Shot selection is a talent, but it's something which can be worked on.
So can any talent - to varying extents. Anything which can't be worked on isn't to my mind a talent, more an asset. EG, height and strength of bone.
But it's not 95% of how good a batsman is, it's 95% of how SUCCESSFUL a batsman is. The 2 don't alway add up. There have been plenty of batsmen in test cricket who've punched above their weight and plenty who've failed even though they were more talented than the former.
Good and successful are essentially the same thing to me. Talented and good\successful are of course different.
Anyway, shot-selection is, same as eye, strength, hand-eye co-ordination, fleetness of foot, speed of arm, bowling action and many other things, a talent that with good work-ethic can be honed to a pretty good extent. Moderate natural talent can indeed be added to copious manufactured talent to make a very good player indeed. Gary Kirsten is one of the examples I always give for this.
Bell's shot selection isn't a result of misjudging line or length, but either trying to force the pace, trying to assert authority unnecessarily etc. Bell has an excellent array of shots. He can play any shot on the off side as well as many on the leg side. His drives are as picturesque as Vaughan or Tendulkar when on form. Anyone with that array of shots in their armoury which they can time almost from ball 1 has talent. The fact he has brain farts doesn't take away from that.
I don't neccessarily agree TBH, I think Bell's poor shot-selection is sometimes a simple inability to cope with the best calibre of bowling. There have indeed been times when he's tried to force the pace unneccessarily, but these have been in a minority. As often as not he's just trying to play a defensive or (worse) nothing shot and is caught in the cordon, or at bad-pad.
Whether he has the work-ethic and sufficient natural talent to up his game and solve this problem remains to be seen.
Graeme Hick had a great array of shots but it was mental errors which was the reason he failed at test level.
I've seen the majority of Ganga's test innings and he's never looked as set as Bell has or anywhere near the quality Bell is. Ganga is a 30 average test player and Bell is a 45-50 average test player in terms of ability and I've seen nothing from either of them to suggest differently.
I disagree TBH, I think with better mentality to cope with the intensity of Tests Ganga could easily have averaged 43-44 in a tough era and 47-48 in this easy one. The failures afflicting Hick and Ganga were very similar IMO, though obviously Hick >>>>>>> Ganga.
.
