posted Jun 14, 2008

I'm all in favour of giving players a chance to return to form or prove themselves in a team. Especially if they've proved that they can perform at that level previously.

What I'm not in favour of is continuing to pick players who are woefully short of form. In the England test team I would lay that claim against the likes of Collingwood and Bell (regardless of what he does in the 20/20 format).

=========================

That's true. Trouble is, where do you say 'enough is enough, you haven't performed for ages, your out'? I personally thought Strauss was right to be dropped vs SL, and was surprised to see him back against NZ, for no apparant reason. I also would have dropped him for the last test of that series, and i believe if it wasn't the last test of the series, he would have been. But look at him now, english player of the series.

There are two main issues with Bell - he can't (or at least hasn't) scored a century when others hasn't, and he is out too may times 30-70 having got a start. That is why if either he or Collingwood had to be dropped, it'd be him - Collingwood is less likely to get himself out, as opposed to facing a good ball.

Bell does deserve credit for an ewxcellent display yesterday, but even if he'd got 100 i don't think limited over games, especially T20, should affect his test position at all (positively or negatively). Otherwise Panesar would never play another test.

I think that the England squad picked for the last test could beat SA, albeit they are tougher than NZ. On the other hand, that is no reason not to replace a player who, to be honest, is underperforming, even if good. Colly and Bell both fit into this category, with Flintoff and Shah lined up as replacements.

By the way, Normandycc who either likes to shout or doesn't realise CAPS LOCK is on, Vaughan is one of our best batsmen. Why would you leave him out purely on fielding? You mentioned Panesar, and would you leave him out because he can't field, to be replaced by the likes of Gary Pratt. Batting and Bowling ( and keeping) are where the points are or a player in terms of selection. Fielding is goal difference.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

Has every Bell critic simply forgotten that Bell finished the New Zealand series (in New Zealand) with the highest batting average?

His "prolonged period" of bad form has spanned only 3 Tests.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

It would have been interesting to see England chasing 180 off 20 Overs, I don't think Bell would have managed too many with the pressure of chasing the game with 9/10runs-an-over chase. Bell was very lucky England were chasing at 6 run-an-over which means many risks don't need to be taken.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

Interesting stat about Bell, discounting the series he has played against Pakistan (home and away) and Bangladesh he averages just over 32. While I'm not disputing the fact he can be good it is rather worrying that he only performs against certain teams. It might be form, it might be that he favours playing against a particular opposition. Personally I'm not keen on the idea of a batsman who averages 21 in one series then 93 in the next. Bear in mind, Bell scored five of his seven centuries against these two teams, the others came against the West Indies and New Zealand.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

Great innings from Bell yesterday. We have a settled and very good england test team and its good to see members of that team scoring quickly in other format of cricket. I am really looking forward to the test series against South Africa. We are in good form and will give any one a good game right now.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

Who would you replace Bell with that will peform as well as he does. Shah and Bopara are both decent batsmen but I don't think either are as good as Bell. Shah and Ravi have both done badly in the (ok limited) oppurtunities they've been given. Sure they either might hit a few decent knocks if they replaced Bell but eventually they would both get found out or worked out and we would be wondering why Bell was dropped for sub-standard replacemnts. Bell has more longevity and will consistently perform better than any potential replacements. Bell is a class batsman. End Of. Get off his back and let him play some cricket.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

whoop de do! england win against NZ - hardly fierce opponents. let's see the comments after England get throashed (as usual) by half decent opposition.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

Sretford it’s not even worth replying to your puerile comments and it’s impossible to reason with someone who is delusional and out of touch with reality.

Some excellent points made by the other contributors.
When is a player out of form? Bell was averaging 42 in county cricket before the series started and in 4 innings for England he was out 3 times. Three failures is nothing in international cricket and surely doesn’t warrant dropping an established player. If he fails against South Africa, then fair enough

What was far more worrying was the fact that he was struggling to middle the ball in the tests. When you are playing against top opposition it doesn’t matter whether it’s a test or a one day game if you’re not middling the ball, you are not going to play well and the way Bell timed the ball on Thursday, suggested his timing is back, which is good news, regardless of what type of match it was.

The point was made that he gets out too often having gotten off to a good start and that is a valid concern . When he is in full flow he is one of the easiest batsmen on the eye and reminds me of David Gower in more ways than one and this is an area that needs to be improved upon. However to put this into context, his conversion rate of 7 centuries from 39 tests puts him up with most of the best batsmen of all time. In the whole history of test cricket only around a dozen Batsmen had a conversion rate of less than 1 in 5 tests over a prolonged period, and the majority of those were openers.

Stretford made the point that he only scores centuries when others have done so. Bell has played the majority of his tests between numbers 4 and 7 and since his debut England have had a very strong batting line up- so there is nothing unusual about this at all. As for the point that he only 32 against weaker opposition, he has played over ¼ of all his games against the Australians, against possibly the best bowling attack that the world has ever seen. How quickly people forget that he was our most consistent batsman in Australia and averaged over 30 in that series.

Someone asked why Ronaldo a footballer was mentioned and the point I was trying to make is that Ronaldo is believed by some to be the best footballer in the world at the moment and I was trying to illustrate how easy it is to be negative if you want to, no matter ow good a player is supposed to be.

Bell has been criticised for being just a test player 18 months ago and too limited and slow to be a one day player, now he’s supposedly just a one day player. He has been criticised for scoring runs against an extremely powerful Pakistan attack andhas been widely criticised for not scoring enough centuries, even though his record stands up against 90% of all test batsmen. It seems the kid just cannot win, even when he does well.

Why can’t we just appreciate we have a very good young batsman , who is going to have the odd bad run, will occasionally be out in the 60’s and 70’s and isn’t perfect, just like every other batsman out there. I agree fully with the poster who said that we are far too eager to knock our best Sportsmen, it’s very easy to criticise, but how many of us could do better?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

Writing off Bell?

Surely it's not a question of writing off a young and very talented batsman. Rather, it's a question of Bell not being in form in the full-length game, and perhaps needing a spell out in favour of someone - Bophara being the obvious choice - who has earned a chance to replace him.

This doesn't make Bell a bad player. It's simply a matter of choosing the best team at that point in time.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 18, 2008

You meanies - stop being so heartless. Bell is a gorgeous player to watch when he is batting -a beautiful touch player - so elegant - it makes me remember how much cricket is an art-form as well as a game. I'm afraid I don't have the same lust to-win-at-all-costs agenda that so many of the spectators these days subscribe to. If we are going to sit down and watch cricket for five days solid, at least let it be pleasing on the eye - Shah looks like a fidgety frightened rabbit on the crease (I get all tense just watching set himself up to strike) - and Bopara - well, I suppose he's better, but I would not describe him as superior to Bell by any means - even if Bopara is AS GOOD - that alone cannot justify Bell's exclusion.

Bell is an excellent close catcher also. Just thought I'd add that.

add comment | complain about this comment