The post above mine will answer that for you. I think you might have slightly misunderstood what the debate was about.
No, I think you just don't have a clue what you're arguing about and like the other Aussies jumping on the bandwago just want to argue without having a firm argument.
You seem to be suggesting shot-selection is not a talent - if it isn't, what is? Shot-selection is 95% of how good a batsman is. It's the most inherantly important thing in batting, by miles.
And yes, I think Ganga has rarely looked like a rabbit in the headlights TBH. I've seen him bat hundreds of times and it's usually exactly like Bell, Das, Smith etc. - he looks comfortable for a time, somtimes ages, but rarely goes on to make massive scores. But when he does make said massive scores they're quite compelling and look the best and surest thing in battingdom.
Quite unlike, say, Marvan Atapattu who either looked completely and totally composed or completely and totally off. And scored thus, regardless of how good or bad the bowling was.
Shot selection is a talent, but it's something which can be worked on. Bell's shot selection isn't a result of misjudging line or length, but either trying to force the pace, trying to assert authority unnecessarily etc. But it's not 95% of how good a batsman is, it's 95% of how SUCCESSFUL a batsman is. The 2 don't alway add up. There have been plenty of batsmen in test cricket who've punched above their weight and plenty who've failed even though they were more talented than the former.
Bell has an excellent array of shots. He can play any shot on the off side as well as many on the leg side. His drives are as picturesque as Vaughan or Tendulkar when on form. Anyone with that array of shots in their armoury which they can time almost from ball 1 has talent. The fact he has brain farts doesn't take away from that.
Graeme Hick had a great array of shots but it was mental errors which was the reason he failed at test level.
I've seen the majority of Ganga's test innings and he's never looked as set as Bell has or anywhere near the quality Bell is. Ganga is a 30 average test player and Bell is a 45-50 average test player in terms of ability and I've seen nothing from either of them to suggest differently.
I have met the kid, albeit before his test selection.
Came to our junior presentation last year. Didn't have to - it was sabbatical time for NSW players, but someone in our club knew his uncle, who asked if he'd come to the gig.
Here's the thing - the kid was 18, hadn't done a speaking gig before, drove with his mum and dad from Macksville to Sydney to do it, didn't get paid and was thrilled to answer questions from kids during the night and sign autographs for ages post-presentation.
We gave him a 6 pack of Crown Lagers and a bottle of bourbon. And a Wenty stubbie holder and tie, which was embarrassing as we didn't know he was coming from out of town - thought he was in Sydney. He seemed well pleased to receive them too.
So really, until I hear evidence from someone whom I consider reliable that the kid's changed and become an arrogant arsehole, I won't hear a bad word about him.
BTW, for those who don't know, Macksville to Sydney is about a 5.5 -6 hour drive, not including breaks.
Since when did I say Hughes was "a bad kid" or anything of the sort.
I think you Aussies are blowing this WAY out of proportion which ironically is what you slam the English for doing. Some consistency wouldn't go a miss.
Pietersen is ****y but a nice man away from cricket too. Phil Taylor too (if you call darts a sport. Lol).
Being a ****y sportsman doesn't equal being an arsehole and I never said he was an arsehole, just that he comes across as ****y so sop putting words in my mouth to justify YOUR posts.
I think coffee should be banned from Australia, it's obviously consumed in too copius an amount if this thread is anything to go by.
.