Nasser- Toughen up England

Gary 111 wrote:No he doesn't, he averages 46.

He averages 12 in India.

And all Bell's innings at number 6 were played at home in England, your point is?

He doesn't have one, he's a rubber-lipped freak.

What I like about Collingwood is the fact he's a solid grinder who will dig in for every run he gets, his technique is possibly more suited to get runs abroad and he barely gifts his wicket away - unlike others. Furthermore, you need solid blokes like him in your team IMO.

Bell is wishy-washy, whichever way you look at it. He has underachieved for a while but in essence you're only as good as your last series. Although I totally abhor his soft dismissal after soft dismissal, you'd have to say he was our best performer. The analysis would say he has battered defunkt and tired attacks for his centuries but he could well be a useful number 6, with Shah at 3.

Dave Sales is all class.

Batfink Begins wrote:
Dave Sales is all class.

10% class, 90% butter.

Far too much Dave Sales love going on here.

Gary 111 wrote:And all Bell's innings at number 6 were played at home in England, your point is?

That the guy averages 42 in tests, has six test hundreds, some in difficult circumstances, and deserves more respect than you afford him.

How the hell is Bell in the firing line?

Rob I wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:And all Bell's innings at number 6 were played at home in England, your point is?

That the guy averages 42 in tests, has six test hundreds, some in difficult circumstances, and deserves more respect than you afford him.

Only 1 100, when he came in at 2-39 can be considered remotely difficult.

Last 15 Tests (four series): 37.37 (1x100). And that includes filling his boots against the shambles that is the West Indies.

Last 23 ODIs (four series): 30.30 (1x100)

And yet Ian Bell is apparently untouchable, one of the first names on the team-sheet.

I like him - I think he's got some quality. But you can't deny that he's had a mediocre 2007, stretching back a bit further in fact. But he still appears to be an automatic selection in a way other players never could be if they were contributing so fitfully. For example, Ed Joyce was dropped after scoring two fifties and averaging 30.40 at the World Cup and hasn't been seen since. Bell played every game in the competition, scored one fifty @ 26.38 and still remains a fixture in the side to this day.

In his last five one-day series, he's only averaged in excess of something in the twenties once. Last series in Sri Lanka, he managed a whopping 14.

But I'd bet you any money he lines up for the first ODI against New Zealand and it's some other poor sod who is fretting over his place in the final XI.

I just can't recall England backing such a consistently disappointing performer for such a time before. It's weird. And a bit creepy.

THICKEDGE wrote:How the hell is Bell in the firing line?

Because it's a thread about Nasser Hussain's claim that some of England's batsmen lack a pair of cojones.

The rest just writes itself...

Well if Bell is so carp, who would you have instead of him?

I think his problem is that he doesn't appear to have a personality. Never shows much emotion, never has anything to say, bats in a very anonymous orthodox manner- at least the rest all have their idiosyncracies- Bell's just an elfen robot who's programming deserts him once he makes a pretty fifty.

Shah. At three.

Shah has huge eyes and is a prize w*nker. He's got my vote.

Alex Gidman.

Steve Stubbings.

Rob I wrote:Well if Bell is so carp, who would you have instead of him?

There are a few candidates but i'm not sure any of them fill me with confidence they'll do any better

Shah won't get a test in NZ (Strauss in Bopara out) unless one of the other batsmen gets injured.

to Dello.

Dello wrote:Last 15 Tests (four series): 37.37 (1x100). And that includes filling his boots against the shambles that is the West Indies.

Last 23 ODIs (four series): 30.30 (1x100)

And yet Ian Bell is apparently untouchable, one of the first names on the team-sheet.

I like him - I think he's got some quality. But you can't deny that he's had a mediocre 2007, stretching back a bit further in fact. But he still appears to be an automatic selection in a way other players never could be if they were contributing so fitfully. For example, Ed Joyce was dropped after scoring two fifties and averaging 30.40 at the World Cup and hasn't been seen since. Bell played every game in the competition, scored one fifty @ 26.38 and still remains a fixture in the side to this day.

In his last five one-day series, he's only averaged in excess of something in the twenties once. Last series in Sri Lanka, he managed a whopping 14.

But I'd bet you any money he lines up for the first ODI against New Zealand and it's some other poor sod who is fretting over his place in the final XI.

I just can't recall England backing such a consistently disappointing performer for such a time before. It's weird. And a bit creepy.

Not really. You can prove anything with selective stats. In his last 19 Tests he's averaged 45 with 4 centuries.

You also fail to mention that he scores a lot of 50s, which it'd be stupid to ignore. His record with your selective stats is more like 15 Tests, average 37, 1 hundred and 10 50s. It's very well banging on about "pretty 50s" but more often than not, he scores pretty 70s and 80s, which are big and significant contributions. It's only our obsession with the figure 100 that stops us giving him some credit for it.

Yes, he does need to push on, but when he starts turning all these 70s and 80s into centuries, he'll be one of the best bats around. There's no real evidence that he's not good enough at this level. In fact, the evidence seems to show the opposite.

You whinge like a schoolgirl who's just heard someone slate Take That. Harping on about selective stats is total sh!t. This isn't someone 1880s player, it's a bloke who's every Test innings has been recorded. We've all seen his lack of application after he passes a certain score and we've also seen him (mainly) cash in when the going was good.

They are selective stats. Why 15 Tests? Totally arbitrary. Unless of course, you want to try and make his stats look as bad as possible.

I've agreed that he throws it away but I disagree that scoring 84 and then getting out, isn't valuable. Like I said, hopefully he'll stop throwing those scores away and turn them into tons. It's not like he's not capable of scoring another 16 runs when he's already put on 84.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:They are selective stats. Why 15 Tests? Totally arbitrary. Unless of course, you want to try and make his stats look as bad as possible.

15 Tests = a roundish number that coincides with the start of the Ashes tour. So you can measure that by 'last 4 series' if you like.

19 Tests includes 5 Test series, which is a roundish number that coincides with the start of the English summer.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:They are selective stats. Why 15 Tests? Totally arbitrary. Unless of course, you want to try and make his stats look as bad as possible.

I've agreed that he throws it away but I disagree that scoring 84 and then getting out, isn't valuable. Like I said, hopefully he'll stop throwing those scores away and turn them into tons. It's not like he's not capable of scoring another 16 runs when he's already put on 84.

... and yet he reminds you of Thorpey...!!
One of Thorpe's qualities was that he made oppositon teams graft for his wicket, whether he was 20 or 100 ... it mattered not.
With Bell, there's expectancy every ball bowled at him.... from 1 to 80 not out.