Bell's Ashes

No, I think he said it after the last Test. Could be wrong. Maybe after day 1 here.

Yeah read that too. Was in an article about Watson being shuffled down to 6 iirc

Watson has been shuffled more than a conjuring cardsharp's pack.

He seems to get worse, the more he is shuffled.


Very decent bowling, though.

I'd call it useful bowling. Tight, but largely ineffectual.

2nd change, nothing else.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'd call it useful bowling. Tight, but largely ineffectual.

2nd change, nothing else.

Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

taipan wrote:
Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

He's got to be carrying a niggle.

But, Clarke also seems not to like him / trust him.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

He's got to be carrying a niggle.

But, Clarke also seems not to like him / trust him.

Maybe part of Team Watson. But then why is Warson bowling before him.?

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

He's got to be carrying a niggle.

But, Clarke also seems not to like him / trust him.

Maybe part of Team Watson. But then why is Warson bowling before him.?

One of those 'feelings' he has. Or maybe he was trying to break the brittle Watson to fock him out of the team.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

He's got to be carrying a niggle.

But, Clarke also seems not to like him / trust him.

Maybe part of Team Watson. But then why is Warson bowling before him.?

One of those 'feelings' he has. Or maybe he was trying to break the brittle Watson to fock him out of the team.

I am a mere mortal. The genius of the decision escaped me.

PeterCS wrote:Watson has been shuffled more than a conjuring cardsharp's pack.

He seems to get worse, the more he is shuffled.


Very decent bowling, though.

Yes decent for one wicket a match. Very useful for England.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Yes, it was weird captaincy bowling him before Siddle.

He's got to be carrying a niggle.

But, Clarke also seems not to like him / trust him.

Maybe part of Team Watson. But then why is Warson bowling before him.?

One of those 'feelings' he has. Or maybe he was trying to break the brittle Watson to fock him out of the team.

I am a mere mortal. The genius of the decision escaped me.

Bowling Twatto early worked at Lord's when he had to bowl him because Pattinson couldn't get the swing right to Cook. He's been hoping lightning would strike twice ever since

Okay, very decent, useful, not very decent, not so useful ....

I was trying to be puckish with that afterthought in fact, since this series of posts has been all about his batting and/or attitude ... and if you know Lardy's mantra that Watto should give up tha bowling, it seemed ironic to give some Parthian-shot praise for that aspect of his contribution to the current Australian team.

But to be specific: his economy rate as a bowler has normally been good, sometimes startling this Ashes. Yes, he has a bowling av for this series of 57 last time I saw. But his main function bowling has been as fourth seamer, to tie up an end, to apply the sort of pressure that breaks the like of the more headstrong, less appiled England batsman. I wouldn't blame him, therefore, if he hasn't run through the side, hasn't been a scyther. He has easily achieved his job as bowler, I think.

Whereas his batting contributions, his primary function if you look at where he has batted for most of the time: 1, 2, 4, 6. Oh dear. One, maybe one and a half scores of any size?

I hope that clarifies a bit what I had in mind.

See what you're saying but he's a bit meh. Looked good when batting in most of the games, but contrives to get himself out with over-exuberance, hubris and technical deficiencies.

A couple of cheap contributions with the ball but usually someone who can be kept out with ease, when at times Aus have needed quick wickets.

ATM, he's two thirds a Test cricketer, a seemingly divisive prick and someone who Aus may benefit from, through his injury.

I agree. It's time for Aus to "move on", if they have anyone at all in the wings. Faulkner, probably. Smith might yet come on, still looks raw and naive though.

Starc looks gangly batting, but can bat. Might develop as a Number 7 even, if Aus have a batting keeper they can rely on (at 6)

There's a big mental difference between batting at eight and nine and swinging freely, and batting at seven, where the team genuinely EXPECTS you to regularly contribute with the bat.

True.

Back to the subject. Has Bell been knighted yet?

PeterCS wrote:Okay, very decent, useful, not very decent, not so useful ....

I was trying to be puckish with that afterthought in fact, since this series of posts has been all about his batting and/or attitude ... and if you know Lardy's mantra that Watto should give up tha bowling, it seemed ironic to give some Parthian-shot praise for that aspect of his contribution to the current Australian team.

But to be specific: his economy rate as a bowler has normally been good, sometimes startling this Ashes. Yes, he has a bowling av for this series of 57 last time I saw. But his main function bowling has been as fourth seamer, to tie up an end, to apply the sort of pressure that breaks the like of the more headstrong, less appiled England batsman. I wouldn't blame him, therefore, if he hasn't run through the side, hasn't been a scyther. He has easily achieved his job as bowler, I think.

Whereas his batting contributions, his primary function if you look at where he has batted for most of the time: 1, 2, 4, 6. Oh dear. One, maybe one and a half scores of any size?

I hope that clarifies a bit what I had in mind.

What is the point of tying up one end if you're not getting wickets? There's no extra pressure. Neither do I think it's true. He hadn't been bowled for any length of time to mount any pressure, all series it was rare for him to bowl >4 overs, in fact I think the first time he did that was last Test and in the first over of the next spell he pulled his groin.

Also, wickets taken at the other end whilst Twatto was bowling:
T1 - 19 overs 2 wickets
T2 - 25 overs  3 wickets
T3 - 17 overs 3 wickets
T4 - 20 overs 0 wickets

Ok, not as sparse as I thought but I wonder how the others stack up in comparison. That's a strike rate of 60.75 or a wicket every 10 overs.

Beiber it or not, 6/8 of those came after the first over of his spells, so influence/pressure is negligible although makes an interesting stat in itself. Two of those wickets in T2 were in one over from Harris too early in the 1st innings, although tbf in Watson's first over he took a wicket too.

So that's it. He's an average bowler, good to have at the other end, terrible strike bowler and was used for little more than to give other bowlers a breather.

Add to that the batting which he is in the side for, where he is an abject failure (1 innings of note this tour) then he does not deserve a place in the side.

I didn't say the bowlers at the other end had always exploited the pressure!

So what other standard do you measure pressure?

Or is it simply a tangle quantity easily identified by economy rate?

He's been class. With a little luck Sir Ian Bell may end up with 30 centuries which would mean, in the end, he DID fulfill his talent. After all that. Here's to perseverance Ian. 

@Bagser:

Well, you bowl accurately enough to concede less than 1 run an over (in fact, twice Watson has beaten that in this series and bowled a string of 5 or 6 maidens, I think). If the batsmen are of a nervous or headstrong type especially, but if they wish to keep the scoreboard ticking naturally, they will soon be more inclined to take a risk or two more, especially against the other bowler(s).

This presumes that the bowling from the other end is skilful enough to follow this up with either wicket-grade balls, or at least similar constraining bowling that before too long, the batsman tends to get rash and risks giving it away. If few runs have been added, it doesn't matter so much if that has taken 15-20 overs!

In sum: It's not Watson's responsibility - as fourth seamer with a mainly closing-up job - if the other bowlers (that is, the strike bowlers) release that pressure with bad balls, inaccurate and/or profligate spells! Or simply can't capitalise on the batter constriction.

PeterCS wrote:I didn't say the bowlers at the other end had always exploited the pressure!

So he bowled tightly to create pressure which through no fault of his the other bowlers didn't take advantage of. Bit meaningless I'd say.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:I didn't say the bowlers at the other end had always exploited the pressure!

So he bowled tightly to create pressure which through no fault of his the other bowlers didn't take advantage of. Bit meaningless I'd say.

Strange comment. Peter's post looks spot on to me.

They are tactics that have been used throughout the history of test cricket.