
>

It's easy to forget just how effective Finn was early in his career,
given his struggles later on.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
> In message <j1kideFrhaeU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> On 09/12/2021 17:03, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <j1epg7Fo92qU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
>>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 09/12/2021 11:20, Richard Dixon wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 10:48:04 UTC, John Hall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think England probably need to score 517-1 in their second
>>>>>> innings to
>>>>>> save the game. Sadly, without Cook, Strauss and Trott at the top
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> order, I can't see that happening.
>>>>
>>>> Even with those three, and against an attack of Hilfenhaus, Siddle,
>>>> Johnson, Watson, Doherty and North that was rather less convincing
>>>> that the current one, it still seems amazing.
>>>>
>>>>>> (Of the current XI, probably only
>>>>>> Root and Stokes would get into that 2010-11 side.)
>>>>
>>>> Root for Collingwood is straightforward.
>>>> Stokes for Bell? Given that Bell averaged 65.80 in the series, I'm
>>>> doubtful that that would have proved to be a good move.
>>>  I was thinking more in terms of Root for Bell and Stokes for
>>> Collingwood.
>>
>> Yes, you may be right if Collingwood was ahead of Bell in the pecking
>> order going into the series, which their positions in the batting
>> order suggest he was.
>
> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
> natural to compare them.

I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
wickets in that series.

> (Though you could argue that Root is pretty
> much an all-rounder too.)

He has 40 Test wickets compared to Collingwood's 17, at an average 15
runs lower.

--
David North

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:

>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
>> natural to compare them.
>
>I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
>that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
>for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
>wickets in that series.

Colly was one of those bowlers commentators refer to as
partnership-breakers, because they hardly ever bowl and only get a go
when the captain's desperate. At Headingley in 2006, he took his first
wicket in his 13th bowling innings out of a possible 27. I remember
Blofeld ranting on about his being a partnership-breaker
extraordinaire and Frindall pointing out that he'd never done it
before.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
>
>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
>>> natural to compare them.
>>
>>I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
>>that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
>>for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
>>wickets in that series.
>
>Colly was one of those bowlers commentators refer to as
>partnership-breakers, because they hardly ever bowl and only get a go
>when the captain's desperate. At Headingley in 2006, he took his first
>wicket in his 13th bowling innings out of a possible 27. I remember
>Blofeld ranting on about his being a partnership-breaker
>extraordinaire and Frindall pointing out that he'd never done it
>before.
>

It should also be noted that although a troublesome partnership ended
in that over, it was via a run out, and Faisal Iqbal was out first
ball, so it wasn't much of a partnership that he broke.

A few minutes later, there was a massive seismic shock as Inzamam got
himself out by falling on his stumps.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <j1lfq2F27o5U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
<big snip>
>
>> (Though you could argue that Root is pretty much an all-rounder
>>too.)
>
>He has 40 Test wickets compared to Collingwood's 17, at an average 15
>runs lower.
>

I confess that really surprised me.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 12/12/2021 06:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
>>
>>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
>>>> natural to compare them.
>>>
>>> I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
>>> that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
>>> for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
>>> wickets in that series.
>>
>> Colly was one of those bowlers commentators refer to as
>> partnership-breakers, because they hardly ever bowl and only get a go
>> when the captain's desperate. At Headingley in 2006, he took his first
>> wicket in his 13th bowling innings out of a possible 27. I remember
>> Blofeld ranting on about his being a partnership-breaker
>> extraordinaire and Frindall pointing out that he'd never done it
>> before.

Well that was quite 'extraordinaire' for a partnership-breaker.

> It should also be noted that although a troublesome partnership ended
> in that over, it was via a run out, and Faisal Iqbal was out first
> ball, so it wasn't much of a partnership that he broke.

Just looking at the Cricinfo commentary, I noticed this at the end of
the previous over:

'Guess what? Collingwood, the team's designated partnership breaker, has
failed to break any Test partnership in more than 63 overs. "Now would
be a good time to change his ways," thunders Andrew Miller.'

That's slightly inaccurate, as he had bowled exactly 63 overs when the
quote was reported (63.3 when he took the wicket).

--
David North

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 11:32:17 AM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 06:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
> >>
> >>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
> >>>> natural to compare them.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
> >>> that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
> >>> for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
> >>> wickets in that series.
> >>

my memory [bad as it is] is that colly was more all rounder in the odi
scene, at least i remember he did the allrounder 100/5wkt thing in a
odi during the ashes summer 2005, although actually it was against
some other team, i think the bangles, he destroyed them! as he was
a regular bowler i think in the odi side, its surprising perhaps he bowled
so little in tests. i guess we must have a pretty good attack back then not
to need him much.

incidentally i believe hes sort of deputy in waiting to replace silverwood
when he resigns next year ;)

mike

On 14/12/2021 00:29, mike wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 11:32:17 AM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 06:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
>>>>>> natural to compare them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
>>>>> that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
>>>>> for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
>>>>> wickets in that series.
>>>>
>
> my memory [bad as it is] is that colly was more all rounder in the odi
> scene,

Yes, definitely

> at least i remember he did the allrounder 100/5wkt thing in a
> odi during the ashes summer 2005, although actually it was against
> some other team, i think the bangles, he destroyed them!

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/natwest-series-2005-207164/england-vs-bangladesh-4th-match-211579/full-scorecard

112* and 6/31 - still the only player to make a century and take 6
wickets in an ODI. 2 others have made 100 and taken 5 wickets - Viv
Richards v NZ at Dunedin in 1986/87, and Rohan Mustafa for UAE v PNG at
Abu Dhabi in 2016/17.

It's also one of only two occasions when England's 6th bowler has taken
5+ wickets in an ODI. The other was Graeme Hick's 5-33 v Zimbabwe at
Harare in 1999/2000; he was run out for 80, so not far off the 100/5w
himself.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-zimbabwe-1999-00-61739/zimbabwe-vs-england-3rd-odi-64652/full-scorecard

--
David North

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 11:29:07 AM UTC+11, mike wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 11:32:17 AM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > On 12/12/2021 06:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
> > >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
> > >>>> natural to compare them.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
> > >>> that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
> > >>> for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
> > >>> wickets in that series.
> > >>
> my memory [bad as it is] is that colly was more all rounder in the odi
> scene,

Yeah, bowled in about 3/4 of the ODIs he played
Took 111 wickets @ 38 er 4.96
Averaged almost 6 overs in the innings he bowled in.

>at least i remember he did the allrounder 100/5wkt thing in a
> odi during the ashes summer 2005, although actually it was against
> some other team, i think the bangles, he destroyed them! as he was
> a regular bowler i think in the odi side, its surprising perhaps he bowled
> so little in tests.

You're a lot more likely to do ok as a medium paced dibbly dobler in one dayers than tests.
A test economy rate of 3.2 and strike rate of 112 suggests that he wasn't really effective at doing anything at test level.
Didn't really keep things tight, didn't take wickets.

>i guess we must have a pretty good attack back then not
> to need him much.

On 14/12/2021 10:38, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 11:29:07 AM UTC+11, mike wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 11:32:17 AM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 06:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:55:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:31:44 +0000, David North
>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/12/2021 21:38, John Hall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My logic was that Collingwood and Stokes are the all-rounders, so it's
>>>>>>> natural to compare them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Collingwood's bowling had much significance in Tests at
>>>>>> that stage. Since the start of the 2008 season, he had taken 1 wicket
>>>>>> for 332 in 30 Tests before the 2010/11 series, although he did take 2
>>>>>> wickets in that series.
>>>>>
>> my memory [bad as it is] is that colly was more all rounder in the odi
>> scene,
>
> Yeah, bowled in about 3/4 of the ODIs he played
> Took 111 wickets @ 38 er 4.96
> Averaged almost 6 overs in the innings he bowled in.
>
>> at least i remember he did the allrounder 100/5wkt thing in a
>> odi during the ashes summer 2005, although actually it was against
>> some other team, i think the bangles, he destroyed them! as he was
>> a regular bowler i think in the odi side, its surprising perhaps he bowled
>> so little in tests.
>
> You're a lot more likely to do ok as a medium paced dibbly dobler in one dayers than tests.

.... and you're likely to get more chance, as the first four bowlers can
only bowl 4/5 of the overs.

--
David North