Ian Bell

[Howsie]

I was just searching through another thread and I saw someone post up the amount of times Ian Bell has scored a century when someone else from the same team has also scored one.

I know Bell is or was rated highly by some people, but looking at these stats he doesn't fair too well.

In test matches England have won or lost, Bell averages 33.67, which is a whole seven runs less then his carrer average. I didn't include Bangladesh either.

Cricinfo Statsguru - IR Bell - Test matches - Batting analysis


In test matches England have drawn, he averages 47.23, thats seven more runs then is carrer average, and 14 more then his win/loss average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - IR Bell - Test matches - Batting analysis

Is there anyone else going around at the moment that has such a large difference, I'm going to guess there is. But what should England do with Bell, he was dropped in the West Indies. Is he just going to walk back into the team, or is he going to have to work for his place.

 

[James_W]

Obviously what this highlights is that on pitches and in conditions good enough that a result can be reached, he is not good enough. Ian Bell- Flat Track Bully? Haha, never thought I would say that.

Of course, this doesn't take into account matches that could've been severely reduced by rain or other cirumstances beyond control if there were any such matches.

 

[Athlai]

Haha I was under the impression that Bell was very poorly rated by most members.

 

[stumpski]

Obviously what this highlights is that on pitches and in conditions good enough that a result can be reached, he is not good enough. Ian Bell- Flat Track Bully? Haha, never thought I would say that.

Of course, this doesn't take into account matches that could've been severely reduced by rain or other cirumstances beyond control if there were any such matches.

Yeah, agree with that. It wasn't so long ago we were crying out for a batsman who could average over 40 - for a while only Graham Thorpe managed it - but now that's no longer enough. Of more concern to me is that Bell only averages 31 at number 3, our perennial 'problem' slot, as opposed to 54 at 5 and 49 at 6, where's he more likely to finish not-out of course.

 

[andruid]

I was just searching through another thread and I saw someone post up the amount of times Ian Bell has scored a century when someone else from the same team has also scored one.

I know Bell is or was rated highly by some people, but looking at these stats he doesn't fair too well.

In test matches England have won or lost, Bell averages 33.67, which is a whole seven runs less then his carrer average. I didn't include Bangladesh either.

Cricinfo Statsguru - IR Bell - Test matches - Batting analysis


In test matches England have drawn, he averages 47.23, thats seven more runs then is carrer average, and 14 more then his win/loss average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - IR Bell - Test matches - Batting analysis

Is there anyone else going around at the moment that has such a large difference, I'm going to guess there is. But what should England do with Bell, he was dropped in the West Indies. Is he just going to walk back into the team, or is he going to have to work for his place.

Have you tried to place other batsmen under such an analysis to see whether or not it is a train unique only to Ian Bell. Say other test players who bat at 3 or 5, or the rest of the England batting line up?

 

[Furball]

Collingwood averages less in victory than he does in defeat - though admittedly that particular stat is skewed by his 206 and 20something* in Adelaide in 2006.

edit: I think Collingwood averages about 37 in England victories, his average in draws is particularly high. What his stats seem to reveal is that he is emphatically not a match-winner at Test level.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, agree with that. It wasn't so long ago we were crying out for a batsman who could average over 40 - for a while only Graham Thorpe managed it - but now that's no longer enough.

Of course it isn't. Batting is inestimably easier in Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood etc.'s day than in Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe etc.'s.

Even Pietersen, who averages 50+, has been to some extent a disappointment. A career average has never been a particularly good way to judge a batsman's worth, but averaging over 40 is, at the current time, nowhere near sufficient to make any judgements about a batsman.

Bell has done precious little of real note all career, but still averages almost 40.

 

[Richard]

Haha I was under the impression that Bell was very poorly rated by most members.

I don't imagine you'd get very many on here who claim he's done a great deal of note in his Test career, because he simply hasn't. He's disappointed again and again. Some people elsewhere, with lower standards of discussion, will still claim that he's had a decent career so far, but not on CW.

The question which still divides opinion on CW is whether he is good enough to turn it around. We've been waiting 3-4 years for that to happen, and it still hasn't yet. Some - myself included - still hold some hopes out for him becoming Test-class in future. Others think he's not really all that good and isn't likely to ever be a Test-class batsman (though admittedly for some this is simply because he looks "soft" or because he's a southerner rather than because of any genuine judgement on his ability).

 

[rivera213]

Bell is higly rated by experts in the game, mainly due to the fact when he's in form, he's 1 of the best looking batsmen around.

I don't think his problem is batting technique or lack of shots etc, it's just poor judgement.

How many times does he get himself out once he's got in?

He's his own worst enemy.

I think an average of 45 is now equivalent to 40 pre-Cricket Boards ****ting themselves because test matches didn't always last 5 days hence no revenue for the days off-era and we don't have too many of those floating around.

 

[pskov]

As a general rule of thumb, when comparing a batsman's test average in the 2000s with one in the 1990s I knock 5 runs off. For Bell that would put his at 35.59 and place him at roughly the same level as Carl Hooper, Greame Hick, Jonty Rhodes etc. which seems about right to me. Of course he still has time to improve on that and will undoubtably get another chance to at some point.

 

[Redbacks]

Would be interested into the insights into his mentality the English posters are aware of.

Has he:

Put together a new super tough fitness regime, helping with mental fatigue in test matches?
Begun to think critically about a slight technical change (always a bit dangerous)?
Working really hard to get the next 1-2%, or even 0.4% out of his game which might just take him to the level many believe he could be?

i.e. trying to grow as a player as most in-out players from sports teams are expected to do (not just what the selectors want, but extra work away from public eyes) and usually this compliments there existing natural talent. Or a plan of 'I have faith in my ability, get form together and one day, yes one day, it will click for me.' Either might work

 

[four_or_six]

Collingwood averages less in victory than he does in defeat - though admittedly that particular stat is skewed by his 206 and 20something* in Adelaide in 2006.

edit: I think Collingwood averages about 37 in England victories, his average in draws is particularly high. What his stats seem to reveal is that he is emphatically not a match-winner at Test level.

Seeing as it's not really Collingwood's fault that his 206 and 20* weren't in a win, that's a pretty unfair stat.

And surely loads of players have better averages in draws, as usually that's when there's really big scores.

 

[Evermind]

Whatever you might say about Ian Bell, he's still a lot better than anyone else England have had at #3 in recent history.

 

[Howsie]

In matches England have won or lost Paul Collingwood averages 40.27, which is three less runs then his carrer average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - PD Collingwood - Test matches - Batting analysis

In draws he averages 50.53, which like Bell is seven runs more then his carrer average.

I also did Alistar Cook, his carrer average is 43.35, but in England wins and losses he only averages 32.37. A whole 11 runs lower, but in draws his avergae goes out to a whopping 66.26, which is 23 runs more then his carrer average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - AN Cook - Test matches - Batting analysis

So maybe it's not just Bell.

 

[Evermind]

In matches England have won or lost Paul Collingwood averages 40.27, which is three less runs then his carrer average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - PD Collingwood - Test matches - Batting analysis

In draws he averages 50.53, which like Bell is seven runs more then his carrer average.

I also did Alistar Cook, his carrer average is 43.35, but in England wins and losses he only averages 32.37. A whole 11 runs lower, but in draws his avergae goes out to a whopping 66.26, which is 23 runs more then his carrer average.

Cricinfo Statsguru - AN Cook - Test matches - Batting analysis

So maybe it's not just Bell.

Yeah, I suspect it's true for most players and most teams, other than the all-time greats (Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara) and the champion teams (Australia, WI of the 80s).

 

[Athlai]

Okay fine but what about:

Chanderpaul - averages 80.09 in drawn matches against top teams. (30 more than his career)
Jayawardene - 79.92 (26 more)
Lara - 73.97 (21 more)


Or if you don't want plays who average career 50+

Laxman - 64.04 (19 more)
Ganguly - 62.17 (20 more)
Astle - 57.65 (20 more)
Hooper - 58.36 (22 more)


Almost every single player averages more in draws than in wins and losses and some far more notably so than a few mediocre Pom's adhering to the same principle.

 

[Howsie]

Okay fine but what about:

Chanderpaul - averages 80.09 in drawn matches against top teams. (30 more than his career)
Jayawardene - 79.92 (26 more)
Lara - 73.97 (21 more)


Or if you don't want plays who average career 50+

Laxman - 64.04 (19 more)
Ganguly - 62.17 (20 more)
Astle - 57.65 (20 more)
Hooper - 58.36 (22 more)


Almost every single player averages more in draws than in wins and losses and some far more notably so than a few mediocre Pom's adhering to the same principle.

What I was trying to get at was players that didn't turn up in wins and losses, usually the time when there team needs them the most. I'm guessing the Lara's and Chanderpauls and co dont average in the early 30's in losses.

Is there any batsmen that averages more during a win or loss.

 

[four_or_six]

Would be interested into the insights into his mentality the English posters are aware of.

Has he:

Put together a new super tough fitness regime, helping with mental fatigue in test matches?
Begun to think critically about a slight technical change (always a bit dangerous)?
Working really hard to get the next 1-2%, or even 0.4% out of his game which might just take him to the level many believe he could be?

i.e. trying to grow as a player as most in-out players from sports teams are expected to do (not just what the selectors want, but extra work away from public eyes) and usually this compliments there existing natural talent. Or a plan of 'I have faith in my ability, get form together and one day, yes one day, it will click for me.' Either might work

I know that Bell, after being dropped, was apparently running to and from the ground rather than getting the coach. The impression I got from the commentator talking about it was that he had impressed people with his attitude after getting dropped.

 

[Athlai]

What I was trying to get at was players that didn't turn up in wins and losses, usually the time when there team needs them the most. I'm guessing the Lara's and Chanderpauls and co dont average in the early 30's in losses.

Is there any batsmen that averages more during a win or loss.

In the history of the game for players who have played in more than 20 losing causes, only 4 average 40+ (Hutton, Hobbs, Flower and Lara) and 33 30+.

Leaving such notable names as averaging below 30 in losses as:
Laxman
Miandad
Thorpe
Gooch
Gayle
Bert Sutcliffe
Boycott
Astle
M Waugh
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Graeme Smith
Sobers
Crowe
Hooper
Atherton
Atapattu
Jayasuriya
Ganguly
Vengsarkar
Nourse
W Rhodes

 

[JimmyGS]

i.e. trying to grow as a player as most in-out players from sports teams are expected to do (not just what the selectors want, but extra work away from public eyes) and usually this compliments there existing natural talent. Or a plan of 'I have faith in my ability, get form together and one day, yes one day, it will click for me.' Either might work

No no no no no no no. This doesn't cut it. If this is what he's doing then he has no future in the game.