***Official England in India***

[analyst]

haha me too.. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and he is a reasonable batsman, but I just dread how feeble and dire he looks at the crease..

Add me to that list also, call it the Ian Bell haters list or whatnot. I just consider him a waste of the word technique. Too much talk and little product.

 

[Uppercut]

Strauss tried playing like that on the last tour of India and it backfired on him completely - and continued to do for the next 2 years, as well.

Although it might be ideal in an ideal World to see more strokes being played where England didn't play that many, I just don't think the batsmen have the ability to do that. So I'd rather see them play as they did and get 160-1 - only to be thrown away - than try to play a way they're not capable of and end-up 40-3.

I don't think the England batsmen had the wrong attitude, I just don't think they're good enough to play as it'd be most ideal of all for them to have played.

And of course, whenever bowling is economical the bowlers generally deserve a fair amount of credit. Zaheer and Ishant were of times unhittable.

All true, of course. I wouldn't say Strauss and Cook should just try to replicate Sehwag and Gambhir, more that the role of openers in English cricket does not make batting in India any easier, and ideally the best time to attack is early in the day. As a result, 120/1 after 50 overs is a more dangerous situation than it seems.

 

[Uppercut]

haha me too.. I'm sure he is a nice guy, and he is a reasonable batsman, but I just dread how feeble and dire he looks at the crease..

Completely agree. Once you get over his mildly pretty drives against Bangladesh, the truth is he's just plain ****.

 

[Richard]

Well Collingwood has played at 3 for Durham and if he is going to carry on failing for England at test level he might as well bow out trying.

He has? Don't recall that. Almost all of Collingwood's batting for Durham (not that his performances in First-Class cricket have been particularly good) has come at four, sometimes even lower. Usually behind one of three from Katich, Love and Hodge, an Australian overseas batsman of excellence.

I think Shah should get his chance though, he has more than earnt it. I think if Collingwood fails in this series, I personally would not consider him for test cricket any longer.

That has something going for it, but I'm not entirely convinced myself.

 

[Woodster]

Cannot put myself in this Bell-hating category. No arguments about his actual productiveness at this moment, his technique, however, is at times sublime. A batsman I enjoy watching, just wish he could grind out a few more centuries without needing to look so fantastic.

 

[Uppercut]

his technique, however, is at times sublime. .

DWTA. A good technique enables you to score a few runs.

 

[analyst]

He has? Don't recall that. Almost all of Collingwood's batting for Durham (not that his performances in First-Class cricket have been particularly good) has come at four, sometimes even lower. Usually behind one of three from Katich, Love and Hodge, an Australian overseas batsman of excellence.

That has something going for it, but I'm not entirely convinced myself.

If I remember correctly way back in 2005 one of his highest scores in county cricket came at 3 when Mike Hussey was captain of Durham.

 

[Woodster]

He has? Don't recall that. Almost all of Collingwood's batting for Durham (not that his performances in First-Class cricket have been particularly good) has come at four, sometimes even lower. Usually behind one of three from Katich, Love and Hodge, an Australian overseas batsman of excellence.

His most productive season came in 2005, when he made 1,120 runs at 50.90, and batted every game at number 3. He was still coming in behind an Australian batsman of excellence, which was Mike Hussey, but he opened the innings.

Incidentally that season Collingwood made 6 centuries and no 50's, now that's a conversion rate.


It appears I was beaten to the punch!

 

[Goughy]

Re: Bells technique.
His weight transfer was awful today as well.

 

[Woodster]

DWTA. A good technique enables you to score a few runs.

A Test average in excess of 40 after 78 innings suggests you have scored runs somewhere along the line. A good technique, however, does not make you impervious to dips in form.

 

[analyst]

A Test average in excess of 40 after 78 innings suggests you have scored runs somewhere along the line. A good technique, however, does not make you impervious to dips in form.

Vastly inflated average based on bashing teams at home and when conditions are tailor made for batting does not suggest his technique is truely sound as when the going gets tough he is one of the first to wilt under pressure.

 

[Woodster]

Vastly inflated average based on bashing teams at home and when conditions are tailor made for batting does not suggest his technique is truely sound as when the going gets tough he is one of the first to wilt under pressure.

Pressure is a completely different point!Now we're into mental strength as averse to outright technique. To convince people he does need to score when the going is a little tougher, no doubt. As I said previously, when he is not finding the gaps, and he is not hitting it sweetly in the middle of the bat, that is when he needs plan B to kick in and score some hard-worked ugly runs, at the moment he is incapable of doing that.

 

[analyst]

Well I was actually implying that perhaps its not just his technique that lets him down and maybe its a certain deep insecurity he has about his place in the team. As I said early on in the thread, if Bell plays at 5, he looks a very elegant player, a text book player who gives full respect to the game but he looks out of sorts anywhere else.

 

[Uppercut]

A Test average in excess of 40 after 78 innings suggests you have scored runs somewhere along the line. A good technique, however, does not make you impervious to dips in form.

An average of 38 when you take out Bangladesh suggests not very many. That would be fine if his runs were important runs against good attacks- like a Hussain or Atherton. But Bell's not the crucial run-scorer (he's never scored a century in a match that someone else hasn't already done so) nor is he an effective flat-track bully. He only scores easy runs, and not even very many of them. If Bell's technique is good then his career has been one prolonged dip in form.

 

[Woodster]

An average of 38 when you take out Bangladesh suggests not very many. That would be fine if his runs were important runs against good attacks- like a Hussain or Atherton. But Bell's not the crucial run-scorer (he's never scored a century in a match that someone else hasn't already done so) nor is he an effective flat-track bully. He only scores easy runs, and not even very many of them. If Bell's technique is good then his career has been one prolonged dip in form.

My point was of his technique. I believe, imo, he has an excellent technique. As I said previously, to convince his critics of his quality, he must score runs in more difficult situations. I am not claiming he is up there with the Ponting's and the Tendulkar's.

 

[Woodster]

Lawrence Booth explains Bell's problems in his article on Bell as one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year in 2008 when he says :

"Now he wants to cement his position at first drop in Test and 50-over cricket in the hope of fulfilling a childhood dream and playing 100 Tests. Bell has the shots and the defensive technique required of a No. 3, who has to be highly adaptable in his responses. What he lacks - and it was apparent in England's Test series in Sri Lanka as well - is the knack or nous of converting his fifties into centuries. Running quick singles and rotating the strike, even when he is well set, have to be part of the solution."

Sums him up for me.

 

[Uppercut]

Lawrence Booth explains Bell's problems in his article on Bell as one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year in 2008 when he says :

"Now he wants to cement his position at first drop in Test and 50-over cricket in the hope of fulfilling a childhood dream and playing 100 Tests. Bell has the shots and the defensive technique required of a No. 3, who has to be highly adaptable in his responses. What he lacks - and it was apparent in England's Test series in Sri Lanka as well - is the knack or nous of converting his fifties into centuries. Running quick singles and rotating the strike, even when he is well set, have to be part of the solution."

Sums him up for me.

Yeah, that's the popular opinion of Bell- a decent player who wilts under pressure.

Personally i don't think that's true anymore. The conclusion i've come to is that Bell is a below-average player with no stand-out weakness. His timing and shot selection is just not consistent enough at the highest level. If he continually got out lbw to straight balls or edging ones that were missing the stumps then he'd come in for a lot more stick for having a flaw in his technique.

If it was the result of nerves getting to him, i think that rather than a lot of starts we'd see a lot of scores under 10 , or even a lot of scores in the nineties. Those are the times when players with trouble dealing with pressure generally have problems. Personally, i'd conclude that Bell just doesn't have the ability to regularly play international-standard bowling on sporting pitches well. He'll never be more than a less-than-mediocre player.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah, that's the popular opinion of Bell- a decent player who wilts under pressure.

Personally i don't think that's true anymore. The conclusion i've come to is that Bell is a below-average player with no stand-out weakness. His timing and shot selection is just not consistent enough at the highest level. If he continually got out lbw to straight balls or edging ones that were missing the stumps then he'd come in for a lot more stick for having a flaw in his technique.

If it was the result of nerves getting to him, i think that rather than a lot of starts we'd see a lot of scores under 10 , or even a lot of scores in the nineties. Those are the times when players with trouble dealing with pressure generally have problems. Personally, i'd conclude that Bell just doesn't have the ability to regularly play international-standard bowling on sporting pitches well. He'll never be more than a less-than-mediocre player.

And you are perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion. I personally will suggest that Bell is technically proficient, but still some way from being classed as a top player in the world. I believe he will reach a level somewhat higher than less-than-mediocre. He will adopt a strategy that enables him to score runs on most surfaces. I have no expert insight to back all this up, it is just a hunch I have with Bell.

 

[Langeveldt]

Flatter than the chest of an Asian woman.

So glad mine doesn't have the backside of an African woman

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that's the popular opinion of Bell- a decent player who wilts under pressure.

Personally i don't think that's true anymore. The conclusion i've come to is that Bell is a below-average player with no stand-out weakness. His timing and shot selection is just not consistent enough at the highest level. If he continually got out lbw to straight balls or edging ones that were missing the stumps then he'd come in for a lot more stick for having a flaw in his technique.

If it was the result of nerves getting to him, i think that rather than a lot of starts we'd see a lot of scores under 10 , or even a lot of scores in the nineties. Those are the times when players with trouble dealing with pressure generally have problems. Personally, i'd conclude that Bell just doesn't have the ability to regularly play international-standard bowling on sporting pitches well. He'll never be more than a less-than-mediocre player.

And you are perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion. I personally will suggest that Bell is technically proficient, but still some way from being classed as a top player in the world. I believe he will reach a level somewhat higher than less-than-mediocre. He will adopt a strategy that enables him to score runs on most surfaces. I have no expert insight to back all this up, it is just a hunch I have with Bell.

This has been my hope (not expectation - I try not to get too expectant about England players, any of them - I learnt this with the Athertons, Hussains, Stewarts and Thorpes - and all the aforementioned are better than most of the batsmen who've played for England the last 4-5 years IMO) for Bell all his career.

However - somewhat inevitably - I've been getting steadily less hopeful as time's gone on. As I've said ad nauseum, it's ridiculous how regularly he's been shifted up and down the order (five on debut, four in 2005, three in 2005/06, six in 2006, three in 2006/07, six in 2007, three in the first half of 2007/08, five in the second half, then three again since the last Test of 2008) but I'd have a bit more sympathy (and it's quite possible he'd have been shifted less) if he'd actually done more than mostly score easy runs at five\six.

I wish he'd just batted five or six from debut, and I think if he had done we'd have seen better results than we have from him. Whether those results would match the hopes I've always had for him, though, I have to somewhat doubt.