Bell has been averaging 35 for the past couple of years? Okay so that's pretty average but I've always thought him to be a class player and I think he's batting out of position at the moment. I'd swap him with Root and bring Hales in at 3.
So he should be dropped entirely? He's not an ATG who could bat anywhere in the order. He seems best suited to the 5 or 6 position, where he excels. Granted, that position is usually for newer batsmen to dip their feet into international cricket and now that Root has, I think he should move up to 4.He's the senior batsman in the side. He should have no.4 locked down.
Nice post as always. I think number 3 would be the making of him. Some players "get" certain positions. E.g. Michael Clark got number 5. I think number 3 would force Ian Bell to dig in a bit more and start his innings in a tighter fashion. Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman. And he would do well constructing workman like 30s and 40s before opening up a bit and starting to dominate like he can dominate when he wants to.Bell has the best technique in the team to bat at #3 but there is no way in hell I would trust him there, and this strikes at the heart of my Bell conundrum.
I instinctively think he's trash but not long ago he had better raw numbers than Martin Crowe. In the past he has been genuinely world class in spurts playing really gritty innings but his entire career he's run around being the worst batsman to average 45+ I've ever seen but that's pretty much saying he's the worst top class player ever - he's still top class, somehow. If his average reflected my thoughts on him he'd average 35-40.
I think it's because when he gets out for a low score or a start he does it in the stupidest way possible. It's hard to look good when you play beautifully for 40 balls then spoon it to short cover or chip it to the outfielder.
I don't know, it must just be a show of my bias I guess because even during his spurts and shows of tough runs I always expected it to end. Now he is genuinely mediocre since his good Ashes and finally he's not so confusing. He's a player who, if he has another spurt, will probably be rated much higher in 20-30 years by people who never lived through his career but I'd take every experienced test batsman from this series just gone ahead of him (Cook, Root, Williamson, Taylor and McCullum). He's just a batsman I'd never trust in the top four because he's perfected the art of keeping his career record looking excellent despite also perfecting the art of making his mixture of talent and excellent technique look perfectly average.
Bizarre batsman. Should be at #3 because his technique and his record scream it, but no way would I ever trust him there. I'd love to see him pushed up there though to protect the newbie (Ballance) and to see if the responsibility spurs him on to another hot streak. Bell and Root should be first and second drop in the Ashes.
I don't understand you Ian Bell or what you do to my perceptionz.
Nice post as always. I think number 3 would be the making of him. Some players "get" certain positions. E.g. Michael Clark got number 5. I think number 3 would force Ian Bell to dig in a bit more and start his innings in a tighter fashion. Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman. And he would do well constructing workman like 30s and 40s before opening up a bit and starting to dominate like he can dominate when he wants to.
I like Ian Bell and think he has a lot to offer. Just needs a good coach to get him in the right frame of mind again. When he was scoring all those runs in that home ashes series I knew he was playing above his station. But I do think a 45 average is about right for him.. He just needs to start putting up some numbers now to justify it.
Flamboyance: (of a person or their behaviour) tending to attract attention because of their exuberance, confidence, and stylishness. "the band's flamboyant lead singer"Number 4 is a more flamboyant position than 3, and he is not a man I would associate with flamboyance. I may be using this word wrong but I like the word so am going to use it anyway, he comes across as a phlegmatic batsman.
How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?But what you've just described places us exactly where we are in the rankings. No one's saying we're the best in the world. We're an attacking cricket side that deserves to be 4th in the world (possibly third) and with series' against Australia and SA to come, are placed as well as we ever have been to compete well. No one's saying we'll beat em. So no one's overhyping them at all unless you think 3rd/4th isn't a fair ranking?
It's hard to take you serious when you throw something as flippant and erroneous as Kohli 'not dropped a dolly'. For a start, it was a one-handed left-handed catch that didn't stick. If we're to readdress every Test in history that could've changed on a flashpoint like that, it'd be a complete nonsense. Stuff like 'Had McGrath not stood on a ball, it would've been 5-0' is horse ****. That's sport. If he'd been shot by an Englisman on the grassy noll, fair enough. But he wasn't. And Kohli dropped a catch, which happens throughout every Test in history. So you're probably actually underhyping us. We've not lost a series in how long? 2-3 years? That is seriously impressive.
Do you not think that the resurgence of New Zealand drawing overseas and winning at home by playing aggressive and attacking cricket is good for cricket and something for the world to embrace?How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?
A 1-1 draw over a rebuilding england isn't as outstanding as people are making out especially for a side that is supposedly the best kiwi one ever. And even the 1-1 draw against pak - good result but let's not go overboard. Nz drew 1-1 with a better pakistan side in the 90,s.
You aren't taking this from the perspective of a team that has been 7th or 8th for the greater part of the last 10-15 years.How is it seriously impressive when the only team they have beaten away from home in that time is the West Indies ?
A 1-1 draw over a rebuilding england isn't as outstanding as people are making out especially for a side that is supposedly the best kiwi one ever. And even the 1-1 draw against pak - good result but let's not go overboard. Nz drew 1-1 with a better pakistan side in the 90,s.
Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.Do you not think that the resurgence of New Zealand drawing overseas and winning at home by playing aggressive and attacking cricket is good for cricket and something for the world to embrace?
Absolute rubbish. Even if we get torn apart by Australia it does not diminish that this is one of the best periods of NZ cricket. Where from your neutral perspective have we been better? I can think of two other times in the last century.Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.
If you think playing Pakistan in UAE and England in England (regardless if the fact that they are rebuilding) are only modest challenges, I have to disagree. It's like sa and Australia are the only real challenges out there. They're the two strongest teams but for a non SC team to draw a series in UAE is no joke.Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.
Noone has claimed that this team is better than South Africa or Australia.Never said it was bad for cricket. All I'm saying is I don't think people should go overboard in assessing this team. I think they will face far tougher challenges over the next 18 months and then at the end of that we will find out how good they really are. The challenges they have faced so far have only been modest.