BBC Blog Network

User Profile

sostenurter

Listed below are comments made by sostenurter between Wednesday, 30th December 2009 (12 Hours Ago) and Wednesday, 30th December 2009 (12 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

England player ratings for Durban 11:18pm on 30 Dec 2009 That list of Bell innings is hilarious. The fact that you consider coming in at 97-2, 110-3 (and you get this wrong by the way, it was 192-4), 45-1, 117-3 to be pressure situations explains it all really. Likewise, if you are considering innings of 50-odd on flat pitches where the top scores were 150+, you are redefining what pressure runs are.

Even though some of the innings you mention - especially those ones in Aus 06/07 - were quality innings full of guts, they are almost irredeemably tainted by the fact that they weren't significant enough and that he got out to stupid shots before he could make them significant enough.

It's interesting how few of the innings you've cited are centuries. Of Bell's nine Test centuries even you admit that only three of them are deserving of the title of pressure runs. Even you think that SIX of Bell's centuries weren't under pressure. I would even quibble with the two you say were pressure situations. The century vs. Pak in 2005 was on a supremely flat pitch with first innings scores of 462 and 446. Yes he came in at 39-2, but one of the openers was still there, 14 overs were off the new ball and the two main partnerships were with Trescothick and Pietersen, who played expansively and meant Bell didn't have to dictate the pace.

The century vs Pak in 2006 he actually made coming in at number 6, with the score at 192-4, not 110-3 as you state. 48 overs had gone, and again KP was well set. I cannot see this as a pressure circumstance. His 119 was also one of five centuries scored in that match.

The other century you cite as coming under pressure was when he came in at 117-3 against SA at Lord's. Again, I can't quite see this as a real pressure situation. First day on a featherbed at Lord's, both openers making solid 50s, not having to come in until the 44th over, well over three hours into the first day's play - I think most number fours would settle for that! Indeed, I think these last two centuries have come in situations that most captains, coaches and middle order batsmen would bite your hand off for! And these are two that you think are in MORE pressure situations than another six! That gives some indication as to how cushy things were in those other six centuries. You will notice that two of these scores were on flat pitches in matches that were eventually comfortably drawn, and that all three involved a sizeable partnership with KP in which KP dictated the pace and reached his century first, even if he started batting after Bell.

So, Bell's reputation as a pressure player therefore rests on a bunch of half centuries you claim have been scored under pressure. And they are nearly all innings that are actually therefore actually proof of how weak Bell is under pressure, not how strong. For a middle order player to consistently get out in the 50s in pressure situations is a major weakness, not a strength.

You could perhaps - perhaps - defend an opener for consistently getting out in the fifties, because a large part of his job is to see off the new ball, tire the fast bowlers and provide a platform for the team. Bell, whether batting at three, four, five or six, has no excuse. In most innings - there are a few exceptions on dodgy wickets, saving matches in the last innings, etc., - Bell's middle order half centuries have been inexcusable failures. He gets set, looks brilliant, hits a couple of lovely boundaries and then gets out to silly, silly shots, often at highly innopportune moments. This is true of many of the innings you have cited, not to mention plenty of others where he got out in the 20s and 30s to silly shots.

Here is the cricinfo analysis of a few of the innings you have cited as important:
2006 2-50 against India scored 57 out of 181 in the 3rd inning. Great rearguard innings over almost 3 hours in intense heat, only specialist bat to score more than 14.
Hmmm. Only specialist batsman in that innings for England to get more than 14! That doesn't include Flintoff, of course, or indeed India's batsmen, or indeed England's in the first innings. And it doesn't include how he got out - cricinfo says it was like this Kumble strikes again! slightly short and turning away, Bell pokes at it away from his body, a nothing shot to say the least
So what you are saying is England collapsed, Bell top scored in the collapse and got out to a silly shot which contributed to the collapse.

2006 2-45 Aus scored 60
61.4 the bouncer does the trick. Lee bangs it in hard and it's on to Bell too quickly, who shapes to hook but merely sends the ball directly up in the air. 'Miiine' calls Lee, as he nearly collides with Langer, but there was nobody getting in his way as he grabs on easily. Lee's face said it all at he ran into bowl that one, and Bell's face tells a story, too, for his moment of impetuosity

2007 4-124 63 top scored and allowed England to get to a respectable 345 and get a draw. Also scord 67 in 2nd innings to secure the draw.
86.2 the new ball brings another wicket, a tame dismissal, short and wide from Zaheer and Bell goes for a limp cut - more a dab, really - and gets an edge through to Dhoni. Deserved reward for Zaheer, but a soft end to Bell's innings
105.2 a moment of madness ... Bell plays a premeditated sweep, he is as far forward as he could have been but it is full and straight and Steve Bucknor has no doubts 363/6

As Geoff Boycott frequently says, there's nothing wrong with getting out to a good ball early in your innings. Nor is there any shame in getting out to a good ball at any stage in your innings. What is a problem is getting out when well set to silly shots. And that is what Bell does too much.

Even if we allow your analysis to stand, how many of these 17 innings resulted in England wins or draws? By my calculation, THREE.
2009 Aus 1-12 top score 72 gave England platform to win Deciding Ashes test.
2007 WI 132-4 scored 97 turned match around and England won from a precarious 1st innings position.
2006 110-3 against Pakistan scored 119. (you got this wrong it was 192-4)

And of those three, in not one did he top score and in all three you can make a better candidate for the standout pressure batting performance, let alone the standout performance - in order, Trott and Broad, Cook and Panesar, KP, Strauss, Panesar, Saj Mahmood. And that's not just me - he didn't win the MoM in any of those matches.

In case you think I am being too harsh, then I could go through the other five specialist batsmen in England's top order and give you examples of match winning pressure centuries and half centuries from all of them. And indeed from many other recent members of England's top six - Vaughan, Tres, Flintoff, even Ramprakash.

I wouldn't advocate dropping Bell now. Despite the ease of the position when he batted in this last innings, he can still only do what is put in front of him, and it would be a return to the bad old days of the 90s to drop someone who has just scored a ton. However, Bell has been the greatest beneficiary of the post-90s continuity of selection. Every time he's been close to getting dropped, one big score has rescued him for another 15 innings or so of failures. Even when he has been dropped, the contract system and continuity has again benefitted him, making him first man in when someone is injured. He has been very, very lucky in his career so far. At some stage we are going to have to drop a batsman to play an extra bowler, and unless he does something very special that begins to dispel the image created by the above analysis, he should be the man to go.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

sostenurter