Bring in Collingwood for Giles?

[Shane Warne]

See I disagree with this. Everyone's saying how Warnie has him under his thumb, etc. but that ball, whilst not played as well as it could have been, foxed Bell because it wasn't the straight one he didn't pick; it was the leg-spinner. Only problem? It didn't turn. On an uneven pitch, one must allow for this possibility and that comes with experience and considering how much Warnie was turning the ball in the Lords Test (more than he has in ages, I reckon), to get one which fizzed and ripped BUT didn't turn, pretty unlucky in my book.QUOTE]
Not really unlucky no.

Picking it's one thing, then you have to play it.

Not just stand there with your bat where the sun don't shine, ball after ball after ball just because you think it might spin. A lot of us could do that.

That's only half the job, you also need to have the ability to watch it off the pitch and react accordingly and using the bit of wood in your hand helps.

Batting would be an easy game if all you had to do was be able to read the spin on a ball to get runs.

It reminded me of when Daniel Vettori dismissed Darren Maddy in England '99.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Funny that a "hitter" like Flintoff has such a superb technique, eh?

 

[Prince EWS]

If an extra batsman was picked for England, I would definately play Jones at 7 and Flintoff at 8. If for no other reason, simply because of the roles they would be picked to play. To pick another batsman would signify that Flintoff playing as a batsman isnt working. He would then be making the side predominatly on his bowling. While Jones on the other hand is clearly being picked on his batting rather than his keeping.

Anyway, I'd be all for dropping Giles for another allrounder, if England actually had another one to pick... theres no-one knocking on the door. Collingwood's bowling, in a test situation, would be no better than the bowling of Bell IMO, so he'd have to make the side as a batsman alone. His pitched up change-ups and slower balls are useful in one dayers, as batsmen will attempt to attack him, but in a test match, they will be happy to just wait for the bad ball (which he WILL bowl) and hammer it. No need to take any risks against him, which would make him fairly useless. Giles has been equally useless so far, but its only been ONE test match, and despite the fact that I dont rate him, his results have been very good in recent times. If he is just as bad in the next test, I'd be very tempted to drop him, but still, there arent many commanding his position...

 

[Run like Inzy]

I think bell should be dropped. Collingwood is in the form of his life in first class cricket at the moment and is a proven success against the Aussies in ODIs. Bell has looked out of sorts. THey should not demoralise him and leave him mentally scared for the future. He is a better future prospect than Collingwood but just isn't quite ready for the Aussies. They should play him against Pakistan in the winter and see how he goes.

 

[Craig]

See I disagree with this. Everyone's saying how Warnie has him under his thumb, etc. but that ball, whilst not played as well as it could have been, foxed Bell because it wasn't the straight one he didn't pick; it was the leg-spinner. Only problem? It didn't turn. On an uneven pitch, one must allow for this possibility and that comes with experience and considering how much Warnie was turning the ball in the Lords Test (more than he has in ages, I reckon), to get one which fizzed and ripped BUT didn't turn, pretty unlucky in my book.

Sorry but didn't offer a shot - so in my book that fails the basics of batting that he got taught as a youngster so he got what he deserves.

Now I may be wrong but wouldn't there be a change in wrist action from bowling the stock leg break to the slider to what Bell got out to? And if there is - Bell (unless he has) must look at the difference(using footage) of him bowling his normal leg break and his slider and so be able to pick it next he faces him.

 

[King_Ponting]

Sorry but didn't offer a shot - so in my book that fails the basics of batting that he got taught as a youngster so he got what he deserves.

Now I may be wrong but wouldn't there be a change in wrist action from bowling the stock leg break to the slider to what Bell got out to? And if there is - Bell (unless he has) must look at the difference(using footage) of him bowling his normal leg break and his slider and so be able to pick it next he faces him.

Put simply he should have used his bat not pads.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sorry but didn't offer a shot - so in my book that fails the basics of batting that he got taught as a youngster so he got what he deserves.

Have you ever faced a decent spinner? You use your bat to every ball and see how far it gets you, okay?

Now I may be wrong but wouldn't there be a change in wrist action from bowling the stock leg break to the slider to what Bell got out to? And if there is - Bell (unless he has) must look at the difference(using footage) of him bowling his normal leg break and his slider and so be able to pick it next he faces him.

There is a distinct change in action and he likely rightly picked the ball as the leggie, hence why he let it go, thinking it would spin away from the bat and miss everything like it, on 99% of occasions, would have. His LBW wasn't a failure to pick Warnie; it was a failure of the deck to do what it did with most leggies. Now, I'm not saying he played the ball perfectly (he should have probably played at it anyway) but if you get to see the replay again, you'll see the ball didn't spin like the trajectory and purchase on it suggested it would. That means Bell was a little unlucky.

Anyway, he's a class player and will learn from that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Put simply he should have used his bat not pads.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, ain't it?

 

[King_Ponting]

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, ain't it?

In general i am against batsman padding up to deeliveries rather than playing them with their bat. You have a bat for the purpose of hitting the ball so why not use it to its full potential?

 

[luckyeddie]

Put simply he should have used his bat not pads.

Stuff and nonsense.

Pad play and leaving the ball are just as important a brace of tools for a batsman playing a quality spinner as, say, knowing where your off stump is when playng a seamer. If you play everything with your bat you will not last long, especially the way Warne turns it.

 

[Top_Cat]

In general i am against batsman padding up to deeliveries rather than playing them with their bat. You have a bat for the purpose of hitting the ball so why not use it to its full potential?

He obviously didn't intend to pad up; if the ball had spun like it should have, it would have missed his pad. He was quite obviously trying to leave the ball, not pad up to it. And as Eddie says, against spinners of any quality, using the pads is part of playing them. No player in the Test world survives without some knowledge and useage of pad-play. Just the way it is.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Conjecture is a wonderful tool. He may have gotten outside the line if he'd played the forward defensive, he may not have, certainly he would not have gotten any bat on it. It was a really odd delivery and I think there would've been a good chance of him getting out playing forward anyway.

Bell will come good I'm sure of it.

 

[Richard]

flintoff is a hitter, complete rubbish.
and if you think that the aussies sorted him out in the tests and ODIs when most of the dismissals either had to do with being careless strokeplay and unplayable floor balls, then you are obviously out of your mind.

By coaxing careless strokes out of him they've sorted him out.
Whether he can un-sort himself remains to be seen.
Fact is, though, there's only been one RUD that's got him out so far.

 

[Richard]

See I disagree with this. Everyone's saying how Warnie has him under his thumb, etc. but that ball, whilst not played as well as it could have been, foxed Bell because it wasn't the straight one he didn't pick; it was the leg-spinner. Only problem? It didn't turn.

Exactly.
I reckon that ball was likely to have dismissed pretty much anyone - if the bowler can't get the ball to do what he wants, the batsman certainly can't predict it.
And for mine everyone's copped way too much criticism for getting out to Warne - people seem to have the absurd notion that batsmen can and should be able to pick every variation.
Picking the Slider from the Leg-break is damn near impossible - picking which Leg-break is going to turn and which isn't is completely impossible.

 

[Richard]

It reminded me of when Daniel Vettori dismissed Darren Maddy in England '99.

Hardly, that was clearly an arm-ball and while you can't just expect Maddy to pick it because Vettori has one of the best arm-balls going round it wasn't quite as completely forgiveable as Bell not being able to tell whether or not a ball that the bowler's trying to turn is going to or not.

 

[Richard]

Funny that a "hitter" like Flintoff has such a superb technique, eh?

Not really, batting isn't too much about technique, it's mostly about shot-selection.
Flintoff might have most of the shots but as almost everyone knows good batsmen can get shedloads of runs with just 3 or 4 strokes.
Fact is, Flintoff's shot-selection, while better than 1998-2002, is still very much suspect against even half-decent bowling such as South Africa's - against good bowling like Australia's it's still deeply questionable.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but didn't offer a shot - so in my book that fails the basics of batting that he got taught as a youngster so he got what he deserves.

Now I may be wrong but wouldn't there be a change in wrist action from bowling the stock leg break to the slider to what Bell got out to? And if there is - Bell (unless he has) must look at the difference(using footage) of him bowling his normal leg break and his slider and so be able to pick it next he faces him.

Some deliveries look virtually identical from front-on, even if you can pick the change from behind the arm.
Warne's Slider and Leg-break are two such deliveries.
Added to the fact, as Corey mentioned, Bell didn't actually get a Slider with his dismissal-ball.

 

[Craig]

Have you ever faced a decent spinner?

I will be the first to admit cricket talent escaped my family or me at least.

You use your bat to every ball and see how far it gets you, okay?

Well if it is pitched on the stumps surely it would help you from getting bowled or from being out LBW as even if it missed your bat and as long as it looks like you are playing a shot it might be able to help you stay at the crease?

There is a distinct change in action and he likely rightly picked the ball as the leggie, hence why he let it go, thinking it would spin away from the bat and miss everything like it, on 99% of occasions, would have. His LBW wasn't a failure to pick Warnie; it was a failure of the deck to do what it did with most leggies. Now, I'm not saying he played the ball perfectly (he should have probably played at it anyway) but if you get to see the replay again, you'll see the ball didn't spin like the trajectory and purchase on it suggested it would. That means Bell was a little unlucky.

See point above.

Anyway, he's a class player and will learn from that.

Something you won't see me disagreeing with.

 

[Craig]

Actually I'd say Joyce must be very close to being next in line.

We had the same situation with Ed Smith two years ago - is Joyce really up to it ie. I mean his technique; temperment; how he gets his runs etc.?

 

[tooextracool]

See I disagree with this. Everyone's saying how Warnie has him under his thumb, etc. but that ball, whilst not played as well as it could have been, foxed Bell because it wasn't the straight one he didn't pick; it was the leg-spinner. Only problem? It didn't turn. On an uneven pitch, one must allow for this possibility and that comes with experience and considering how much Warnie was turning the ball in the Lords Test (more than he has in ages, I reckon), to get one which fizzed and ripped BUT didn't turn, pretty unlucky in my book.

i dont care how well you disguise a ball, it takes an incredible amount of brainlessness to leave a ball that pitches on middle stump. no i dont think bell is warnes bunny yet, but i wont be convinced that that wasnt a very very poor stroke from someone whos capable of so much better.

No, there's no way Bell should be dropped after the first Test. He's a classy player and he'll have his day. He was just unlucky enough to be, in both innings, smack-bang in the middle of great spells from two of the best bowlers of all time. I doubt there'd have been a single player of less than 10 Tests experience who would have been able to absorb that.

well i havent suggested that he be dropped have i? 1 test rarely proves anything, and as much as i dislike the english selectors, i do admire their policy of giving players enough chances to prove themself, so id be extremely surprised if they dropped bell for the next test.