***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[marc71178]

I love how so many attacks are being downgraded to suit a poster's POV - pure and utter codswallop being spouted.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I don't think there are too many batsmen going around who've played equally well in all conditions. Sangakkara has distinctly mediocre records in India, Eng, SA for a batsman of his purported caliber. Kallis hasn't been too flash in SL or Eng for that matter. I'll wait to pass judgement on Ian Bell just yet. Maybe it's a case of slow maturity, maybe it isn't. He sure looks like a million bucks when he gets going though.

 

[BeeGee]

I've asked this question before: if, as I've predicted, Bell averages less than 20 in this series, what would be the attitude of his many defenders on this forum? That that level of performance is an aberration? That would be a very unintelligent, nay, delusional way of interpreting the data, given what has gone before.

Well Nostradamus, how about we wait to see IF Bell averages below 20 for the series and IF Bell's fans react the way you suggest they will BEFORE calling them "unintelligent, nay, delusional"?

Here's my question to you: What's your prediction for how you will react IF Bell averages over 40 for the series?

 

[Furball]

I've asked this question before: if, as I've predicted, Bell averages less than 20 in this series, what would be the attitude of his many defenders on this forum? That that level of performance is an aberration? That would be a very unintelligent, nay, delusional way of interpreting the data, given what has gone before.

My reaction would be a massive shrug of the shoulders. People read far too much into individual series averages; a series average of 20 would prove nothing other than Bell wasn't in prime form for the duration of the series.

And given that he's just spent the last year averaging 100, I think I'd be prepared to cut him a bit of slack for one poor series.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I like CWB304. The only person on here apart from me who has acknowledged Gul as being a good test bowler. I may call Gul brainless sometimes, but he is pretty good and does deliver.

 

[sledger]

What? I don't know about on here specifically, but I'm of the impression that Gul has been held in quite high regard by a lot of people for a while now.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

No. It's because he sometimes delivers and at other times is average. According to some members this Pak attack would fail in England.

 

[Prince EWS]

Gul is meh to me; he's a slightly above par Test bowler. He's a bit inconsistent, but he's not inconsistent in the typical way one would think of an inconsistent Pakistani bowler in that he could rip a side apart one day and travel the next, because he doesn't really have the skill to rip a side apart IMO - sometimes he can build pressure and sometimes he bowls rubbish. He's a fairly typical back-of-a-length first change bowler who does a decent job and nothing more. Over-discussed merely because he's the most experienced Pakistan bowler now IMO.

 

[CWB304]

Well Nostradamus, how about we wait to see IF Bell averages below 20 for the series and IF Bell's fans react the way you suggest they will BEFORE calling them "unintelligent, nay, delusional"?

Here's my question to you: What's your prediction for how you will react IF Bell averages over 40 for the series?

I won't stoop to your level by calling you names: your post speaks for itself. Since you've just demonstrated that you don't understand the use of the conditional in what I sincerely hope is not your mother tongue, let me break down what I wrote for you, highlighting (and explaining the significance of) key words:

I wrote:

I've asked this question before: if, as I've predicted, Bell averages less than 20 in this series, what would be the attitude of his many defenders on this forum? That that level of performance is an aberration? That would be a very unintelligent, nay, delusional way of interpreting the data, given what has gone before.

In the above extract I reiterate my prediction that Bell will average less than 20. Everything that follows is CONDITIONAL upon that. I have acknowledged that it hasn't happened yet by using "if" after the colon, and then made use of the conditional in asking "what would be the attitude" of Bell's many defenders should my prediction come to pass. Then finally there is an implied "if" (if his defenders were to respond that averaging less than 20 in this series was just a blip) before I allow myself another conditional "that would be very unintelligent, nay delusional".

I can't believe you're sincerely raging along the lines of "how about we wait to see whether it happens, Nostradamus", when I couldn't have made it clearer that I was dealing in hypotheticals by my use of "if", "would" and other conditional constructions. Perhaps you're not just thick, and would react just as furiously upon receiving the following advice from your wife or mother, "you ought to take your umbrella darling; if you were to get caught in the rain, you would get very wet and might catch pneumonia":

"Well Nostradamus, how about we wait to see IF it rains, BEFORE accusing me of being the sort of person who could EVER catch pneumonia."

As for your other question, if Bell does average 40+, or even 30+, I will come here and humbly admit to having been wrong about him. I have no problems whatsoever admitting when I'm wrong. What I will not do is react with "a massive shrug of the shoulders". And go on to claim that "people read far too much into individual series averages; a series average of 20 would prove nothing other than Bell wasn't in prime form for the duration of the series."

Given Bell's history of embarrassingly inept performances whenever he has been confronted with a balanced attack, that would be almost as stupid as your last post.

 

[CWB304]

I don't think there are too many batsmen going around who've played equally well in all conditions. Sangakkara has distinctly mediocre records in India, Eng, SA for a batsman of his purported caliber. Kallis hasn't been too flash in SL or Eng for that matter. I'll wait to pass judgement on Ian Bell just yet. Maybe it's a case of slow maturity, maybe it isn't. He sure looks like a million bucks when he gets going though.

Comparing Bell to Sangakkara is a joke, and using mealy-mouthed terms like "purported calibre" for someone with Sangakkara's proven credentials in all conditions betrays a distinct lack of understanding of the game. Sanga has if I remember right home and away centuries against every opposing team he's encountered except Australia at home (he has plenty of high scores). He recently beat the incomparable Lara's record to become the fastest to 9,000 runs and has been the lynchpin of the SL batting for the past six or seven years. By the time he retires would have been the main man carrying the burden of his nation's batting hopes for a full decade: incredible. That's a big responsibility; he's modified his technique to meet the demands of batting first drop - with the flaky Dilshan at the top of the order, he may as well be an opener - and rarely lets his country down.

Bell on the other hand looks good coming in when there are plenty of runs on the board and conditions are easy, but fails time and again when his team really needs him. The stats themselves suggest there is a distinct step up in class from Bell to Sanga but the stats as ever tell only half the story: in reality there is an unbridgeable existential gulf between the two and it pains me tbh to even see them mentioned in the same sentence.

 

[Jacknife]

I'm not saying Gul is at Ambrose/McGrath level or Ajmal is at Murali/Warne level. They don't need to be. The mere fact that there is decent quality and threatening seam and spin bowling on offer in the same attack means that it is good enough to expose Bell for what he is: a guy who looks as good as anyone when it comes to accumulating runs on batting paradises and putting bad attacks to the sword, but who is continually being shown up whenever he's asked to meet sterner challenges.

As for the person who dismissed Gul as merely an ODI bowler, mate, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Gul is one of the very best in the world at exploiting these sorts of conditions in Tests. But even if you were to be right in your assessment and I mistaken, your attitude in the debate would suggest that that you're falling into the old trap of playing the name rather than the performance.

I have never seen Hilfenhaus or Siddle perform as they have been performing recently, even though I had always known they were good bowlers and rated them more highly than most. If the Oz selectors took the attitude to them that you take to Gul, they would have pigeonholed them into some box and presumably discounted forever the possibility of their being able to improve/bowl better lines/add more pace/learn to swing the ball later etc. Big mistake. The Gul that bowled in Dubai and the Siddle and Hilfenhaus that have been bowling in the current series against India, are worthy Test match bowlers capable of taking out any batsman in the world.

I've asked this question before: if, as I've predicted, Bell averages less than 20 in this series, what would be the attitude of his many defenders on this forum? That that level of performance is an aberration? That would be a very unintelligent, nay, delusional way of interpreting the data, given what has gone before.

I would say to you better players than Bell have had poor series but of course you want it to mean so much more don't you, just the same way you have tried to right off every attack Bell has scored runs against, which is everyone he's played against since he got brought back into the side in 2009. Do we take this same theory and put it to other players like Sanga or Jaya or Kallis who have poor records against some sides or in some countries or have had poor series.
What are you going to say if he scores runs in this series, is it going to change your mind or will you just move the goal posts again?

 

[Furball]

I like CWB304. The only person on here apart from me who has acknowledged Gul as being a good test bowler. I may call Gul brainless sometimes, but he is pretty good and does deliver.

I don't think he's quite at the level of "good" - IMO he's a fairly average Test bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, this sudden elevation of the Pakistani attack into something apparently better than the recent SA attack and Australian attacks does seem a tad of an odd call.

Maybe Bell slept with CWB304's girlfriend / mother / dog or something?

 

[CWB304]

Yes, this sudden elevation of the Pakistani attack into something apparently better than the recent SA attack and Australian attacks does seem a tad of an odd call.

Maybe Bell slept with CWB304's girlfriend / mother / dog or something?

How original.

 

[CWB304]

I would say to you better players than Bell have had poor series but of course you want it to mean so much more don't you, just the same way you have tried to right off every attack Bell has scored runs against, which is everyone he's played against since he got brought back into the side in 2009. Do we take this same theory and put it to other players like Sanga or Jaya or Kallis who have poor records against some sides or in some countries or have had poor series.
What are you going to say if he scores runs in this series, is it going to change your mind or will you just move the goal posts again?

I wasn't aware of having moved the goal posts previously, but to respond to the substance of your question, I'll quote what I said in a previous post:

"....if Bell does average 40+, or even 30+, I will come here and humbly admit to having been wrong about him"

30+ is not a particularly challenging threshold for someone who some here regard as (drum roll) "the best batsman in the world over the past year tbf".

 

[Eds]

Avatar bet that Bell averages 30+ for the series?

 

[CWB304]

Avatar bet that Bell averages 30+ for the series?

Unfortunately I don't gamble so I shan't be asking anything of you, but as proof of my bona fides I agree to use whatever avatar you specify should Bell average over thirty for the series.

 

[Howe_zat]

How original.

If an accusation that Ian Bell sleeps with your pets has become banal, I would take that as evidence you've argued the case against him a wee bit too much.

What other opinions do you have?

 

[CWB304]

If an accusation that Ian Bell sleeps with your pets has become banal, I would take that as evidence you've argued the case against him a wee bit too much.

What other opinions do you have?

"How original", in case you're as dense as you're pretending to be, was in response to the playground gambit the poster I was responding to had used, which can be summed up thusly: CWB304 has strong opinions against Bell as a batsman, ergo Bell must have slept with CWB304's wife/mother/pet etc. Pretty juvenile, for mine. I should have expected rather more in the way of wit from a whole "Cricket Web Staff Member". Good on you for rushing to the defence of your colleague: such esprit de corps is always commendable.

As for other opinions, I've made posts on three or four other threads. Try reading them; you might learn something.

 

[Flametree]

.... The stats themselves suggest there is a distinct step up in class from Bell to Sanga but the stats as ever tell only half the story: in reality there is an unbridgeable existential gulf between the two and it pains me tbh to even see them mentioned in the same sentence.

Well, a) if you're gonna use language like that you're probably on the wrong forum.

And b)

Averages in wins/daws/losses :

Sangakkara :
75.68 / 61.38 / 34.70

Bell :
63.75 / 52.92 / 32.05

Cook :
56.37 / 66.05 / 25.44

Pietersen :
58.84 / 57.76 / 30.65

Doesn't look like much of a gulf to me, existential or otherwise. If anything, Sangakkara cashes in more when the going is good. Strangely, most batsmen don't do as well when their team loses. Ok, not strange at all.