Ian Bell

[wpdavid]

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.

My one impression was less positive after his comment to the effect that "someone had to go and it was my turn" (after the 1st test in the Caribbean). Not a lot of reality there afaics. But it was only one comment, tbf.

 

[rivera213]

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.

Yeah either way (I think 45 is the new 40) would get the same result.

Those who played in a large portion of the 90's AND 00's who had a great average in the 90's, I ignore since they proved they can do it in more bowler friendly conditions.

I actually think Pietersen suffers from lack of pace and bounce in the wicket. He is eerily similar to Viv Richards in his approach and Viv was/is the best player of short fast stuff I've seen footage of. While KP isn't THAT good at the short stuff (and has been hit by the faster bowlers), I think he'd rather the ball come on to him so he can use timing rather than power.

He's a batsman I think would have a high average in any/every era.

 

[Kweek]

.

He's a batsman I think would have a high average in any/every era.

that was never the debate

 

[GIMH]

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.

He has?

 

[Scaly piscine]

My one impression was less positive after his comment to the effect that "someone had to go and it was my turn" (after the 1st test in the Caribbean). Not a lot of reality there afaics. But it was only one comment, tbf.

Yea I didn't like that comment either. Makes it sound like it was nothing to do with him being useless when it mattered and instead to do with luck or some other factor.

 

[Richard]

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.

If Bell to date had been half the batsman Jonty Rhodes was he'd be in a position he'd love to be.

And much as Carl Hooper was a round disappointment

Clearly, the Graeme Hick of 1992/93 to 1995/96 was miles ahead of Bell; equally, clearly the Hick of other times was miles behind.

And BTW, as I've said a good few times, 2000 was one of the best years for bowling in cricket history. Start from September 2001, not from January 2000.

 

[Richard]

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

One thing to note is how Bell, in response to the "soft" label, made an effort to assert himself more. The "soft" tag was probably never apt, based more on cosmetics than reality, but he knew he had to dispel it. So he aped some of Kevin Pietersen's mannerisms in an attempt to brash himself up.

Clearly it hasn't helped him bat better, but that's a separate problem. He's certainly intelligent enough to realise when he needs to correct easily-correctable matters.

 

[Richard]

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

Debateable, and if true it's a case of bad vs worse.

 

[Furball]

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.

Yep, I've already acknowledged that, however his average of 37 in victories is somewhat more worrying.

 

[wpdavid]

Yep, I've already acknowledged that, however his average of 37 in victories is somewhat more worrying.

I've never been convinced by focusing on the averages in victories. Looking at Collingwood, it was hardly his fault that we didn't win against SA at Edgbaston or the 1st India test, but those were fine innings.

 

[DaRick]

If Bell to date had been half the batsman Jonty Rhodes was he'd be in a position he'd love to be.

And much as Carl Hooper was a round disappointment

Clearly, the Graeme Hick of 1992/93 to 1995/96 was miles ahead of Bell; equally, clearly the Hick of other times was miles behind.

And BTW, as I've said a good few times, 2000 was one of the best years for bowling in cricket history. Start from September 2001, not from January 2000.

Jonty Rhodes was, IMO, inferior to Bell during the first 4 or so years of his career, but was obviously superior afterwards. Even when he was inferior, he did have a vital knocks next to his name (like in Sydney 1994). I can't really think of a time in which that was really true of Ian Bell (although maybe that's because this current England side isn't nearly as good).

Carl Hooper was, despite his prodigious talent, worse than Ian Bell for most of his career. Indeed, he probably used the old maxim "form is temporary, class is permanent" to justify his place and perpetual underachievement. He did, however, average 46 from 2001 onwards.

 

[Richard]

Hooper was actually a Test-class batsman from 1993 to 1999 (having been woefully sub-par 1987/88-1992/93), but he still performed not extraordinarily unlike Ian Bell has so far. Most of the runs he garnered were easy-pickings, but he wasn't helped by being tossed around the order, dropped when he was going well, etc.

IMO, if Hooper had played solidly between 1993 and 1999, batting at five or four, he could've been a good Test batsman, and maybe an exceptional one. Likewise, if Bell had played all his career at five and six, I reckon he could've gone decently in a backup role. Trouble is people are always expecting more than that for him, because he is sometimes capable of playing the backup role so remarkably well.

 

[aussie]

Why is Hooper being put in Bell's shoes??.

 

[Richard]

Because:

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.

 

[DaRick]

Hooper was actually a Test-class batsman from 1993 to 1999 (having been woefully sub-par 1987/88-1992/93), but he still performed not extraordinarily unlike Ian Bell has so far. Most of the runs he garnered were easy-pickings, but he wasn't helped by being tossed around the order, dropped when he was going well, etc.

IMO, if Hooper had played solidly between 1993 and 1999, batting at five or four, he could've been a good Test batsman, and maybe an exceptional one. Likewise, if Bell had played all his career at five and six, I reckon he could've gone decently in a backup role. Trouble is people are always expecting more than that for him, because he is sometimes capable of playing the backup role so remarkably well.

In 1995 and 1998, Hooper was mediocre, but Bell's overall career so far has not been that much better. 1999 doesn't really count, because he decided to pack up and move to Adelaide.

I can't argue with the rest of your points.

 

[aussie]

Because:

Bell is probably better than Rhodes, but he is wayyyyyyyyyy off Hick & Hooper at their respective peaks.

 

[rivera213]

Jonty Rhodes was, IMO, inferior to Bell during the first 4 or so years of his career

Well, Jonty's first 2 years were great. Averaged over 40, the next 2 mediocre, the 2 after that poor (though obviously only 4 tests) then 98 & 99 was quality, then the final year was pretty good but not great.

Bell, while aesthetically pleasing, only does the business against poor teams/bowlers. He gets himself out more than the opposition does and I can't really see that changing since it's not something you can work on in the nets for your county.

His batting against South Africa last year impressed me until he got himself out.

Bell is probably better than Rhodes, but he is wayyyyyyyyyy off Hick & Hooper at their respective peaks.

Not far off of Hick at test level though in terms of getting it done. I'm sure Bell will end up with a very high FC average, though at test level is where it counts.

 

[oitoitoi]

Bell is probably better than Rhodes, but he is wayyyyyyyyyy off Hick & Hooper at their respective peaks.

Don't think he'll ever be as good as Jonty was at his peak (after he overhauled his technique). Jonty had that Afrikaaner steele too which is quite noticeably missing from Bell.

 

[Richard]

Bell is probably better than Rhodes, but he is wayyyyyyyyyy off Hick & Hooper at their respective peaks.

There's no way Bell is as good as Rhodes (not the Rhodes of most of his career, anyway - he had a down-patch in the middle). As I said, he's not as good as Hick of 1993-1995 but he's far better than Hick at any other time. Hooper, it's difficult to compare, because Hooper was utterly terrible for ages, then quite good for ages, but even when he was quite good he was still a massive disappointment because he looked like he should've been brilliant.

Hooper also basically had two good phases - 1993-1999 and 2001-2002/03 (not playing in between, of course). Hooper > Hick.

The trouble is Hick was bad for longer than he was good (and also missed loads due to being so bad he didn't play). Hick can't be compared to anyone, really, becuase he was damn superb for a short time, but utterly terrible for a greater part.

Bell has just been consistently below-average, but rarely terrible. If I was going to compare him to someone who played in the mid-1990s I'd probably go for someone like Grant Flower. Only difference was, Flower never looked like he could do much better than he has; Bell always does.