Worst Selection Decisions

[Richard]

Why not? If a decision is not clear-cut by things that have happened in (proper) Test cricket, then you have to look at the next level down. If a place is open - which the slot of one batsman was between the series' in South Africa and at home to Australia - then you need to look at options to fill it.

Tourist fixtures, domestic cricket and "Test matches" against Bangladesh all fall into that "next level down" category.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Never know - Pietersen at four and Flintoff at five fills me with foreboding - does it not you?

Only at The Oval (where he came close to making a King Pair) could he be said to have made absoluetly no impact.

Either way - as said, meriting selection and producing the goods having merited selection are different things.

Pietersen is of course our number 4 now, and he was arguably more effective back then. Flintoff became a terrible batsman but averaged over 40 that summer.

Bell was a walking wicket. He looked by the end as if he simply didn't want to be there. I actually rate him, as do many others, on a purely technical level, but I do not rate him mentally.

 

[Richard]

Pietersen is of course our number 4 now, and he was arguably more effective back then. Flintoff became a terrible batsman but averaged over 40 that summer.

Regardless of how good Flintoff was in 2005, and in fact for the year or two before and after that, are you seriously telling me he's someone you'd ever be happy to have picked to bat at five in a Test?

Bell was a walking wicket. He looked by the end as if he simply didn't want to be there. I actually rate him, as do many others, on a purely technical level, but I do not rate him mentally.

Bell's technique is excellent; I don't personally believe he has a problem with mindset, though the fact that he looked like he did in 2005 has certainly preyed on his own mind and it was notable that he made a conscious decision thereafter to give off the cosmetic impression of being more assertive, copying Pietersen's mannerisms, in order to stop bowlers gaining a mental advantage before they even bowled a ball at him.

Bell's trouble is and always has been that his shot-selection is not good enough against really good bowlers. It's not a case of the intensity of Test cricket playing tricks with his mind, it's a case of the best bowlers Test cricket has to offer being too good for him. And I personally have always and still to retain the hope that he can change that.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Regardless of how good Flintoff was in 2005, and in fact for the year or two before and after that, are you seriously telling me he's someone you'd ever be happy to have picked to bat at five in a Test?

No I wouldn't, but it doesn't mean that Bell deserved his number 4 slot because he, in theory, sheltered Flintoff from the new ball.

Bell's technique is excellent; I don't personally believe he has a problem with mindset, though the fact that he looked like he did in 2005 has certainly preyed on his own mind and it was notable that he made a conscious decision thereafter to give off the cosmetic impression of being more assertive, copying Pietersen's mannerisms, in order to stop bowlers gaining a mental advantage before they even bowled a ball at him

Bell's trouble is and always has been that his shot-selection is not good enough against really good bowlers. It's not a case of the intensity of Test cricket playing tricks with his mind, it's a case of the best bowlers Test cricket has to offer being too good for him. And I personally have always and still to retain the hope that he can change that.

I don't know. He seemed to have a very decent knack of getting off the mark post-ashes 05, perhaps better than any other English batsman, but then simply get out.

I can't see that, by the textbook at least, his shot selection is any worse than that of Pietersen's

 

[Richard]

No I wouldn't, but it doesn't mean that Bell deserved his number 4 slot because he, in theory, sheltered Flintoff from the new ball.

I wasn't, actually, suggesting that, merely being as facetious as the notion that England effectively played with ten men and a sub fielder in the first and last two Tests.

Bell was not up to requirements in 2005 (though he did get some damn good deliveries) but that does not for a second mean that anyone should have been expecting him not to be. An Ashes series is rarely a very good time to introduce a new player, but for that reason and that reason only could it be said to have been a mistake to pick Bell in 2005 (and the mistake, if it was one, was bringing him in against Bangladesh, not Australia, because once he played against Bangladesh he was always going to have scored heavily enough to force himself to be a certainty against Australia). The idea that anyone could have predicted how badly he was going to go in The Ashes is not one that has any merit, IMO.

I don't know. He seemed to have a very decent knack of getting off the mark post-ashes 05, perhaps better than any other English batsman, but then simply get out.

I can't see that, by the textbook at least, his shot selection is any worse than that of Pietersen's

There is no textbook for shot-selection - it depends on both your own strengths (defensive technical strengths, attacking strengths, and strengths of leaving the ball) and the delivery in question. Shot-selection is an individual matter, and it is this respect that Bell has always lacked.

I don't see any merit whatsoever in the comparison to Mark Ramprakash that some are so fond of. Bell has shown many times that he can capitalise against moderate Test bowling, that the intensity of the top level is not a problem for him. He simply struggles against the best bowling - and this is as evident at domestic as international level. Ramprakash on the other hand had a completely watertight game which at domestic level scored him shedloads of runs, but he could not keep this game together because he was crushed by the intensity of international cricket.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Bell was not up to requirements in 2005 (though he did get some damn good deliveries) but that does not for a second mean that anyone should have been expecting him not to be. An Ashes series is rarely a very good time to introduce a new player, but for that reason and that reason only could it be said to have been a mistake to pick Bell in 2005 (and the mistake, if it was one, was bringing him in against Bangladesh, not Australia, because once he played against Bangladesh he was always going to have scored heavily enough to force himself to be a certainty against Australia). The idea that anyone could have predicted how badly he was going to go in The Ashes is not one that has any merit, IMO.

Mmmmm, not sure about anything you've wrote above. The whole causation thing you have going with his selection against Bangladesh is on shaky foundations. Are you suggesting some conspiracy to pick him in those tests so he could be assured of a place against the Aussies? Do you agree with it or not?

There is no textbook for shot-selection - it depends on both your own strengths (defensive technical strengths, attacking strengths, and strengths of leaving the ball) and the delivery in question. Shot-selection is an individual matter, and it is this respect that Bell has always lacked.

What I was saying is that Pietersen gets away with playing the "wrong shot" (usually a lunge onto his front foot regardless) because he goes at it full whack, has belief, has the power and good old fashioned eye-sight. You can't dine out on the above forever but it will make you a few scores and it will take the game to the opposition. Things Bell fails on.

I don't see any merit whatsoever in the comparison to Mark Ramprakash that some are so fond of. Bell has shown many times that he can capitalise against moderate Test bowling, that the intensity of the top level is not a problem for him. He simply struggles against the best bowling - and this is as evident at domestic as international level. Ramprakash on the other hand had a completely watertight game which at domestic level scored him shedloads of runs, but he could not keep this game together because he was crushed by the intensity of international cricket.

I don't liken Bell with Ramprakash.

 

[Richard]

Mmmmm, not sure about anything you've wrote above. The whole causation thing you have going with his selection against Bangladesh is on shaky foundations. Are you suggesting some conspiracy to pick him in those tests so he could be assured of a place against the Aussies? Do you agree with it or not?

I don't think he was picked against Bangladesh because people wanted an unequivocal case for him to play against Australia - I'm saying that the selectors would have known that if he played against Bangladesh he was almost certain to have an unequivocal case to play against Australia. So if they thought he wasn't a viable prospect against Australia it was utterly stupid to pick him against Bangladesh.

If Bell was going to not play in 2005, he had to not be called-up in place of Butcher\Key in that Bangladesh series.

What I was saying is that Pietersen gets away with playing the "wrong shot" (usually a lunge onto his front foot regardless) because he goes at it full whack, has belief, has the power and good old fashioned eye-sight. You can't dine out on the above forever but it will make you a few scores and it will take the game to the opposition. Things Bell fails on.

What I'd say is that something that isn't the wrong shot for Pietersen would be the wrong one for most batsmen. Pietersen has skills that precious few other batsman in history have had, and consequently he can play as virtually no other has.

I don't liken Bell with Ramprakash.

Oh, I know you don't, but a good few people have. People who, IMO, have no idea.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I don't think he was picked against Bangladesh because people wanted an unequivocal case for him to play against Australia - I'm saying that the selectors would have known that if he played against Bangladesh he was almost certain to have an unequivocal case to play against Australia. So if they thought he wasn't a viable prospect against Australia it was utterly stupid to pick him against Bangladesh.

Okay, we agree partly. But I would have gone as far to say that he certainly shouldn't, at the time, have been picked against Bangladesh. Bell was lucky we won those Ashes or he could have been waved goodbye forever.

What I'd say is that something that isn't the wrong shot for Pietersen would be the wrong one for most batsmen. Pietersen has skills that precious few other batsman in history have had, and consequently he can play as virtually no other has.

Bell lacked, and still lacks, conviction. The will to hurt the opposition. I believe that this is his real weakness, above shot selection. So we may as well just agree to disagree.

 

[Richard]

Okay, we agree partly. But I would have gone as far to say that he certainly shouldn't, at the time, have been picked against Bangladesh.

As I say, that certainly isn't something I'd argue strongly against - I'd not have been at all unhappy had Bell not appeared in 2005. But I don't think it was a decision anywhere near as bad as many others that England selectors have taken in the last couple of decades.

Bell was lucky we won those Ashes or he could have been waved goodbye forever.

Not sure about that - players who dominate at county level tend to get plenty of shots, regardless of how bad their initial stint is. Look at Graeme Hick - he was dropped for the ageing Ian Botham after a terrible time in his first 4 Tests, but he got umpteen more chances down the line, and eventually hit his straps at Test level. I hope Bell can do the same - though obviously I hope he can do it for longer than Hick did.

Bell lacked, and still lacks, conviction. The will to hurt the opposition. I believe that this is his real weakness, above shot selection. So we may as well just agree to disagree.

See, I don't believe he does lack conviction. I've seen Bell destroy weak quality bowling, several times - have watched him do it at county level just once, in a televised Championship game, then against Bangladesh in 2005, then Pakistan in 2006, then West Indies in 2007. What he lacks is the skill to really tough it out - and I don't mean the mental skill to keep his resolve when the going's tough, I mean the physical skill to play high-class bowling.

By-and-large, quality bowling has tended to have Bell's number. Yet it's only a by-and-large case. He's still played notable innings' against high-class bowling, never more so than the Sri Lankans in 2007/08 and the Australians in 2006/07. He undoubtedly can do it -it's just a case of doing it more consistently and, ideally, making a few 140s rather than all 60s, 70s and 80s when he does do it.

 

[Dydl]

I'm not sure Laughlin was that bad of a selection for RSA and the UAE. Sure he hadn't had all that much cricket behind him, but he was excellent in limited overs for Queensland from what I remember and was swinging it all over the shop regularly.

Not sure what's happened to him this year, but. Injury?

Yeah, really didn't think Laughlin was that bad a selection. We were giving a lot of fast bowlers a run on the international scene, and he didn't exactly play ridiculously awfully and lose us the series or anything. Took a pretty damn good catch on the boundary too, if I recall correctly.

But yes, he has been injured for a lot of this season. Bit unfortunate really, but he was one of many pacemen on the Aussie domestic scene to be out of action.