View Full Version : Bell or collingwood?
Seeing collingwood outscored Bell in the second dig against the Patron's XI, and Bell's fantastic form carrying over from the Ashes- maybe the Poms need a new #4, so their Black Hole doesn't widen any more....
How many Test matches do you give him to prove himself...he showed he could not handle spin on decks designed to stop spin- and he'll get spin all over the place now
Grimwood
2 Nov 2005, 21:18
Seeing collingwood outscored Bell in the second dig against the Patron's XI, and Bell's fantastic form carrying over from the Ashes- maybe the Poms need a new #4, so their Black Hole doesn't widen any more....
How many Test matches do you give him to prove himself...he showed he could not handle spin on decks designed to stop spin- and he'll get spin all over the place now
Niether look stunning at the moment but I'd stick with Bell myself, there's no point in chopping and changing. However I wish you wouldn't keep describing the Ashes decks as being designed to stop spin, they weren't bunsens but they were far more sporting than you give them credit for.
Sidey_87
2 Nov 2005, 21:19
Seeing collingwood outscored Bell in the second dig against the Patron's XI, and Bell's fantastic form carrying over from the Ashes- maybe the Poms need a new #4, so their Black Hole doesn't widen any more....
How many Test matches do you give him to prove himself...he showed he could not handle spin on decks designed to stop spin- and he'll get spin all over the place now
Very good call, you could even look past Collingwood to find a better bat than bell, Scotty Newman from surrey musn't be far away.
Niether look stunning at the moment but I'd stick with Bell myself, there's no point in chopping and changing. However I wish you wouldn't keep describing the Ashes decks as being designed to stop spin, they weren't bunsens but they were far more sporting than you give them credit for.
Well, I don't think you can have pitches in England that don't give spin...nature of their conditions- but the reports during the series were that the groundsmen did everything possible to stop warne and make the pitches work for the English quicks.
There is nothing wrong with that- it is what you call home field advantage
Grimwood
2 Nov 2005, 21:36
Well, I don't think you can have pitches in England that don't give spin...nature of their conditions- but the reports during the series were that the groundsmen did everything possible to stop warne and make the pitches work for the English quicks.
There is nothing wrong with that- it is what you call home field advantage
Obviously England weren't going to produce pitches for Warne but I'd say OT and Edgbaston took spin pretty well so I wouldn't say the groundsmen did "everything possible to stop Warne"... despite Foxsports deciding to come up with pitch doctoring bollocks.
Anyway, if Collingwood and Bell both have dismal winters then I could see Shah, Joyce or Key coming into the England team next summer; Joyce especially does a good Thorpe impression.
eddiesmith
2 Nov 2005, 21:40
******** Key off forever
Collingwood should have always been in the side, always been a big fan of his
Collingwood > Watson
And usalion, did you expect us to produce an SCG raging turner so Australia could play MacGill and Warne? Come on, the pitches werent doctored, they were sensational test strips that except for rain and light probably would have produced 5 results
Grimwood
2 Nov 2005, 21:55
I'm not a great Key fan either but he scores enough runs to stay in the picture and he's already had some some experience at test level. Personally I think they should just stick with Bell unless he really has to be dropped and then turn to Collingwood. I do like Joyce though..
It's a shame Thorpe isn't 3 years younger really, slot KP in at 4 and Thorpie at 5 and we'd be made.
******** Key off forever
Collingwood should have always been in the side, always been a big fan of his
Collingwood > Watson
And usalion, did you expect us to produce an SCG raging turner so Australia could play MacGill and Warne? Come on, the pitches werent doctored, they were sensational test strips that except for rain and light probably would have produced 5 results
Did I say there was anything wrong, eddie? England have the home field edge- you better set your pitches to suit your team and blunt the opposition...that is what cricket is about.
And the topic was Collingwood and bell, so why bring Watson into it?
My question is- is Bell better for England or Collingwood? Do you give Bell the chance to settle in or drop him? Putting a valid question to the board....
Where is this idea of the England black hole coming from?
Two matches ago we were celebrating winning the Ashes. :D And one game, which England won, on a minefield of a pitch that even Bob Woolmer was complaining about and both sides struggled to bat on, that won't be anything like the test pitches and England have a black hole?
Give me strength.
And as for this game proving England are bad players of spin, well, England lost precisely ONE wicket (that wasn't even out) in this match to spin bowlers.
For the record, Bell in for me. I don't rate Collingwood as test material.
Ray Nolan
3 Nov 2005, 08:31
Bell. This is all part of the learning curve for him.
Bell needs to be played, hes young and has the ability to become a decent batsmen, i dont think people on these boards understand that creating a batsmen at test level takes time and yes Bell failed in England but he is still young and learning at Test Level. England are aiming to create Bell into another great English batsmen, it will just take time, no point playing Collingwood, he should be left for the One day arena. I thought You, usalion would understand it takes time to create players at Test level, exactly what the Australian team is going through at the moment.
eddiesmith
3 Nov 2005, 10:16
Did I say there was anything wrong, eddie? England have the home field edge- you better set your pitches to suit your team and blunt the opposition...that is what cricket is about.
And the topic was Collingwood and bell, so why bring Watson into it?
My question is- is Bell better for England or Collingwood? Do you give Bell the chance to settle in or drop him? Putting a valid question to the board....
Bringing Watson up was reference to the previous poster saying we only have the 1 test all rounder, well atleast we have atleast 2 all rounders better than the Aussies
corporal
3 Nov 2005, 10:23
Bringing Watson up was reference to the previous poster saying we only have the 1 test all rounder, well atleast we have atleast 2 all rounders better than the Aussies
Could you Kindy post Collingwoods test allround stats?
I'm sure they will be impressive if you are touting Collingwood as being a Test allrounder
I never realise his 120mph medium pace was so deadly in a 5 day match
Never the less he is a solid bat with a good temperament. Good technique against spin.
eddiesmith
3 Nov 2005, 10:24
Could you Kindy post Collingwoods test allround stats?
I'm sure they will be impressive if you are touting Collingwood as being a Test allrounder
I never realise his 120mph medium pace was so deadly in a 5 day match
Never the less he is a solid bat with a good temperament. Good technique against spin.
He is a much better player than Watson, his bowling is more dangerous than Watsons Lee impersonations but with no movement
Freo Big Fella
3 Nov 2005, 11:22
Collingwood, Bell's a squib.
Johnson#26
3 Nov 2005, 18:46
Collingwood all the way.
Nel Mangle
3 Nov 2005, 19:36
gotta be collingwood..
-decent batsman
-excellent fielder
-useful bowler
-can lift team-mates with his fielding and his personality
Bell is just boring quiet ******** who melts under the pressure.
If Bell doesnt do something in this series he can f'ck off back to county cricket for a while.
ManWithNoName
3 Nov 2005, 20:05
Bell. This is all part of the learning curve for him.
What, where he learns how to bat?