England v Australia 2010 June 25, 2010

Bullish Collingwood basks in England dominance

Cricinfo staff
69

Confidence is surging through the veins of England's cricketers both on and off the field as they sit with a 2-0 series lead over Australia. Paul Collingwood, who became his country's leading one-day runscorer during the victory at Cardiff, called for the team to "go hard" before this series started and had no qualms about spelling out where the balance of power now lay.

"We're confident every time we go out and play Australia. It's not arrogance. We are now confident we can beat anyone in one-day cricket on any given day," he said. "If you look at Australia's record over the last year or so they still have that air of invincibility, because they haven't lost many games. But we are the better side at the moment."

The side that Collingwood debuted in during the 2001 season lost all six matches in the NatWest Series against Australia and Pakistan - just one many limited-overs debacles - but this current unit are a far cry from the callow one-day teams that England have often fielded. They have now stitched together a seven-game winning streak which is their longest since 1997-98 and are on the verge of gaining revenge for last summer's 6-1 hammering against Australia which followed the Ashes.

Collingwood's new-found aggression with the bat matches England's 'no fear' approach to the one-day game which began at last year's Champions Trophy, continued through South Africa and culminated in winning the World Twenty20 in West Indies last month.

"After they hammered us last year we all thought we had to do something about it. We are a much better team now," said Collingwood. "But we want to be the best one-day side in the world and we want to win the World Cup next year - and as we stand, we are a long way down in the rankings."

Collingwood's ascent to become England's leading one-day runscorer after surpassing Alec Stewart during his 48 on Thursday is yet to fully sink in for him. He now holds England's runs and caps record having overtaken Stewart's appearance mark last year, something few would have imagined when he barely made an impression during his debut series.

"It was a huge surprise to me when they announced it on the tannoy - and I think there were quite a few Australians out there who were even more surprised than me," said Collingwood. "It put a smile on my face. To know you have scored more runs in one-day cricket than any other Englishman is a lovely feeling."

Collingwood's innings, which formed an important stand alongside Eoin Morgan as England chased down 240, was his first significant score of the season after he sat out the Bangladesh Test series as part of the squad rotation policy following the World Twenty20. He made a scratchy 11 in the opening game at The Rose Bowl and was beginning to fret over the need to make a contribution.

"I've felt a bit rusty so far this summer," he said. "I went into the match at Cardiff thinking 'I need to start playing well again, I need a bit of confidence'.

"Then they announced I'd broken Stewie's record and I thought to myself 'why do you worry so much?' Alec Stewart was a great player, and sometimes you have to pinch yourself to believe that you're playing for England - let alone overtaking someone like him.

"It's all a bit surreal at times. I was thinking 'surely not me?' I knew I had overtaken Stewie's number of appearances - but his runs? Are you kidding me?"

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 27, 2010, 17:42 GMT

    Snowsnake. Since when has NEW SOUTH WALES been in the UK??? That's interesting. Poor Aussies - no wonder they keep losing matches - they have to travel the length of the globe to go to school. There's a reason there's a New on the beginning of that.

  • SnowSnake on June 27, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    I am writing this after England won the series 3-0. I think rather than saying "England can beat anyone." Colly should say "Anyone can beat Australia." If England's batting is bad then Australia's is worse. If England's balling is good then Australia is better. The teams were closely matched than anyone would care to admit. While England is winning, it is not dominating. This means that the world does not have a dominating ODI team, but 10 dominated teams.

  • SnowSnake on June 27, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding. Fair enough. However, the word UK was introduced in 1801 (may be United States played a role here). In 1707 it was know as only Kingdom of Great Britain. As a result, it is fair to say US got freedom from England (1776) and India got freedom from UK (1947). My major mistake in my previous post was to say new South Wales as a part of UK when I should have said Wales, since NSW is in Australia.

  • CrinIndiaFan on June 27, 2010, 16:00 GMT

    wanderer1 --> if India is winning only on flat pitches ... wondering why Australia / England / South Africa loose on the same flat pitches playing India ... oh I know why ... cause they can't even play on flat pitches .. lol

  • YorkshirePudding on June 27, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    SnowSnake, I hvae to correct you on one thing, the UK is not copying the US in regards to seperate laws, in fact Scotalnd had its own legal system when the crown united in the early 17th century, and even after the act of union in 1707, Scotland had its own legal process, and laws, though there were a number of simularities there are still differences for example in Scottish law there are three possible verdicts Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven, in english law there are only two verdicts, Guilty and not Guilty. Scottish Property Law is also different to english law. By comparisson the US wasnt an indepentant nation until 1776, some 70 years later, and as far as im aware there were only 16 states anyway, all east coast, so im not sure where you get the fact that the UK is copying the US.

  • on June 27, 2010, 8:43 GMT

    For Colly to claim such things, first England should play better teams. Forget the numbers, I agree that England do not play a lot of ODIs. Also leave where Morgan, KP, Keiswetter are from. But all the past year, you have played only South Africa, Bangladesh and a half strenght Australian team (except when there is a lot of politics and chaos within ACB, please don expect Clint McKay to touch the new ball). I know you are a better team with the inclusion of some new players. But, you haven't even faced Australia's fastest crop of pace bowlers. You haven't faced subcontinent's toughest spin battery. Even in the Ashes, a lot (frankly a lot) of decisions did not go in Aussie's favour both in 2005 and in 2009. Just because they are maintaining decency, does not mean that the world did not notice all of this. We did not care because Ashes means nothing for us. Better say things like "we can beat Bangladesh anywhere, anytime". You have every right to say that and only that, as of now.

  • on June 27, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    Andrew Simonds was born in Sheffeild.

  • zxaar on June 26, 2010, 22:36 GMT

    @landl47 "England play far fewer ODIs than other countries. Collingwood has played in 179 ODIs, whereas, for example, Jayasuriya has played in 444 and Tendulkar in 442." -------------- what you are saying is correct but examples are wrong. For example both jayasurya and sachin has played ver 20 years of international cricket where as colly has not. So you should compare odi/year not the total. I think the difference in odis played by england and other teams is not so much. It is there as you say but it is not large. Further if england does not play odis then they should be playing more tests, i can hardly see any Englishman at top of tests run scoring list.

  • domgriffiths on June 26, 2010, 21:25 GMT

    @Bilal Yousuf - don't be so surprised that there is no England player with over 5000 runs. They don't play 73 ODIs every year.

  • bobmartin on June 26, 2010, 20:20 GMT

    I don't think the Aussies should be giving too much voice to this 'born overseas' player nonsense. After all, they now have, of all things, a Welsh born lady as Prime Minister. To put things on a more serious level, are all the whingers about foreign born players in the England team really serious when they suggest that players should only be allowed to represent the country they were born in. That would suggest that even though these people are British citizens and have British passports, they don't have the same rights as other British citizens simply due to an accident of birth in that they were born overseas. Wouldn't that be a violation of their human and citizen's rights.

  • on June 27, 2010, 17:42 GMT

    Snowsnake. Since when has NEW SOUTH WALES been in the UK??? That's interesting. Poor Aussies - no wonder they keep losing matches - they have to travel the length of the globe to go to school. There's a reason there's a New on the beginning of that.

  • SnowSnake on June 27, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    I am writing this after England won the series 3-0. I think rather than saying "England can beat anyone." Colly should say "Anyone can beat Australia." If England's batting is bad then Australia's is worse. If England's balling is good then Australia is better. The teams were closely matched than anyone would care to admit. While England is winning, it is not dominating. This means that the world does not have a dominating ODI team, but 10 dominated teams.

  • SnowSnake on June 27, 2010, 16:47 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding. Fair enough. However, the word UK was introduced in 1801 (may be United States played a role here). In 1707 it was know as only Kingdom of Great Britain. As a result, it is fair to say US got freedom from England (1776) and India got freedom from UK (1947). My major mistake in my previous post was to say new South Wales as a part of UK when I should have said Wales, since NSW is in Australia.

  • CrinIndiaFan on June 27, 2010, 16:00 GMT

    wanderer1 --> if India is winning only on flat pitches ... wondering why Australia / England / South Africa loose on the same flat pitches playing India ... oh I know why ... cause they can't even play on flat pitches .. lol

  • YorkshirePudding on June 27, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    SnowSnake, I hvae to correct you on one thing, the UK is not copying the US in regards to seperate laws, in fact Scotalnd had its own legal system when the crown united in the early 17th century, and even after the act of union in 1707, Scotland had its own legal process, and laws, though there were a number of simularities there are still differences for example in Scottish law there are three possible verdicts Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven, in english law there are only two verdicts, Guilty and not Guilty. Scottish Property Law is also different to english law. By comparisson the US wasnt an indepentant nation until 1776, some 70 years later, and as far as im aware there were only 16 states anyway, all east coast, so im not sure where you get the fact that the UK is copying the US.

  • on June 27, 2010, 8:43 GMT

    For Colly to claim such things, first England should play better teams. Forget the numbers, I agree that England do not play a lot of ODIs. Also leave where Morgan, KP, Keiswetter are from. But all the past year, you have played only South Africa, Bangladesh and a half strenght Australian team (except when there is a lot of politics and chaos within ACB, please don expect Clint McKay to touch the new ball). I know you are a better team with the inclusion of some new players. But, you haven't even faced Australia's fastest crop of pace bowlers. You haven't faced subcontinent's toughest spin battery. Even in the Ashes, a lot (frankly a lot) of decisions did not go in Aussie's favour both in 2005 and in 2009. Just because they are maintaining decency, does not mean that the world did not notice all of this. We did not care because Ashes means nothing for us. Better say things like "we can beat Bangladesh anywhere, anytime". You have every right to say that and only that, as of now.

  • on June 27, 2010, 4:08 GMT

    Andrew Simonds was born in Sheffeild.

  • zxaar on June 26, 2010, 22:36 GMT

    @landl47 "England play far fewer ODIs than other countries. Collingwood has played in 179 ODIs, whereas, for example, Jayasuriya has played in 444 and Tendulkar in 442." -------------- what you are saying is correct but examples are wrong. For example both jayasurya and sachin has played ver 20 years of international cricket where as colly has not. So you should compare odi/year not the total. I think the difference in odis played by england and other teams is not so much. It is there as you say but it is not large. Further if england does not play odis then they should be playing more tests, i can hardly see any Englishman at top of tests run scoring list.

  • domgriffiths on June 26, 2010, 21:25 GMT

    @Bilal Yousuf - don't be so surprised that there is no England player with over 5000 runs. They don't play 73 ODIs every year.

  • bobmartin on June 26, 2010, 20:20 GMT

    I don't think the Aussies should be giving too much voice to this 'born overseas' player nonsense. After all, they now have, of all things, a Welsh born lady as Prime Minister. To put things on a more serious level, are all the whingers about foreign born players in the England team really serious when they suggest that players should only be allowed to represent the country they were born in. That would suggest that even though these people are British citizens and have British passports, they don't have the same rights as other British citizens simply due to an accident of birth in that they were born overseas. Wouldn't that be a violation of their human and citizen's rights.

  • wanderer1 on June 26, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    @Shiv Ramesh, not too smart. He's obviously talking about trophies which they possess right now. Not trophies they won 20 years ago.

  • Captain-Swing on June 26, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    it's odd really, I was born in Calcutta but no one thinks that I am an Indian -- it may be something to do with the blue eyes and purple face. In the same way, no one thinks that Gordon Greenidge should have been denied the choice of playing for a great West Indies side rather than a mediocre England one just because he was born in England and learned his cricket here. I think, just so long as you are qualified and have a strong attachment (ancestry or whatever) to the country you play for, that's fair enough.

  • wanderer1 on June 26, 2010, 13:52 GMT

    AT LEAST ENGLAND COMPETE AND WIN AWAY FROM HOME. The same can't be said about the Indian team who hold the most artificially derived Number 1 spot in cricket history. Because of the financial power of the BCCI they can play the majority of their matches at home or in the sub-continent against Sri Lanka and Bangladesh on FLAT PITCHES and win easy games. Whey they have to play AWAY series they get found out again and again. Heck even Pakistan seem to be more competitive on bouncy pitches than India. Once India is forced to play away series because of the FTP their rankings will drop dramatically, why do you think the BCCI is arranging all these home Test series, to artificially keep the top spot. THE BEST TEST TEAM IS SOUTH AFRICA who have won plenty of away series over the past 2 years and play all teams home AND AWAY.

  • 2.14istherunrate on June 26, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    I do not know what planet those who keep talking about the South Africans etc in the England team are from. The facts are that historically because this was a great seafaring nation we have had influence the globewide and had an empire for a while. Former parts of that empire still looked to this country for ages after the empire was finished and still do. There is a very long list of players who were born outside UK, as well as quite a few children of commonwealth immigrants here. We have a five year residential qualification period and aspiring England players have to pass that part of the test.including Trott, K'wetter.To strengthen their case, the South Africans have without exception,d'Oliveira to Trott, been highly successful players, with great stats. To be honest if you want to find 'pure 'bred English the nearest thing are the descendants of the ancient Britons,mostly pushed back to Anglesey. Bascally we are a mongrel race of Celts, Saxons Normans, Romans etc. Live with it.

  • SnowSnake on June 26, 2010, 12:38 GMT

    Hiteshdevillers: Your first statement may be technically right. UK consists of several countries: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, New South Wales. So a player from Northern Ireland may be considered not English. After all Scotland is allowed to have a cricket team of their own. Also, England team fans rarely use UK flag. The strange thing is that people from all of these countries hold British passport. England tried to copy what US was-- independent states each with their own laws. However, instead of calling each region a state they called them a country. So now you have people who belong to different countries, but all are British citizens. This causes a lot of confusion.

  • landl47 on June 26, 2010, 12:08 GMT

    @Bilal Yousuf: check the numbers and you will see that the reason the top English rungetter doesn't have 5.000 runs is because England play far fewer ODIs than other countries. Collingwood has played in 179 ODIs, whereas, for example, Jayasuriya has played in 444 and Tendulkar in 442. Multiply Colly's numbers by 2 1/2 to compare apples with apples and Colly would have about 11,700 runs. His numbers still don't compare with those two (who are two of the greatest one-day players of all time) but it's unreasonable to expect English players to put up big numbers when they play so many fewer games. Tendulkar has only 22,000 first class runs compared with Jack Hobbs 61,000, but that's because Hobbs played 3 times as many games- it's the same comparison.

  • whippersnapper on June 26, 2010, 12:07 GMT

    Why do these players go to England to play international cricket? Because it's obviously a lot easier to get a game. (I'm not talking about Strauss or Prior either) Australia can continuously churn out quality homegrown players and the Poms can't. You don't see any South African players trying their hand here. Not that they wouldn't be welcome. (Wessels played for Oz when South Africa were still banned from international sport and Khawaja a similar situation to Strauss and Prior) The less talented English domestic competition would be a much more attractive option. The imported players have played so well recently it begs the question "where would the English team be right now without them?" Oh, and Australia aren't the worst sledgers, they're the best!

  • ThirteenthMan on June 26, 2010, 11:43 GMT

    So we have SA born players in the England team. Kepler Wessels was a well know Aussie from Bloemfontein. He played for SA & Oz.

    To be fair to the Aussies, they no longer pick their Brummie.

  • since7 on June 26, 2010, 11:39 GMT

    things are going well but england need a plan b for the subcontinental world cup.They need a valuable replacement for swann.and I wish rashid is brought back,,he is a leggie and can bat too,a perfect foil for indian wickets.but I am scared with the prospect of the "great english media" going haywhire as usual.english media is the narrow minded,biased media in the whole cricketing world and i wish they dont hype the wins so far too much and then in an action of self-defence attack english players later

  • since7 on June 26, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    The most important reason I feel for their turnaround is that england have started to respect this form of cricket more and their new found aggression.nowhere its manifested more than their 5 bowlers strategy..coming from a team which "revolutionalised" the concept of bits and pieces cricketers who werent sure of their roles,this is surprising..more so with teams like india persisting with the idiom that "bowlers are to contain and not to attack".Also the resurgence of morgan and kieswetter.watching cook,bell and co open showed english callousness more than anything else.It wasnt that they werent fit for this form of cricket but it seemd like england were too lazy to find an opener suited for this form

  • livinproof on June 26, 2010, 11:03 GMT

    More words from Collingwood. A full strength England side playing at home should surely beat an Australia ODI line up without Haddin, Ferguson, Lee, Johnson, Siddle, or Hilfenhaus and now Hauritz. Thinking that beating them twice means England can beat any side, anywhere displays illusions of grandeur. Posters labelling anyone who challenges England's policy of recruiting other country's Under 19 reps/first class players with big money County offers as racist are laughable. If the ECB were producing quality young players that were enticed by other major cricketing nations in similar circumstances their perspectives would surely be different. Then again, if the ECB were producing quality young players we wouldn't be having the debate in the first place.

  • indoorminer on June 26, 2010, 10:57 GMT

    The anti-English stance here is breathtaking. Yes, I have issues with amount of SA players in Eng team (though you really can't include Strauss in that), but no-one seemed interested when Eng were losing! Collingwood has only said "We are now confident we can beat anyone in one-day cricket on any given day" which is surely preferable to saying "we go on the fleld expecting to lose". It's nice to see an Eng team going on the cricket pitch and not just rolling over. They're playing good cricket and I for one am enjoying it. No Eng player scored over 5000 ODI runs? Is that such a surprise seeing Eng have played far fewer ODI's than the likes of India over the years. And as Eng haven't very good at it either, it's even less of a surprise! "England have to realise that 20/20 and One day cricket is very different from test cricket" said Cook. Doh! I think they realise that. But remember Eng beat Aussies in Ashes last year. I think they'll lose them in winter, but here's to a good series.

  • Thecricketgenious on June 26, 2010, 10:35 GMT

    @ jonesy2 is these games are meaningless what has happened to the austrailian win everything attitude?

  • ebbie-qld on June 26, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    Tayles 100 . Have a look a the comments and you will see most of the Pom bashing related to "foreign" players is not from Aussies but from the Sub Continent or England. Congratultions to England for their confident wins so far in the series. A well balanced side of bowlers and batsmen make a very good side and England at this moment are doing well. Hopefully when Aussie are back to full strength they will give the Poms a run for their money. Collingwood and his boys have the confidence at this moment and if people percieve this as arrogance so be it. There is NOTHING WRONG (not arrogance) with a very high level of confidence when on a winning streak (Aussies for the last 15 years) Tayles , just wondering, haven't the Aussies being on the slide since 2005? It must be a vey long slippery dip, to be only on a level playing field just now.

  • TheDoctor394 on June 26, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    I just can't get over this constant critisism of England having "foreign" players in their side. Sporting sides around the world are full of players from different countries. Looking at soccer/football, the current Australian team has a Ukrainian and Yugoslavian in its current squad, as well as being coached by a Dutchman. And, of course, many other countries have Australian-born players in their sides. I could name a few foreign "Australians" representing them in swimming, gymnastics and tennis as well, just to name a few. In fact, it wasn't long ago there was an article in the paper about this country considering making it easier and quicker for foreigners to become Australian citizens, so they could represent them at the 2010 Commonwealth Games! Yes, the English cricket team has players from various countries. But they are hardly alone in such matters.

  • on June 26, 2010, 9:46 GMT

    THIS IS A SAME OLD STORY ....EXCTLY 2 YEARS BACK THIS SAME ENGLAND SIDE AFTER BEATING SOUTH AFRICA IN AN ODI SERIES JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THEY MORE FOCCUSSED ON ODI AND WANT B THE BEST SIDE IN THE WORLD.BUT WHAT HAPPENNED AFTER THAT ...AUSTRALIA DONT HAVE A GOOD BOWLING LINE UP THERE IS NO JHONSON,LEE,HELFI,NOW HAURITZ ALSO GONE SO ENGLAND CANT BOAST ANYTHING BY WINNING THIS SERIES

  • ando88 on June 26, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    Lol....geez, I wouldn't call it dominance. They've won a couple of ODIs, haven't even yet sealed the series. Playing good cricket for sure, and it's refreshing to see because there aren't enough good teams in the game at the moment. They haven't even put a year of this together yet though, and the opposition they're playing at the moment? Not exactly a full strength engine room. Got some work to do before they can earn the "dominant" tag.

  • Benj500 on June 26, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    Why does this race issue always come up when talking about England now? Have we suddenly jumped back 50 years? Okay lets look at the South African list of names on the sheet... De Villiers, Smith, Hashim Amla... these are all African names are they? If you qualify to play for a country and want to play for them then that's it, end of story.

  • on June 26, 2010, 8:53 GMT

    People that don't live in this country [England] fail to reolise that we have so many cultures and creeds that still consider themselves to be English. I know so many South African, Indian and Pakistani people that consider the English team as their first love and would only ever consider playing for England given the choice. Its really not an issue anywhere else but when the English cricket team is playing well and other countries baffled fans start to stir. Get over it, enoy the cricket, try not to get your asses kicked off us next time.

  • cook on June 26, 2010, 7:29 GMT

    England have to realise that 20/20 and One day cricket is very different from test cricket. Many players from the Aussie side playing in this current series won't be playing in the Ashes.

  • Tayles_100 on June 26, 2010, 7:22 GMT

    This whole issue of where a player was born is surely irrelevant. Pietersen, Trott, Morgan and Kieswetter have played their adult cricket in the English county circuit. What's more they are British citizens, regardless of what their accents sound like.

    Australia is a country of immigrants, so I can't see why Aussies in particular get so upset about the idea of people moving to England and playing for their new country. Frankly, it's borderline racist. I suspect it's because they don't really want anyone challenging their position on top of the tree.

    The truth is, however, Australia are on their way down as a side. That's not a partisan criticism - it's just an observation based on their recent form and the current make up of the team. Let's face it, once Ponting retires there will be no 'greats' left in the side. It'll be sad to see a once-great team reduced to an also-ran, but all great reigns must one day come to an end.

  • jackiethepen on June 26, 2010, 7:13 GMT

    Colly has been an aggressive batsman for a long time. The ODI team under him as captain had a long winning streak also. The media did a disservice to England when it chased him out of the captaincy by vilification after his NZ game backlash. Despite the fact that NZ itself had gained a wicket in a similar manner against Sri Lanka, and India against England in T20, they made Colly into a villain. Colly himself has spoken about how depressed he was. As for 'callow' one day sides? You mean the England that beat India in a seven match Series 2007, that beat Sri Lanka on home turf for the first time ever 2007, that beat Australia and NZ in the tri-partite Series in Australia 2007, that beat South Africa 4-0 2008? It is typical that the media ignore history to make a story. Ian Bell and Colly were the core of those games. Bell was another player hounded out of the side by the media. The side Flower selected for the Australia 6-1 drubbing was the weakest for many years. Backed by the media!

  • zxaar on June 26, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    "ndian fans write crap because they have a team of so called superstars who never win major competitions. At the end of the day it is about trophies in the cabinet and we have the T20 WC and the Ashes in the Locker" --------------- thats the only trophy you have where all the nations play. Ashes is only played by two teams and 80% of people do not even care about it. It does not even hold a value of dime in the part of world where i live. Further about indian superstars, they do not win tourneys but they have won the trophy you have in cabinet plus many more. If they are cr*p, you know where that put your team at. When i thinkof england two figures come to mind 5 - 0 (these cr*p superstars kinda humiliated this world beater english team).

  • on June 26, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    @Vasu - I dont know in which world do you live! Aussies dont talk??? LOL LOL LOL. They are the worst sledgers on the field. And they are the biggest mouths when it comes to media bytes. Come on mate, wake up to reality!!!

  • TobyCharles on June 26, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    I wish you would all stop with this pathetic racism towards the england team. Kieswetter and Pietersen are half south african half english, and by english law (like so many of your contemporaries) settled in england and gained citizenship. Would you have made such a fuss about Nasser Hussain? born in india? Owais shah born in pakistan? no. England is a multicultural country, and people do come and settle from other countries. Kieswetter and Pietersen BOTH learnt their cricket in england, kieswetter at the famous millfield school and pietersen at nottinghamshire then for a short period hampshire. Strauss and Prior were both born in joburg only because of parents work commitments and holiday respectively. As for morgan, he is as english as any of the said players above - he learnt his cricket at middlesex, settled in england, began to perform under our excellent system, and achieved the national team. All this "South africa XI, world XI" is racist crap, get over it you pathetic people.

  • on June 26, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    Highest run scoring Englishman in ODI, and what has he made 4693 only? :s I cant believe this! No englishmen has ever reached 5000 ODI runs? Thats unbelievable!

  • kaigvgv on June 26, 2010, 5:54 GMT

    i agree with "Ramachandran Tharmarajah" i dont feel right questioning foreign players in england team. @Talbots I dont know why you pointed out indian fans but most of indians fans including me welcomed the new england team winning twenty20..i enjoyed england winning against australia as much as u guys..In regard of ur superstars comment..i dont want to comment just coz england have same problem in football..if not in cricket ..do i have to remind that..Sport is not followed by trophies ..its followed by passion !!

  • jonesy2 on June 26, 2010, 5:25 GMT

    i love how the poms win a couple of meaningless games that australia quite frankly didnt turn up to and now all of a sudden they are awesome at cricket. hilerious. VASU MAHALINGAM you are spot on.

  • Hammond on June 26, 2010, 5:24 GMT

    I love how everyone is concentrating on where people are born rather than the cricket. What the hell does "Pure English" mean anyway? Are people going mad? Does that mean Shahzad is less "English" than Broad? It all sounds rather sinister to me. Fact is all the ENGLAND players have to be citizens of the United Kingdom. And they all qualify over 5 years by learning their first class cricket in England in county cricket. So they are playing English cricket in England year in and year out. Unlike in Australia where we grab anyone who can box, play tennis, or compete in the Olympics for us after 6 months of living here. So by definition the team is only comprised of English nationals. Some of this "Pure English" talk sounds like stuff you read about in Mein Kampf. If the players hold a British passport, live, bring up families and play cricket in England, then they are English. Full stop.

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2010, 5:19 GMT

    @Hitesh, correct Morgan is Irish and was born in the republic, however, after the division of Ireland in the 1920's, special dispensation was given to Irish citizens in regards to working in the UK, this extended to cricket. The rules in the ECB state a player has to be a British or Irish passport holder to qualify...As far as colly's remarks go, all hes said is on thier day England can beat anyone, he didnt say they were he best in the world and unbeatable.

  • on June 26, 2010, 5:15 GMT

    Man man man! Stop being so pathetic guys, if a team is doing well then just appreciate the fact that yes they are playing well, England side looks alot stronger than any of the English side, they have the right batsmen (Morgan, Pietersen, Collingwood and Strauss), right bowlers (Swann, Broad and James Anderson) to lead them to the No. 1 spot in ODIs. And they certainly look a better team than the Aussies in this series!

  • vichan on June 26, 2010, 5:14 GMT

    "If that's what you think take a look at the head-to-heads and see who has got bragging rights. ODI, Tests and Twenty20. Tell me who has got the bragging rights?" - Ponting when asked if England now hold the bragging rights. I think Punter might be losing the plot, because surely England DO hold the bragging rights if they win one more match in this ODI series? Unless he is considering the entire history of cricket, in which case it is sounding pretty desperate...

  • vichan on June 26, 2010, 4:54 GMT

    @Ban_La who said "they won ONE world tournament so far in 100 years' of their cricket history"... Please do remember that one day crickets and its myriad of cups and trophies is a relatively new invention in cricketing history. Backdating of the Test rankings shows that England were World Test Champions in: 1877-97, 1904-06, 1912-1920, 1929-30, 1933-34, 1953-59, 1970-73 and 1979-80. For the sake of comparison South Africa, the fourth most successful team historically, have been the Top Dog in: 1969, 1999-2000, 2009. Only Australia, England and the West Indies have even held that title for more than one consecutive year. England has easily the second best record in Test cricket after Australia, so to say that their T20 World Cup triumph is the only time they have been any good at the game betrays a lack of knowledge of its glorious history.

  • v_singh on June 26, 2010, 4:50 GMT

    Colly deserves all the attention and glory he is getting. Recall he also had to face Aussie taunts of Colly MBE during 2007 Ashes. Right now, Colly is playing very well and it was great to see English team win under his captaincy. He has his name inscribed in record books (for getting Eng. 1st Limited overs world tournament trophy) of English cricket and he knows it and he sure must be enjoying it. I am an Indian and watched him during IPL-3 for Delhi. One thing that you can say about him is he gives his maximum in every game - Boycott even seems to have started liking him :)

  • ACK11 on June 26, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    I don't understand what is the fuss about players from other countries playing for England. I guess it is pure jealousy and whining to undermine England's achievements. This is a professional sport and everybody does their job with utmost sincerity. If you had to be so pure then why not get an Indian to do the jobs like Coach, Mental Conditioning Coach & Bowling Consultant for the Indian team. And besides how do you define pure? Does it mean your grand father should have been born here? Or your ancestors should have lived in the country for 2000 years? This is an open world and people will go where opportunities arise. On cricketing front, England need to fix a couple of things. In ODIs, the openers should utilize fielding restrictions and scores hundreds. Cant always expect the middle order to score your runs. So Strauss and Kieswetter need to be more consistent. And they need Flintoff. A fit and firing Flintoff could be very dangerous especially if people around him are performing.

  • on June 26, 2010, 4:02 GMT

    @Talbots - you say "...And Indian fans write crap because they have a team of so called superstars who never win major competitions. At the end of the day it is about trophies in the cabinet and we have the T20 WC and the Ashes in the Locker...". Don't you remember India's wins at the first T20 WC, 1983 World cup, Benson & Hedges cup and VB series against Aus and other world team in Australia...just to name a few. I think you are suffering from selective amnesia. England just won a major int'l competion after how many years??? 100+ yrs or what?

  • on June 26, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    GO ENGLAND GO ROCK ON

    Britz are getting better and better day by day good sign .

  • Bang_La on June 26, 2010, 2:56 GMT

    @ zxaar, please don't be so unkind :) Didn't England show same kind of "confidence" after beating Bangladesh, especially winning the Lords' test? They are confident, no doubt backed by the strong British media. Well, ok, they won ONE world tournament so far in 100 years' of their cricket history. So what. Confidence IS confidence, you know? :)

  • Hiteshdevilliers on June 26, 2010, 2:36 GMT

    @ ghyde7, oh sorry mate. Guess I should have read over my comments before sending it off to be posted. Thing is though I don't live in the UK, I live in New York City. If Morgan was from Northern Ireland, then I suppose I would be correct. Haha if you can, let my blunder pass for this time. Are you a UK resident??

  • Talbots on June 26, 2010, 1:17 GMT

    A win is a win and the only reason England has 3 or 4 SAs is because SA uses the quota system in reaction to Apartheid. And Indian fans write crap because they have a team of so called superstars who never win major competitions. At the end of the day it is about trophies in the cabinet and we have the T20 WC and the Ashes in the Locker...end of!

  • on June 26, 2010, 1:13 GMT

    Collingwood is probably the most important player in that side... Just knowing he's there in the middle, and will stand rock-solid at one end gives the Irish and the South Africans and the other non-English, and last but not the least, the few Englishmen in that side confidence to give the ball a whack... Anyway, at least this time the "World XI" (sometimes referred to as England) is managing to beat the Australians :)

  • on June 26, 2010, 0:18 GMT

    I do not understand why cricket fans are worrying for other nations people playing for England. Questions are comming because England is started to winning. Come on fans, this is globalize world. Any one can play for any country if they want. This is players wish and the that county. Nothing wrong with that. I seen that England is giving that opportunity. They didn't talk until England won that T20 world cup. Please don't critized the England team. The contry England is gave the opportunity for those players. For example if Kevin Petersen didn't get that opportunity, no one knows about KP. What a pleayer to watch his batting.

    Just relax and enjoy the CRICKET....

  • on June 25, 2010, 22:43 GMT

    Common, England and India do the similar talking. Win a few matches and claim they can beat anyone and they are the best. On the other hand, Aussies don't talk but they prove with the bat and the ball that they are the best.

  • on June 25, 2010, 22:36 GMT

    ZOMG!! England have players who were born abroad? Really?? Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure Tony Greig, Basil D'oliveira, Robin Smith, Ranjitsinghi, Chris Smith and Allan Lamb would be appalled to hear it.

  • SnowSnake on June 25, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    Hiteshdevillers, I am not sure why country of origin matters. Are you now going to seperate teams based on their race, religion and caste now? Inadvertantly, you are encouraging segregation. How pity.

  • PatrickJM on June 25, 2010, 22:27 GMT

    Interesting comments from Collingwood. England should win this series after his comments, though it remains to be seen just how good the team is, particularly considering they are at "full-strength" and playing against a severely-understrength side with only one or two batsmen in form. Clarke, an integral part of the Aussie side, has been abysmal for the last 6 months. My major queries are with the make-up of the side (too many non-English players,even accounting for "geo-politics"), the inevitable slump in form Morgan will experience, and also the fact they play with essentially six bowlers and five batsmen. I reckon they are peaking too early for the WC, and a certain SR Tendulkar in his back yard may have a say in their challenge.

  • ghyde7 on June 25, 2010, 21:53 GMT

    Hiteshdevilliers, please try to know what you are talking about... "and the latest premier middle order batsmen is Irish (though at least he is from the UK"; Eoin Morgan is not from the UK. The country he is from has not been part of the UK for nearly 90 years now. That's enough time for people to get used to new geo-political realities, don't you think?

  • domgriffiths on June 25, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    @Keith Fletcher I like the use of your "etc." in your list of great players. It kind of waters down the point you were trying to make. Are you the Keith Fletcher of Essex and England? Anyway, whether Alec Stewart was a "great" player or not is beside the point. The article is about Collingwood, his positive attitude and his sackful of runs. Don't be miserly old chap.

  • zxaar on June 25, 2010, 21:15 GMT

    typical english, win one or two matches and think we are world beaters. colly enjoy while it lasts, i am sure you are not even sure of next odi against this second string aussie team.

  • Hiteshdevilliers on June 25, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    I am awaiting the day when a "pure" English team will top limited overs cricket. The team captain is South African, the star player is South African, both first choice keepers are South African, and the latest premier middle order batsmen is Irish (though at least he is from the UK, and unlike Ireland, South Africa are a test playing nation). Now I understand that a few of the names mentioned above have committed to England since their youth, but still there's always that mark of South African on the team. Nonetheless, England deserve all the accolades they get. They are playing as a unit and the results are showing. It would be interesting to see though how the contest would have been if Australia's first choice bowlers were playing. Can't wait to see Shaun Tait at Old Trafford!!

  • Jimlad on June 25, 2010, 20:23 GMT

    Sanjiyan, its Ireland, and this is the benefit we have of having an open and multicultural society. if we have to cope with the downsides of immigration we are sure as heck going to take the benefits.

    However, onto the real subject of how much of a LEGEND Paul Collingwood this is the company he keeps: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;qualmin1=4000;qualmin2=100;qualmin3=102;qualval1=runs;qualval2=wickets;qualval3=caught;template=results;type=allround

    In what way is it ambitious of Field Marshall Block to say we can beat anyone, when we just DID, WORLD CUP T/20 !!! champions, or have you just forgotten?

    Colly is England's most valuable player, maybe not the most successful, maybe not the most talented but utterly the most vital.

  • on June 25, 2010, 20:21 GMT

    Alec Stewart was NOT a great player. A good one yes, but not great. That word should be reserved for people like Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Richards, Lara, Tendulkar etc.

  • Mahdi_E-Dra_Gujranwali on June 25, 2010, 19:25 GMT

    I am a die hard fan of Pakistan cricket and I must admit that I am enjoying the success of this England side against Australia. The Australians are an arrogant lot and they have forced us to play our "home" series against them in England, how lame. I hope our team takes a leaf out of the English and beats the Australians to pulp. inshalallah we will prevail over the Australians after the English have done all the hardwork of destroying their confidence, so very typical of us to feed off other's hard work and shooting off other's shoulders.

  • on June 25, 2010, 19:13 GMT

    I like the look of this new cricket team United states of South africa, It will be a shame with they win any more international trophies.

  • InnocentGuy on June 25, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    Yeah. And the fact that the World Cup is going to be in the sub-continent is also a challenge, not just for England, but for all teams outside of the region. Having said that, England have become quite dominant in the last few months. I wouldn't be surprised if they reach far into the World Cup.

  • SnowSnake on June 25, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    England is definately playing better, but don't let your recent wins get into your head. T20 World cup win, while significant, should be considered as a major acheivement due to unreliability of T20 games. England is winning not so much because they are dominating, but because Australian batting is failing. Even Ireland almost won against this Australian team. Top Australian batsmen are playing like sissy boys. I hope Australian selection board takes agressive action against slacking batsmen and restores some order in their batting.

  • vimal001 on June 25, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    RIGHT WORD USED IT IS NOT ENGLAND IT IS A MIXTURE OF VARIOUS CONTRIES. I THINK ON ONE HAND ICC DOING FALSE ACTING OF PROMOTING CICKET NATIONS AND ON THE OTHER HAND THEY HAVE NO COMMAND ON PLAYERS DRAIN TO OTHER COUNTRIES . WELL I THINK ENGLAND NEVER HAVE THAT CALIBER TO PLAY EVEN A MINIMAL CRIECKETNO MATTER THEY INVENT CRICKET BUT THEY R 0 AND OTHER TEAMS ARE MASTERS BECAUSE THEY PLAY EITH THEIR OWN CRICKETERS NOT BEGGING PLAYERS TO WIN MATCHES AND TO SAVE THEIR FALSE PRIDE .

  • CricFan78 on June 25, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    Colly the current English team will easily get mauled if they play India in India. Your bowling is mostly suited to English conditions or conditions where pitches seam a bit. Dont get too ahead of yourself as the only good batsmen in your team is either KP or Morgan

  • Sanjiyan on June 25, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    England..correction, a combination of South Africa, Ierland and England are doing quite well right now. That said, Collingwoods remarks of beating anyone anywhere are too ambitious. The aussie team there playing is not in any kind of form( barring one or two) and when they encounter them full strength thats when they will have to show their true worth. Morgan is a fantastic find so is Kieswetter.

    Lets see how far England can go in the World Cup

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Sanjiyan on June 25, 2010, 17:28 GMT

    England..correction, a combination of South Africa, Ierland and England are doing quite well right now. That said, Collingwoods remarks of beating anyone anywhere are too ambitious. The aussie team there playing is not in any kind of form( barring one or two) and when they encounter them full strength thats when they will have to show their true worth. Morgan is a fantastic find so is Kieswetter.

    Lets see how far England can go in the World Cup

  • CricFan78 on June 25, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    Colly the current English team will easily get mauled if they play India in India. Your bowling is mostly suited to English conditions or conditions where pitches seam a bit. Dont get too ahead of yourself as the only good batsmen in your team is either KP or Morgan

  • vimal001 on June 25, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    RIGHT WORD USED IT IS NOT ENGLAND IT IS A MIXTURE OF VARIOUS CONTRIES. I THINK ON ONE HAND ICC DOING FALSE ACTING OF PROMOTING CICKET NATIONS AND ON THE OTHER HAND THEY HAVE NO COMMAND ON PLAYERS DRAIN TO OTHER COUNTRIES . WELL I THINK ENGLAND NEVER HAVE THAT CALIBER TO PLAY EVEN A MINIMAL CRIECKETNO MATTER THEY INVENT CRICKET BUT THEY R 0 AND OTHER TEAMS ARE MASTERS BECAUSE THEY PLAY EITH THEIR OWN CRICKETERS NOT BEGGING PLAYERS TO WIN MATCHES AND TO SAVE THEIR FALSE PRIDE .

  • SnowSnake on June 25, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    England is definately playing better, but don't let your recent wins get into your head. T20 World cup win, while significant, should be considered as a major acheivement due to unreliability of T20 games. England is winning not so much because they are dominating, but because Australian batting is failing. Even Ireland almost won against this Australian team. Top Australian batsmen are playing like sissy boys. I hope Australian selection board takes agressive action against slacking batsmen and restores some order in their batting.

  • InnocentGuy on June 25, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    Yeah. And the fact that the World Cup is going to be in the sub-continent is also a challenge, not just for England, but for all teams outside of the region. Having said that, England have become quite dominant in the last few months. I wouldn't be surprised if they reach far into the World Cup.

  • on June 25, 2010, 19:13 GMT

    I like the look of this new cricket team United states of South africa, It will be a shame with they win any more international trophies.

  • Mahdi_E-Dra_Gujranwali on June 25, 2010, 19:25 GMT

    I am a die hard fan of Pakistan cricket and I must admit that I am enjoying the success of this England side against Australia. The Australians are an arrogant lot and they have forced us to play our "home" series against them in England, how lame. I hope our team takes a leaf out of the English and beats the Australians to pulp. inshalallah we will prevail over the Australians after the English have done all the hardwork of destroying their confidence, so very typical of us to feed off other's hard work and shooting off other's shoulders.

  • on June 25, 2010, 20:21 GMT

    Alec Stewart was NOT a great player. A good one yes, but not great. That word should be reserved for people like Bradman, Hammond, Hutton, Compton, Richards, Lara, Tendulkar etc.

  • Jimlad on June 25, 2010, 20:23 GMT

    Sanjiyan, its Ireland, and this is the benefit we have of having an open and multicultural society. if we have to cope with the downsides of immigration we are sure as heck going to take the benefits.

    However, onto the real subject of how much of a LEGEND Paul Collingwood this is the company he keeps: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;qualmin1=4000;qualmin2=100;qualmin3=102;qualval1=runs;qualval2=wickets;qualval3=caught;template=results;type=allround

    In what way is it ambitious of Field Marshall Block to say we can beat anyone, when we just DID, WORLD CUP T/20 !!! champions, or have you just forgotten?

    Colly is England's most valuable player, maybe not the most successful, maybe not the most talented but utterly the most vital.

  • Hiteshdevilliers on June 25, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    I am awaiting the day when a "pure" English team will top limited overs cricket. The team captain is South African, the star player is South African, both first choice keepers are South African, and the latest premier middle order batsmen is Irish (though at least he is from the UK, and unlike Ireland, South Africa are a test playing nation). Now I understand that a few of the names mentioned above have committed to England since their youth, but still there's always that mark of South African on the team. Nonetheless, England deserve all the accolades they get. They are playing as a unit and the results are showing. It would be interesting to see though how the contest would have been if Australia's first choice bowlers were playing. Can't wait to see Shaun Tait at Old Trafford!!