Why Ian Bell should be in England's Ashes Team...

[aussie tragic]

I think England needs all three batsman if they're going to challenge Australia at home, so I've gone with the following:

1. Strauss
2. Trescothick
3. Cook
4. Pieterson
5. Collingwood
6. Bell
7. Flintoff
8. Reid
9. Harmison
10. Hoggard
11. Panasar

IMO, Australia has the better top 3, England have the better middle order, Flintoff at 7 should negate the Gilly factor and the bowling attacks would be equal.

Game on I'd say.

 

[marc71178]

Mmm that sounds dangerous to me, throwing the ball to the likes of Collingwood, Bell and Pieterson should only be seen as a last resort. Against the Australian batting lineup in typical Aussie conditions its gonna take alot of luck for them to have any effect at all and Id only really see it as an option if they're 2-200 and desperate. Relying on them to get through 20 overs an innings combined is gonna mean a big release of pressure on the Aussie batsman and it'll allow them to seize the initiative and they probably wont look back.

Nobody mentioned getting 20 overs an innings out of them though.

 

[iamdavid]

Nobody mentioned getting 20 overs an innings out of them though..

so Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen need to bowl 20 overs among them to relieve Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar.

:P

 

[adharcric]

It's not like England would have part-timers bowling for 20 consecutive overs so it wouldn't really release pressure on the Aussies. They would come in short spells and chances are they would at least be able to keep a tight line, at least Collingwood. Now, if Mahmood or Anderson can play and be penetrative, then playing 5 bowlers is worth considering but with caution as Hoggard, Harmison, Mahmood/Anderson and Panesar form a pathetic tail consisting of a #9, a #10 and two #11s.

 

[greg]

It's not like England would have part-timers bowling for 20 consecutive overs so it wouldn't really release pressure on the Aussies. They would come in short spells and chances are they would at least be able to keep a tight line, at least Collingwood. Now, if Mahmood or Anderson can play and be penetrative, then playing 5 bowlers is worth considering but with caution as Hoggard, Harmison, Mahmood/Anderson and Panesar form a pathetic tail consisting of a #9, a #10 and two #11s.

And with that tail having an extra batsman would be worth 60+ extra runs per match. That's even before you get into arguing that a four man attack could even be more effective because of the way it would be built around Monty, rather than him just having shorter spells with the old ball and the opposition batsmen knowing that they would only have to take him for a couple of expensive overs to hit him out of the attack. Monty himself is quoted as saying how much he benefitted from having a four man attack, the knowledge that he was guaranteed long spells so was able to be patient and build pressure over long periods.

 

[Xuhaib]

Bell is a mediocre bowling bully. He should thank there was no Shoaib or Asif otherwise he would have definatley missed the flight to Brisbane.

 

[greg]

Bell is a mediocre bowling bully. He should thank there was no Shoaib or Asif otherwise he would have definatley missed the flight to Brisbane.

Is that a different Shoaib to the one who was bowling at him during the winter?

As for Asif... well don't you think we should let him play more than a handul of tests before we elevate him to world class status?

 

[Xuhaib]

Is that a different Shoaib to the one who was bowling at him during the winter?

As for Asif... well don't you think we should let him play more than a handul of tests before we elevate him to world class status?

I am not calling him world class but from what one have seen (in international and domestic matches) he is definatley several notches above Gul, Sami and Razzaq.