*Official* England in West Indies

[Penguinissimo]

My preferred (note, as opposed to predicted) XIs from these squads:

Test: Cook, Strauss, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Swann, Harmison, Sidebottom.

ODI: Bopara, Davies, Shah, Pietersen, Flintoff, Collingwood, Patel, Mascarenhas, Broad, Harmison, Sidebottom.

 

[GIMH]

Nice deep batting (pickup)

 

[wpdavid]

Denly or Key? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let that be Davies and Bopara. Quite like the look of Corrin's XI if he changes the openers, possibly with Sammy Patel coming in for Sidebottom or Mascarenhas.

Davies
Bopara
Pietersen
Shah
Flintoff
Collingwood
Patel
Mascarenhas
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Sidebottom instead of Anderson imo. OK apart from that.

 

[PhoenixFire]

My preferred (note, as opposed to predicted) XIs from these squads:

Test: Cook, Strauss, Shah, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Swann, Harmison, Sidebottom.

ODI: Bopara, Davies, Shah, Pietersen, Flintoff, Collingwood, Patel, Mascarenhas, Broad, Harmison, Sidebottom.

Anderson in for Harmison IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

So they essentially kept everything exactly the same. I don't see what we're going to learn bringing Bell on this tour, we already know he's a pro at bashing poor attacks so it's not like he can prove a point to anyone. He can only fail from here. And inevitably won't, giving him an Ashes spot so Australia can pop him in their proverbial back pocket once more.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Let's all agree on not picking Ian Bell.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yep, Bell can't play ODIs, simple as that. He did OK against India in '07, but I think that was a bit of a fluke. Keep him in the Test squad though.

 

[Penguinissimo]

So they essentially kept everything exactly the same. I don't see what we're going to learn bringing Bell on this tour, we already know he's a pro at bashing poor attacks so it's not like he can prove a point to anyone. He can only fail from here. And inevitably won't, giving him an Ashes spot so Australia can pop him in their proverbial back pocket once more.

That's my fear - he'll make a load of runs against a second rate attack and people will start burbling about a "breakthough innings" again.

Let's all agree on not picking Ian Bell.

Agreed - it is repetitive. Although it is so enraging it is hard not to rant about it.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Anderson in for Harmison IMO.

In Tests, ODIs or both?

 

[GIMH]

Bell might actually find his level against Aussie's attack next summer

 

[Penguinissimo]

Bell might actually find his level against Aussie's attack next summer

Leave this thread and never return.

 

[Pothas]

I must say that I'm not really enjyoing this current Bell hating. I agree that he probably should not be in the ODI team and that it does not look like a Test number 3 (unlike at 5 when he is just as good as Collingwood.) What slightly iritates me is that as in every sport a certain player becomes unfarily associated with the failure of an entire team.

 

[Uppercut]

I must say that I'm not really enjyoing this current Bell hating. I agree that he probably should not be in the ODI team and that it does not look like a Test number 3 (unlike at 5 when he is just as good as Collingwood.) What slightly iritates me is that as in every sport a certain player becomes unfarily associated with the failure of an entire team.

Have to disagree, Collingwood can change the dynamic of a match at 5, whereas Bell just scores when everyone else has scored and gets out when everyone else has got out. There's no Ian Bell equivalent of his 130 at Edgebaston during the summer, or his massive stand with Strauss at Chennai that rescued England from 25-3 or something similar. Nor has he ever scored a double-century against Australia.

 

[GIMH]

His 199 against SA, though on a docile track, came when England were in the ****

 

[Uppercut]

His 199 against SA, though on a docile track, came when England were in the ****

Hmmm. I guess that's fair enough. Still, Colly>>>Bell.

 

[GIMH]

Aye, I wouldn't disagree

 

[Penguinissimo]

I must say that I'm not really enjyoing this current Bell hating. I agree that he probably should not be in the ODI team and that it does not look like a Test number 3 (unlike at 5 when he is just as good as Collingwood.) What slightly iritates me is that as in every sport a certain player becomes unfarily associated with the failure of an entire team.

I don't agree with you. I'm not blaming Bell for the failures of the whole team, I'm asking for action to remedy faults which have been apparent now for a long, long time. If Monty Panesar has played one Test 34 times, then Bell has played the same Test 45 times - all potential and the odd pretty shot, but no achievement.

I have been on Bell's case for about a year, and it's only now that everyone else is catching up. I wrote this (on the Third Man blog) straight after the SA series, and I think it all still applies now as a case for why Bell should be dropped:

I do feel like I'm repeating a bit of a cliche now, but I am getting pretty frustrated with Bell.

He has been a fixture in the England side for the best part of four years, so surely he's past the probationary period of "has all the shots and talent to be very good". He should be very good now, and the fact that he hasn't really moved on much in the last 18 months is a big concern for me.

The reason that I and others get so down on Bell is that he never delivers consistently. Never has done for the Test side.

Let's look at his recent record:

vs SA: 199, 31, 4, 50, 20, 24 and 4

The 199 came in a match where 6 other players scored hundreds, and the game was a dead duck draw on a superb batting track.

When he got out for 50, he was the last full batsman there and his dismissal condemned us to a massively sub-par score - look at what an extra 70 runs with Flintoff could have done in the context of the game. He let the pressure get to him and underperformed when we needed him most.

vs NZ (home): 16, 8, 21*, 0

Nuff said.

vs NZ (away): 25, 54*, 11, 41, 9, 110

The 54* was a pretty knock with no pressure on in a totally lost cause.

The 110 was a good knock, but as junior partner to Strauss, and half of those runs were made once NZ were effectively out of the game.

It may sound like I'm running him down a bit, but can you point me to a single knock he's played where we have won or saved a game as a result?

Like Ambrose's 102 in Wellington, the only 3-figure score that game. Or KP's 129 in Napier, which was over half our runs that innings. Or Vaughan's 106 at Lord's, which was the only reason we were able to post a lead after collapsing from 121-0 to 208-6. OR KP's 115 in the deciding Test at Trent Bridge, which rescued us from 86-5 and was again the only century in the entire match?

I cannot summon to mind a single one where Bell has put his hand up in a tough spot and been the only beacon of light in the darkness.

Equally, since the Ashes, he has made only 3 centuries, and only converts 27% of fifties into 100s (KP converts 80%). If you take out WI and NZ, that figure falls to 1 with a conversion rate of just 14% (KP's is still 80%).

Now he's not the only one to have conversion problems, but we've just promoted this guy to number 3, to the place where you need big hundreds to come from.

I can't shake the impression that Bell is a fair-weather player. There ain't going to be much fair weather against India or the Aussies. So I'd rather have a gritty, mentally tough but unorthodox player like Shah there rather than someone who goes missing when the pressure's on.

I would bracket Bell with two other great batsmen, Hick and Ramprakash. I think the comparisons there are a bit too close for comfort.

 

[Uppercut]

Your reading of his performances is a bit unfair in some cases. His 54* in NZ wasn't a lost cause when he arrived at the crease, 3 down on a good track with a session and a half to save and a win not out of the question. The rest of the team let him down there. His 199 came from a situation of 80/3 too, as GIMH pointed out. Wouldn't disagree with the conclusion of course, but credit where credit's due and all that.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Your reading of his performances is a bit unfair in some cases. His 54* in NZ wasn't a lost cause when he arrived at the crease, 3 down on a good track with a session and a half to save and a win not out of the question. The rest of the team let him down there.

But, IIRC, most of his runs came once we were indisputably in the mire and he decided to swing the bat.

His 199 came from a situation of 80/3 too, as GIMH pointed out. Wouldn't disagree with the conclusion of course, but credit where credit's due and all that.

True, and I was at Lord's that day and was impressed with the way he took the attack to SA. I agree that if he'd got out for 20 we'd have been in a bit of trouble, and that it was a good knock - but in the context of the match as a whole, his innings wasn't that significant. And if you really want to be picky, he froze up like a rabbit in front of a truck when he got near his 200.

As a final point - if you take out his runs against Bangladesh, his average falls below 40 to 38-ish. I haven't yet done the calc if you take out WI and NZ as well, but I will do soon.

 

[steds]

Rashid's selection completely baffles me. Makes no sense on any level at all.