• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* England in South Africa

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England didn't take any proper backup to Bell? Crikey.

Mind you, a quickfire 20 from Luke Wright is surely preferable to a stodgy 2 from Bell.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Think Bell has to play the next test really, the performance of Broad and Prior this tests intstills little confidence in moving them up and playing an extra bowler and the prospect of Luke Wright in a test match is something that I just don't want to think about.
If the selectors had balls they would call up Morgan to bat @ 6. We dont need anymore Bell tortune his time is uppp..

Not sure what ENG can do with the bowling. We need 5 bowlers (4 proper quicks & Swann) to really test the SA batting line-up. But there is no way we can balance the side that way without Flintoff, so ENG are screwed either way.

All we can just hope for ENG to keep fighting & SA to make mistakes for us the have realistic chance of winning this series.
 

jboss

Banned
Out of interest, why isnt he a 'natural keeper'? As you know I played with Kuhn and his keeping was never called into question

I dont think he should be in the national team right now but I dont question his keeping
Let's ignore keeping then and go to the dsicussion around reasons that AB don't want the gloves and why his fans don't want him too. By not taking the gloves many would argue that his average is worth 15 more by not doing keeping duties. Yet this is never discussed for Kuhn who could then have an average of 55+ in FC cricket?
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Think Bell has to play the next test really, the performance of Broad and Prior this tests intstills little confidence in moving them up and playing an extra bowler and the prospect of Luke Wright in a test match is something that I just don't want to think about.
Swanny at 7. Prior's good enough to bat 6.

I prefer a four-man attack, but if your extra batsman isn't going to score any runs you might as well take a bowler.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jeez we've been spoiled for tense Test matches this past month or so. Quality stuff in recent times.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Out of interest, why isnt he a 'natural keeper'? As you know I played with Kuhn and his keeping was never called into question

I dont think he should be in the national team right now but I dont question his keeping
Kepler Wessels who coached him said his keeping wasn't of the standard of a Boucher or Smit (Kepler favoured Smit over Kuhn with the gloves for the Emerging side) and when I've been watching domestic on SuperSport, the commentators have always been critical of Kuhn. Additionally, Mangaliso Moshele of the Titans is regarded as a very good keeper though as Kuhn is on brink/fringes of the national side, Moshele when he played early this season didn't keep.

Also at junior level apparently it was van der Merwe who kept wicket and Kuhn wasn't a keeper until late teens.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
A player cannot get dropped after 1 Test. That is panic selection.

I have always had a very low opinion of Bell but if the selectors think he is the right guy for the team then one bad Test shouldnt change that. Cant go dropping players after 1 bad game in a series. Thats how continuity is broken and the nightmare of flavour of the week begins.

As for Wright, if he plays Test I give up trying to figure out selection. It just cant be done.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Swanny at 7. Prior's good enough to bat 6.

I prefer a four-man attack, but if your extra batsman isn't going to score any runs you might as well take a bowler.
Bell is not incapable of making some runs, you never know he might even manage a 52 or something in the next test.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
England didn't take any proper backup to Bell? Crikey.

Mind you, a quickfire 20 from Luke Wright is surely preferable to a stodgy 2 from Bell.
Exactly so. I wouldn't advocate dropping a proven test batsman for Wright, but Bell is by no far stretch of the imagination one of those. After 50 tests he averages less than 39 in an era generally reckoned to be pretty easy for batting. I imagine if one were to remove the Bangladesh freebies he'd be closer to 35 than 40 too.

EDIT: Aye, was right. 36.09 without Bangladesh to bolster his record. Not cutting it for mine.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Also at junior level apparently it was van der Merwe who kept wicket and Kuhn wasn't a keeper until late teens.
haha, I played in a game that Kuhn wasnt available for where van der Merwe kept. Did an ok job but nothing special. However, he took the gloves off to bowl the last over of the innings (his only of the game and a very brave thing to do) and we lost (defending 340+) :laugh:
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bell is not incapable of making some runs, you never know he might even manage a 52 or something in the next test.
So might Swann though. Looking at their respective form, do you think Bell is more likely to make a contribution in the next test than Swann? If so, do you think the difference is enough to justify going in with one less bowler? As I say, I'm not a fan of the five-man attack, but England seriously looked like they needed the extra bowler in both innings of this game.

Obviously you're weakening the tail significantly too though. It's not ideal. I suppose giving Bell the rest of the series is fair enough.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
The fact that Wright is on tour suggests the selectors see him as a legitimate option, even if no-one else does. They wouldn't take him over there just for the experience at the expense of any actual batting cover. I can definitely see him playing in the next Test, wrightly or wrongly (wrongly IMO).
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The fact that Wright is on tour suggests the selectors see him as a legitimate option, even if no-one else does. They wouldn't take him over there just for the experience at the expense of any actual batting cover. I can definitely see him playing in the next Test, wrightly or wrongly (wrongly IMO).
:laugh:
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
A player cannot get dropped after 1 Test. That is panic selection.

I have always had a very low opinion of Bell but if the selectors think he is the right guy for the team then one bad Test shouldnt change that. Cant go dropping players after 1 bad game in a series. Thats how continuity is broken and the nightmare of flavour of the week begins.

As for Wright, if he plays Test I give up trying to figure out selection. It just cant be done.
I think Bell will get axed. Ashley Giles who is flying home tomorrow when interviewed on TMS at the halfway point of the game said that Bell pretty much will have another chance at Durban but what with him flying home, Bell has lost one of his biggest supporters. I wouldn’t consider Wright an option but Liam Plunkett could be worth a punt. Played at Kingsmead for the Dolphins and is coming off the back of a good season with ball (and bat).
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
So might Swann though. Looking at their respective form, do you think Bell is more likely to make a contribution in the next test than Swann? If so, do you think the difference is enough to justify going in with one less bowler? As I say, I'm not a fan of the five-man attack, but England seriously looked like they needed the extra bowler in both innings of this game.

Obviously you're weakening the tail significantly too though. It's not ideal. I suppose giving Bell the rest of the series is fair enough.
I can't agree. Dropping him isn't a knee-jerk reaction; he was only recalled because of Pietersen's injury and retained when the selectors decided to go with a 4 man attack. He's had 4 tests since he came back and it isn't pretty reading:

And bye-bye, Belly. Those scores since his recall in full: 58, 8, 3, 72, 4, 5, 2. Not good enough, IMHO especially when, IIRC, he had three lives in the first half-century.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So might Swann though. Looking at their respective form, do you think Bell is more likely to make a contribution in the next test than Swann? If so, do you think the difference is enough to justify going in with one less bowler? As I say, I'm not a fan of the five-man attack, but England seriously looked like they needed the extra bowler in both innings of this game.

Obviously you're weakening the tail significantly too though. It's not ideal. I suppose giving Bell the rest of the series is fair enough.
Swann has done really well yes but he is not Vettori quite yet. With Cook also short of form then I think although it is somewhat negative we need the extra batsman, Bell is undoutedly mediocre but he is not going to play this badly every test for the rest of the series, if he does not make some serious runs then we can forget about him next summer. Yes we could do with the extra bowler but I honestly do not think it would make a massive diffference, England just have to hope that Anderson or Broad have a magic test at somepoint, Onions will be solid throughout.
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I can't agree. Dropping him isn't a knee-jerk reaction; he was only recalled because of Pietersen's injury and retained when the selectors decided to go with a 4 man attack. He's had 4 tests since he came back and it isn't pretty reading:
Indeed. Bell has to go. Cook is the one who could probably be given the rest of this series to prove himself, if not he will be facing the axe as soon as this tour is over.
 

Top