It's all about Ian Bell

[Ashes81]

No, he's a beneficiary of English test spam during his peak and happened to play at the intersection of the most roady era ever and the lowest pace bowling stocks worldwide since the '60s. He had some great performances, of course, but his collection of notable performances and general ranking during his career never really exceeded what Asad Shafiq or Ajinkya Rahane achieved later on. Technically, he had a (much) more mild version of Ollie Pope Syndrome but fortunately for him, it was exposed a lot less owing to the generally low standard of bowling mentioned above. His conversion rate for a #5/6 is only bettered by Clarke from memory but when you look at his best runs you can see why he feels nowhere the quality of say, Gundappa Viswanath despite having marginally better aggregates. In 2011, he got 5 tons in 8 matches but when you look at the mighty SL and Indian attacks he faced it's abundantly clear why. When Viswanath tonned up he was more often than not playing a lone hand and sometimes doubling the next best batsman instead of being the 3rd batsman to score a century that day. In the grand scheme of things, Viswanath is a fairly forgotten batsman so no wonder why there aren't more odes written to Ian Bell.

What's Viswanath got to do with Ian Bell's record?

Both were excellent players. Bell scored nearly 8,000 runs at just under 43. You don't have that sort of record if you're not a seriously good player. I don't buy this idea he played in an 'easy' era and therefore his record should have an asterisk by it.

Was he better than Viswanath, that's a different debate - but as I've already said, both were certainly fine players.

 

[Spark]

He dominated an entire Ashes series where everyone else found batting impossible and somehow never gets any credit for it.

Wait that's not true is it though? Those 2013 pitches were mostly great to bat on, they were so slow. Australia just couldn't bat on slow pitches.

 

[Spark]

What's Viswanath got to do with Ian Bell's record?

Both were excellent players. Bell scored nearly 8,000 runs at just under 43. You don't have that sort of record if you're not a seriously good player. I don't buy this idea he played in an 'easy' era and therefore his record should have an asterisk by it.

Was he better than Viswanath, that's a different debate - but as I've already said, both were certainly fine players.

He definitely did play in an easy era tbf. It's not his fault and i he's not the only one but that late-00s to early-10s era is statistically the most batting friendly era of Test cricket in decades, I think only the 50s (?) comes vaguely close.

Put it this way, I'd rate a batsman averaging mid 40s today having had to play on the greentops and bunsens rolled out since 2018 much higher (Pujara, for example).

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

What's Viswanath got to do with Ian Bell's record?

Both were excellent players. Bell scored nearly 8,000 runs at just under 43. You don't have that sort of record if you're not a seriously good player. I don't buy this idea he played in an 'easy' era and therefore his record should have an asterisk by it.

Was he better than Viswanath, that's a different debate - but as I've already said, both were certainly fine players.

You're absolutely right Ashes81

 

[trundler]

What's Viswanath got to do with Ian Bell's record?

Vishy has a similar record on the surface but you'd have to say he was a much better and more impactful player. For instance, he was the world's leading batsman in a way Bell wasn't as I'm sure you'd remember. We do this sort of analysis implicitly all the time — nobody thinks Joe Root is a worse player than Mahela Jayawardene though they're both great in their own right.

Bell makes every XI in the world right now so he was clearly very good but he's not underrated at all. Much better players are spoken about much less.

 

[Ashes81]

He definitely did play in an easy era tbf. It's not his fault and i he's not the only one but that late-00s to early-10s era is statistically the most batting friendly era of Test cricket in decades, I think only the 50s (?) comes vaguely close.

Put it this way, I'd rate a batsman averaging mid 40s today having had to play on the greentops and bunsens rolled out since 2018 much higher (Pujara, for example).

I think you play in the era you play and take the rough with the smooth.

Some eras are inevitably slightly stronger or weaker and of course you have to take that into account when you compare players but if you play for a significant period of time and you have a good record then you're a good player.

Is Bell as good as say Pujara - not for me but he was still a fine player.

 

[SteveNZ]

If Bell said some of the stuff that article quotes him as having said, then it appears he still has a massive inferiority complex.

I've got to believe they are true if they're in print...and yeah, that was nuts to me. Crowbarred the 'I won 5 out of 7 series' in there during an article in no way about him.

Mate - don't be posting sensible stuff like that in this thread.

We all know Bell was a very good batsman but the narrative of this thread is that he's English therefore he's ****.

That's not my narrative. The guy could flat out play. I just found it astounding how he made it all about himself, Ricky Bobby himself would've been proud of the self marketing.

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

He could look brilliant and the next ball get caught mid off

I think his final average was below his ability personally.

he was surrounded with a lot of great players that helped him to 5 ashes wins

My post was a brief one as I was shortly going out. Will come back tomorrow with thoughts on Bell!

 

[Aidan11]

A.k.a The Sherminator.

 

[Pothas]

Wait that's not true is it though? Those 2013 pitches were mostly great to bat on, they were so slow. Australia just couldn't bat on slow pitches.

He was way better than anyone else on either side. Don't remember any other England player having a particularly good series.

 

[Molehill]

My post was a brief one as I was shortly going out. Will come back tomorrow with thoughts on Bell!

We literally had a thread on C247 named after Bell for every player who scored a 50 in Tests (especially if it was an attractive one) without turning it into a ton.

Your thoughts are well known young lady......

 

[weeman27bob]

We literally had a thread on C247 named after Bell for every player who scored a 50 in Tests (especially if it was an attractive one) without turning it into a ton.

Your thoughts are well known young lady......

Nirosan Dickwella unconverted 50 watch

Alright, i've been posting about this on the forum since he was on about 10 unconverted 50s - I'd considered making a thread years ago about how close he was to reaching Chetan Chahaul's record of 16 fifties without a ton. I kept thinking "nah, i'm sure as soon as I make the thread he'l convert...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Molehill]

Nirosan Dickwella unconverted 50 watch

Alright, i've been posting about this on the forum since he was on about 10 unconverted 50s - I'd considered making a thread years ago about how close he was to reaching Chetan Chahaul's record of 16 fifties without a ton. I kept thinking "nah, i'm sure as soon as I make the thread he'l convert...

www.cricketweb.net

Oh yes, Dickwella became a major contributor to that thread. For a while we pondered changing the name to Joe Root, but then he started scoring tons again. But Dickwella is the Don in this genre.

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

We literally had a thread on C247 named after Bell for every player who scored a 50 in Tests (especially if it was an attractive one) without turning it into a ton.

Your thoughts are well known young lady......

And they haven't changed....

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

We literally had a thread on C247 named after Bell for every player who scored a 50 in Tests (especially if it was an attractive one) without turning it into a ton.

Your thoughts are well known young lady......

The phrase was "pretty little fifties”.

 

[Spark]

I think you play in the era you play and take the rough with the smooth.

Some eras are inevitably slightly stronger or weaker and of course you have to take that into account when you compare players but if you play for a significant period of time and you have a good record then you're a good player.

Is Bell as good as say Pujara - not for me but he was still a fine player.

Oh no no doubt. It's just that you have to keep that in mind when doing direct comparisons of batting averages.

As for bad habits, honestly pretty but meaningless 50s wasn't the most frustrating habit I associated with Bell - though there were plenty of those - it was some bizarrely stupid dismissals, almost all of them variations on "caught in the ring". That chip to mid on first ball at Ahmedebad will always be infamous.

 

[trundler]

A ton every 5 matches is pretty good for a guy that spent half his time at 5/6. It's roughly what Border, Waugh, Chanderpaul, Clarke, Inzi etc managed.

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

Ian Bell.
Restoring the reputation.

His finest hour, or rather his finest Ashes, was the home series in 2013.
The only batsman since Chris Broad in 1986 to score centuries in each of England’s three victories.
Leading run-scorer with 562 runs, ave 62.44.
First England player to achieve triple figures in 3 consecutive Ashes tests.
Player of the series and recipient of the Compton-Miller Medal.

Since he’s been retired for a few years I’d like to think people might look back on his test career a bit more positively.

 

[Burgey]

I won’t.

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

I won’t.

Your choice. No problem.