Is Ian Bell England's best batsman?

skully wrote:

Zat wrote:Must appear like that due to due to the foreshortening from a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional situation.

This is the 2nd most p!ssweak excuse trotted out by the officials for numerous blatant injustices on a cricket field, right up there with "Murali has a bent elbow from a birth defect."

Hence the second par in my post.

Bell is English, he wouldn't cheat. Phil Hughes on the other hand...

vilkrang wrote:Fantastic catch by Bell, what a man.

Bit early in the day to be drunk, isn't it vilks?

vilkrang wrote:Bell is English, he wouldn't cheat. Phil Hughes on the other hand...

gave Beefy a chance to expose himself as a knob.

Do I win a prize for completing that sentence?

skully wrote:

Zat wrote:Must appear like that due to due to the foreshortening from a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional situation.

This is the 2nd most p!ssweak excuse trotted out by the officials for numerous blatant injustices on a cricket field, right up there with "Murali has a bent elbow from a birth defect."

Aye, it is a Lever favourite

Zat wrote:

vilkrang wrote:Bell is English, he wouldn't cheat. Phil Hughes on the other hand...

gave Beefy a chance to expose himself as a knob.

Do I win a prize for completing that sentence?

Beefy doesn't really need a chance, bless him.

True.

Ian Bell has probably the widest stroke range of all the current England batsmen. Has anyone noticed how KP doesn't have a cut shot? Short and wide is not a bad tactic to keep him quiet.

Zat wrote:He is England's NLWL. Not the best batsmen in the team but one of those players whose presence improves the game.

Of course all the Pommy detractors having to suck up their past condemnation is just gold.

Sort of like Skully and Warson.

Good Days.

Zat wrote:He is England's NLWL. Not the best batsmen in the team but one of those players whose presence improves the game.

Of course all the Pommy detractors having to suck up their past condemnation is just gold.

What? So his improvement suddenly makes the four to five years of something between underachievement and abject failure magically disappear?

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:He is England's NLWL. Not the best batsmen in the team but one of those players whose presence improves the game.

Of course all the Pommy detractors having to suck up their past condemnation is just gold.

Sort of like Skully and Warson.

Good Days.

Tell me about this Warson chap of whom you speak. Did I have an opinion on him?

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:He is England's NLWL. Not the best batsmen in the team but one of those players whose presence improves the game.

Of course all the Pommy detractors having to suck up their past condemnation is just gold.

Sort of like Skully and Warson.

Good Days.

Tell me about this Warson chap of whom you speak. Did I have an opinion on him?

Nice tits Red,

Warson? Is he the less pretty, less blond, harder, less of a c*nt, more likely to convert 50s into 100s version of TAYne POCson?

The reality is that Ian Bell has not improved that much in the last eighteen months. His two hundreds of note (vs SA and vs AUS) both came as bridesmaid's efforts after Alastair Cook had already scored a hundred, which is a familiar pattern with Ian Bell. He did break his duck in terms of scoring a hundred on his lonesome against Bangladesh. But I think it's fairly obvious why he has looked better in the past eighteen months. The solidity of England's top 3 thanks to Jonathan Trott has enabled him to come in later, in his ideal position, where he can make the soft runs to add to the team effort. Batting him lower and lower down the order keeps him away from the new ball, so he doesn't have to worry about having his prodding technique exposed.

I won't argue that Bell is an attractive player to watch, but I think the idea that he is anywhere near England's best batsman is flawed. He won't win you a Test Match off his own bat, he won't mash world-class bowlers on any day - which is why he's fortunate that there are so few left - and he certainly won't stand up and be counted if he has to bat any higher in the order than he is doing at present. I think there's a tendency to over-rate batsmen who do bat in the bridesmaid positions (i.e. lower than 4 in the order) as they always tend to get the best of the conditions, as the new ball is wearing out and come in when the seamers are already tired.

FWIW, here are Bell's figures since returning to the side in 2009:

vs Australia - 469 runs @ 46.90 (alright, but hardly world-class against a weak attack)
vs South Africa - 313 runs @ 44.71 (good, but hardly 'best batsman ever' figures, no?)
vs Bangladesh - 406 runs @ 101.50 (par for the course, especially with Ian Bell)
vs Sri Lanka - 251 runs @ 251.00 (an attack on a level with Bangladesh's)

So, not unimpressive, but not exactly thrilling stuff. It's just the same sort of stuff with Bell, really. Batting down the order, doing pretty well against the good teams and really troffing himself against the rubbish. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but it does suggest that the title of this thread is a complete nonsense. Not unusual for a thread started by the member in question.

The reality is that Ian Bell has not improved that much in the last eighteen months. His two hundreds of note (vs SA and vs AUS) both came as bridesmaid's efforts after Alastair Cook had already scored a hundred, which is a familiar pattern with Ian Bell.

He was left high and dry at least once in the ashes, and on the other occasions, he got out having a slog because he was running out of partners. He made absolutely vital runs in South Africa 18 months ago, and provides an injection of urgency to most innings these days. He's class.

I guess some people will only ever remember the Bell of 2005-2008, and choose to forget all of the great work he's done of late.. Ah well....

He's improved. I expect it would be a unanimous observation that he's improved. That's good and I wish him well. I just don't see why, in this day and age where we can see every ball of every innings played, we can't put his runs into a fair context. He has, whether you like it or not, scored runs against tired (already sh!t) attacks. Not all of his runs, at all, hence why we can all 'bask' in his form - most people's problems with him were with him actually having to dig us out of trouble at 3 rather than make hay at 5 or 6 and I'm totally fine with him in that role - there's no room to criticise him currently. I'm just wary of the gushing squeals of giving him an undeserved moniker.

I was ahead of the curve in jumping on the bandwagon before the Ashes.

Still plenty of room for the latecomers...

Rubbish. I still maintain you were taking the mickey....

You're just pissed that I picked Bell as his form rose, while the dozens hundreds of English cricketers you've talked up have achieved, well, precisely dick...

Zat wrote:You're just pissed that I picked Bell as his form rose, while the dozens hundreds of English cricketers you've talked up have achieved, well, precisely dick...

Aye, it's the sort of thing that would annoy ol' Trev...

Henry wrote:Warson? Is he the less pretty, less blond, harder, less of a c*nt, more likely to convert 50s into 100s version of TAYne POCson?

Sounds like a well set blonde chap with squinty eyes and a worn out baggy green, who puts a massive price on his wicket and that you sledge at your own peril. Simply does not play the hook shot and is exquisite off the back foot through cover. He could bowl a bit and had an excellent slower ball. Might make an excellent captain one day, and may hold the SCG breathless as he works his way to a last ball ton that elicits a 20 minute long standing O, and holds the evening news off for 40 minutes.

vilkrang wrote:Bell is English, he wouldn't cheat. Phil Hughes on the other hand...

Dubbers dont cheat ...they just play by a different set of rules

skully wrote:
Sounds like a well set blonde chap with squinty eyes and a worn out baggy green, who puts a massive price on his wicket and that you sledge at your own peril. Simply does not play the hook shot and is exquisite off the back foot through cover. He could bowl a bit and had an excellent slower ball. Might make an excellent captain one day, and may hold the SCG breathless as he works his way to a last ball ton that elicits a 20 minute long standing O, and holds the evening news off for 40 minutes.

Mehyeahh... or he may slap it to cover for 42.

skully wrote:

Henry wrote:Warson? Is he the less pretty, less blond, harder, less of a c*nt, more likely to convert 50s into 100s version of TAYne POCson?

Sounds like a well set blonde chap with squinty eyes and a worn out baggy green, who puts a massive price on his wicket and that you sledge at your own peril. Simply does not play the hook shot and is exquisite off the back foot through cover. He could bowl a bit and had an excellent slower ball. Might make an excellent captain one day, and may hold the SCG breathless as he works his way to a last ball ton that elicits a 20 minute long standing O, and holds the evening news off for 40 minutes.

Yes, I believe the Japanese referred to him as 'Waugh San'.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:The reality is that Ian Bell has not improved that much in the last eighteen months. His two hundreds of note (vs SA and vs AUS) both came as bridesmaid's efforts after Alastair Cook had already scored a hundred, which is a familiar pattern with Ian Bell. He did break his duck in terms of scoring a hundred on his lonesome against Bangladesh. But I think it's fairly obvious why he has looked better in the past eighteen months. The solidity of England's top 3 thanks to Jonathan Trott has enabled him to come in later, in his ideal position, where he can make the soft runs to add to the team effort. Batting him lower and lower down the order keeps him away from the new ball, so he doesn't have to worry about having his prodding technique exposed.

I won't argue that Bell is an attractive player to watch, but I think the idea that he is anywhere near England's best batsman is flawed. He won't win you a Test Match off his own bat, he won't mash world-class bowlers on any day - which is why he's fortunate that there are so few left - and he certainly won't stand up and be counted if he has to bat any higher in the order than he is doing at present. I think there's a tendency to over-rate batsmen who do bat in the bridesmaid positions (i.e. lower than 4 in the order) as they always tend to get the best of the conditions, as the new ball is wearing out and come in when the seamers are already tired.

FWIW, here are Bell's figures since returning to the side in 2009:

vs Australia - 469 runs @ 46.90 (alright, but hardly world-class against a weak attack)
vs South Africa - 313 runs @ 44.71 (good, but hardly 'best batsman ever' figures, no?)
vs Bangladesh - 406 runs @ 101.50 (par for the course, especially with Ian Bell)
vs Sri Lanka - 251 runs @ 251.00 (an attack on a level with Bangladesh's)

So, not unimpressive, but not exactly thrilling stuff. It's just the same sort of stuff with Bell, really. Batting down the order, doing pretty well against the good teams and really troffing himself against the rubbish. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but it does suggest that the title of this thread is a complete nonsense. Not unusual for a thread started by the member in question.

A nugget of Forum Gold in there.