***Official*** South Africa in England

[PhoenixFire]

He had a brilliant ODI series against India last summer, looked a million dollars.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but that's not relevant to Tests, is it?

My one piece of sympathy for Bell is that he spent a year and a half alternating between 6 & 3 in the batting order, which is no way to build a test career.

1-et-demi? He's been doing it non-stop in his career, now spanning nearly 4 years. There has never been longer than 8 months when he's stayed in the same position (classifying three and four as one and five and six as likewise). That's not particularly because of bad selection (though ideally I suppose he might've played at five against Australia, but that'd have meant Pietersen debuting at four when he'd batted six in his ODIs the previous winter) but simply the way injuries have forced matters.

This is the thing that's most frustrating. As in the cases of Botham, Stewart and Sangakkara, I just wish we'd had one thing with consistency, then we'd know one way or the other. But we don't. Personally I'm more than confident that had he batted five in The Ashes 2005 he'd have fared less awfully than he did, had Trescothick then Cook not missed games in India he'd not have opened and would've done well that series, had Trescothick and Vaughan not missed 2006/07 he'd have batted six and excelled, and had Strauss been replaced by an opener in 2007/08 both his and Vaughan's performances would've been better. But there's no way to show that beyond all doubt, just as there's no way to show Sangakkara would've been one of the best batsmen in history had he never kept wicket, Botham would have performed against West Indies in '80 and '81 had he not been given the captaincy, and Stewart would've been England's greatest and probably history's second-greatest wicketkeeper-batsman had he done the job without fail from '93 onwards.

Even so, there's no getting away from the fact that we're lacking a decent return on the time that's been invested in him. Only one test hundred against decent attacks. Way too many failures when the pressure's on. I've read so many pieces in the last year or so along the lines of "now being the time to step up a gear" that you have to wonder whether it will ever happen.

How long were we wondering it with Flintoff, remind me? At least 2 years.

 

[wpdavid]

How long were we wondering it with Flintoff, remind me? At least 2 years.

About that, yes. If you take it from the India tour at the end of 2001 until the WI tour at the start of 2004. I suppose that makes it two and a half years: which is a half a year less than where we're currently at with Bell.

 

[Richard]

WI tour of 2004? It was the summer of 2004 at the earliest for mine.

The startpoint was the one I was thinking of though, yeah. Any fool could tell he shouldn't have been anywhere near Test cricket before 2001/02.

 

[wpdavid]

WI tour of 2004? It was the summer of 2004 at the earliest for mine.

The startpoint was the one I was thinking of though, yeah. Any fool could tell he shouldn't have been anywhere near Test cricket before 2001/02.

I was thinking of his fivefor in Barbados (iirc). Granted his batting was substandard on that tour.

 

[Richard]

His bowling had actually started to take the upturn in the previous series, in Sri Lanka. And his batting in the one before than at home to South Africa. But against New Zealand in 2004 was the first time he managed to combine both in a match and series. Even then I still wasn't especially impressed with him, that didn't come until 2005, though with hindsight recently I've reflected that it actually should've come in 2004/05, at least with the ball.

 

[gettingbetter]

No, he shouldn't. But it's not like he's never got any better - not at all, in fact. And it'll take at least another couple of series of this sort of stuff (the sort of stuff we saw at home to India and in New Zealand - nothing else is of relevance) for me to decide I don't want him in the side.

After your first Test series is against a side you wouldn't classify as Test quality, where do you go? Is there any chance you can provide me with his career average sans non- Test class teams? I think it would be under 40.

In saying that, I'm not really sure that he has got any better. AFAIC, the England hierarchy in regards to quality batsmen goes KP, Cook, Vaughan and the rest can fight over 4th. I would of thought that Bell would have taken the adequete steps to rank alongside Cook and Vaughan. I guess one of my points against Bell is that there are numerous people who could replace him and do an equal or better job, unlike the three previous batsmen who I mentioned. Missing one of them make England a poorer team, on the other hand, replacing Bell by another player, England could possibly get more out of that person.

 

[Richard]

After your first Test series is against a side you wouldn't classify as Test quality, where do you go? Is there any chance you can provide me with his career average sans non- Test class teams? I think it would be under 40.

Against Test-class teams his scorebook average as a number three to seven batsman is 39.62. This is pretty meaningless, though. What's of far more relevance is the split: at three and four he averages 33.14 (and this flatters him after a let-off or two in Pakistan inflated it); at five and six (and a few innings where he's been pushed down to seven by nightwatchmen) he averages 49.08. And as I mentioned earlier, he's never had more than 8 months in the same position, he batted five on debut, four in his first serious series (ie, Ashes 2005), three in his next, three and opening in his next, dropped for the next, six in the next, three in the next, six again for the whole summer '07, three again in SL, five in NZ, and five so far this summer. It's ridiculous.

Had he not played against Bangladesh in 2005, and had hence Mark Butcher or even Graham Thorpe (neither ended-up being fit of course ) played against Australia, then I think his career might've gone a bit smoother. First the premature promotion, then the multiple injuries that've caused him to be tossed around the order, have been extremely unhelpful.

 

[gettingbetter]

Doesn't he bat 3/4 in CC though?

I'm still trying to see whether him moving around is any justification in him underperforming.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Doesn't he bat 3/4 in CC though?

I'm still trying to see whether him moving around is any justification in him underperforming.

A top order batsman for club doesn't necessarily qualify a top order batsman for country. It often does, but not always. Ian Bell has looked far more settled when he's played in the lower middle order, so I think the justification lies in him being asked to bat outside of what appears to be his Test match comfort zone.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't he bat 3/4 in CC though?

Yes, ever since 2002. And, surprise surprise, he underperformed woefully in 2002 and 2003 having been superb in 2001 at five.

I'm still trying to see whether him moving around is any justification in him underperforming.

It is. Three\four is not his position in Tests, that's patently obvious to me. And I can't blame him too much for not cashing-in every single time he's gone down to five and six because he's been shifted from it so often. However, he has now played 5 Tests in a row there and has managed no innings of much note (pulverised a threadbare attack where Grant Elliot was a key part, and has done nothing besides) so the time must be coming soon, or else his position will start to be questionable.

 

[gettingbetter]

Yes, ever since 2002. And, surprise surprise, he underperformed woefully in 2002 and 2003 having been superb in 2001 at five.

It is. Three\four is not his position in Tests, that's patently obvious to me. And I can't blame him too much for not cashing-in every single time he's gone down to five and six because he's been shifted from it so often. However, he has now played 5 Tests in a row there and has managed no innings of much note (pulverised a threadbare attack where Grant Elliot was a key part, and has done nothing besides) so the time must be coming soon, or else his position will start to be questionable.

Good to see that you aren't 100% on his position either.

1000 up for me.

 

[Richard]

I've never said I was 100%, he's never offered totally convincing material over a very long timescale. But right now, I have no question about picking him.

 

[gettingbetter]

He'll be good for about another year (as long as it isn't single digit stuff). Colly is the man in trouble. Failure in the final Test could mean Shah gets a run at Lords (which is suprisngly far away).

 

[Richard]

I think that'd depend greatly on Collingwood's ODI form. Much as I've never rated him, he's someone who's had a foot in the door for quite a while now. Certainly I presume he'll play at Trent Bridge.

It'd be dangerous, of course, to assume he'll fail there. I don't see any point doing any predicting until he does such a thing.

 

[gettingbetter]

Where's the fun in that? Everyone would have half their post count if that was the case.

 

[Richard]

Meh, I like speculating about stuff where there's a genuine unpredictability about it. If Collingwood does fail at Trent Bridge, I'll certainly be thinking long and hard about the Shah-vs-him question.

Until then, though, I'll leave it.

 

[gettingbetter]

Let It Be

 

[Richard]

I'm good at whispering words of wisdom, that's true.

 

[wpdavid]

A top order batsman for club doesn't necessarily qualify a top order batsman for country. It often does, but not always. Ian Bell has looked far more settled when he's played in the lower middle order, so I think the justification lies in him being asked to bat outside of what appears to be his Test match comfort zone.

Yeah, but he can't always bat against Bang, Pakistan 2nd's or WI: which, for mine, is where his test match comfort zone appears to lie.