30 Test hundreds

[amanuensis]

Explain to me a Test match situation where what you really need from your no.5, as oppose to your no.4, is a big hundred scored quickly.

When you bat at five, the only Test situations you're likely to get into more than if you were batting up the order is shepherding the tail or rebuilding after a collapse, neither of which calls for "destruction".

I didn't say anything about a "big hundred scored quickly". With Bell as low as five, you're basically ruling out the possibility of a genuinely big score - that's stupid, particularly when Pietersen can score quickly enough when he gets going to still go big from that position.

 

[marc71178]

What are you on about?

In Test history there's hardly any 200s from 5 or below relatively speaking (45 out of 308), so whoever you put there you're basically ruling out. Bell at 5 works for England, and the only time he should bat and higher than 5 is when one of Trott or KP is missing.

 

[amanuensis]

What are you on about?

In Test history there's hardly any 200s from 5 or below relatively speaking (45 out of 308), so whoever you put there you're basically ruling out. Bell at 5 works for England, and the only time he should bat and higher than 5 is when one of Trott or KP is missing.

So the team's most consistent batsman of recent years, the most likely to reach 50 & then 100, should be "ruled out"? Yep, that's very smart.

 

[Furball]

So the team's most consistent batsman of recent years, the most likely to reach 50 & then 100, should be "ruled out"? Yep, that's very smart.

Cook opens.

 

[amanuensis]

Cook opens.

Bell since the 2009 Ashes decider:

30 innings
8 hundreds
8 fifties
1959 runs @ 78.36

That includes at least 1 ton in every full series he's played & multiple significant contributions against each team he's faced. Sorry, but Cook doesn't come anywhere near that.

 

[Turbinator]

Tim Paine

 

[Furball]

Bell since the 2009 Ashes decider:

30 innings
8 hundreds
8 fifties
1959 runs @ 78.36

That includes at least 1 ton in every full series he's played & multiple significant contributions against each team he's faced. Sorry, but Cook doesn't come anywhere near that.

Cook's scored 10 tons and 2,300 runs in that time frame.

 

[amanuensis]

Cook's scored 10 tons and 2,300 runs in that time frame.

In significantly more innings (40), at a significantly lower average (62.58) & with some conspicuous failures (he was rubbish throughout the summer of 2010). He also had far more opportunity to cash in in Australia, where Bell was basically shafted by Flower. Sorry, but it's been Bell by some distance in the consistency stakes.

 

[Jacknife]

So the team's most consistent batsman of recent years, the most likely to reach 50 & then 100, should be "ruled out"? Yep, that's very smart.

Don't you think the reason he's got those figures and been consistent is because he's found his place in the team.
What's with this need to mess around with a winning team just on the off chance you can maybe boost Bell's numbers? The team at the moment has got a great balance to it and nearly everyone is producing, so why change?

Going back to Cook and Bell's numbers , Bell didn't play the series against Pakistan that gave England's top order the run around, I'm sure his stats would have taken a hit like everyone's did, if he'd have played.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Arguing over semantics here - in the end, there's no doubt that, if England are to become a very dominant team (esp. at home), and do what they did to India and Australia, then Bell won't be making as many tons at 5 (when we are talking about getting to 30 centuries) than what he would at 3.

 

[amanuensis]

Don't you think the reason he's got those figures and been consistent is because he's found his place in the team.
What's with this need to mess around with a winning team just on the off chance you can maybe boost Bell's numbers? The team at the moment has got a great balance to it and nearly everyone is producing, so why change?

No - he's actually done rather better in that time at three (504 runs @ 100.8 against Australia & India) than lower down the order. That suggests to me that his success in recent years has little to do with batting position & more to do with being genuinely comfortable/confident in test cricket.

 

[marc71178]

You'd have a point if you had a decent sample size but you don't therefore you don't.

 

[amanuensis]

You'd have a point if you had a decent sample size but you don't therefore you don't.

So that stat is just a complete coincidence?

 

[Furball]

So that stat is just a complete coincidence?

Could be.

 

[amanuensis]

Could be.

So the guy scores heavily, even more so higher up the order (precisely because he had the opportunity to spend longer at the crease) & that's the best you can do?

 

[marc71178]

So that stat is just a complete coincidence?

Considering his past record at 3 (in comparison to his overall record at that time) it is quite possible that it may be. 5 innings is not a significant sample.

 

[amanuensis]

Considering his past record at 3 (in comparison to his overall record at that time) it is quite possible that it may be. 5 innings is not a significant sample.

What's his past record got to do with it?

 

[Furball]

 

[Howe_zat]

I actually agree with amanuensis on the general point, but he's arguing it so badly that I think I'll let this one slide.

 

[Furball]

I actually agree with amanuensis on the general point, but he's arguing it so badly that I think I'll let this one slide.

Yeah, the point that Bell would have more time to make hundreds batting at 3 instead of 5 is a valid one, the rest of the argument is just rubbish.