There seems to be a push to blame Ian Bell for the close finish in the first Test – or at least for him to be the fall guy. This seems a little unfair: if you pick a guy who is way out of his depth and then he fails – how can it be his fault? Surely it is a failure of selection. Jonathan Trott was interviewed today and asked whether he thought Bell’s place was under threat. Of course he wasn’t about to say anything negative and so said “Ian has proved himself at Test level”. No he hasn’t. Ian Bell has played fifty Test matches. Yep, you heard that right: 50. How can a bloke who averages 38.9 play fifty Tests for England? Remember who is at fault here: Ian Bell doesn’t pick the side.
Posts
13 comments:
great blog your have got here!
link swap?! I write on cricket at All Padded Up, check it out!
I'd drop Bell and get a specialist bowler in. But that will be common sense and ECB does not follow that policy!!
Watching any of the Aus / WI or India / SL matches?
Agree with you, Mahesh. How can you expect to win test matches with only 4 bowlers?? (unless you have a genius blonde haired leg spinner).
Surely we should bat Prior at 6 and bring in Sidebottom or Plunkett. Swann and Broad are more than capable lower orders batsman so do we really need to pack the btting??
Also, I'm hoping that Alistair Cook is the next in line for the Cricket Forever career graph. He is looking increasingly uncomfortable at the wicket.
I doubt his figures will look any more impressive than Bell's.
"Belly got some runs in the pre-tour games and I think he is feeling quite confident about the way he is playing," Flower said. "He had a tough Test, of course. He made a misjudgement in the first innings and got nicked off in the second but he's a high quality player and we are backing him. I think he will be fine.
-- Music to South African ears
Alistair Cooks stats are actually quite surprising. Nasser Hussain asked him today "Why are you under pressure?" This is a good question?
His stats in 2009 read.....
960 Runs at an average of 45.71
I thought they would be much worse.
Is that before his century?
842 @ 42.10 before this test match.
SBOrwell1Oh dear all you Bell bashers. Next game he got 140 and helped win the match. What was that about not winning a game with 4 bowlers? The silence is deafening. An innings and 98 runs say otherwise. Good job the coach and captain pay no heed to advice on cricket forever. Try thinking instead why you have all made such a mistake? Sheer prejudice? Bell helped us win the Ashes too, and that was only two Tests previous!
Prejudice? No, it is because he is crap and constantly proves it. He did get a good score in the last match but every player will make some good scores if you give them an infinitely long run -- look at Danny Vettori or Mitchell Johnson, they both have more test hundreds recently than Bell but they wouldn't get picked as an English batsman.
As Boycott said after: Bell played well, lets see if he can manage not get out stupidly in the next few matches.
A slice of brilliance from OB: http://theoldbatsman.blogspot.com/2010/01/bo-selector.html
dannyhesford - the only reason why Cook's average is that high (before his Boxing day test century) is because he filled his boots against the fearful West Indies attack.
You must remember all the hostile bowling in West Indies at the start of 2009, where he got 94 and 139 not out at Barbados on that green top with the ball whistling around his ears.
He then saw off the fearsome attack that came over to England bristling with enthusiasm in May with a backs-to-the-wall 160 at Durham.
Thats why his average is high. Funny how scores of a similar nature where not good enough to keep Ravi Bopara in the side (not suggesting they should have been, by the way).
Lets see if he can keep it up now, rather than one century will keep you in the side for another year, as seems to have been the policy lately, again except for Bopara.
Post a Comment