My criticism of that Bell isn't that at all tbh. It's the same one vic makes, really, and it's one I've probably stated about three hundred times: he's too rigid. He doesn't seem to be particularly nuanced in his approach to batting, which leads to an overly simplistic gameplan at times and stupidity like Ahmedebad because he was so reliant on the big hit down the ground to dominate vs spin, to take one example. Or chipping one to a fielder who had literally just moved there, as happened in this series. It's not "softness", but it does give the strong impression that he does genuinely bat like he's brought out a checklist to the crease, and it does make him very vulnerable to shrewd bowling and captaincy even when set.
Last edited by Spark; 26-03-2013 at 10:17 AM.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
I don't think they're that separate in terms of what ends up happening as a result. If you're overly rigid in your approach to batting and find it difficult to adapt quickly, then the absolute last bowlers you'd want to face are Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, as an example. (As an aside, the corollary to that is that the bowler you would most want to face is someone like, say, Mitchell Johnson on an average day)
Last edited by Spark; 26-03-2013 at 10:26 AM.
Fair enough.. I do not recall that series that well, so maybe I was arguing for a seamer over Bell? Either way, given how dross Bell was that series, I think they might as well chanced an additional bowler and try to bowl Pak out for lesser..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)