Nasser- Toughen up England

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

Ah. OK. Quality rebuttal. I stand corrected. You're totally right. He pounded the f*ck out of a massively moribund attack, before underperforming versus a good side, before pounding a totally classless 'Test' attack, before arguably performing for the first time against a decent side. But, if we could weight all the stats exactly the same, we can paper over some gigantic cracks.

He could be the new Thorpey, if he batted at 5. When he was at 6, he rarely threw his wicket away.

At 4 he averages 47. At 5 he averages 45.5 and at 6 he averages 58. I don't think he's a number 3. I think he has the ability to play at 3 but he's much better suited to playing at 5, for me.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:He could be the new Thorpey, if he batted at 5. When he was at 6, he rarely threw his wicket away.

At 4 he averages 47. At 5 he averages 45.5 and at 6 he averages 58. I don't think he's a number 3. I think he has the ability to play at 3 but he's much better suited to playing at 5, for me.

At 4 - 228* versus Bangladesh may have helped.

At 5 - 2 innings. One against dross.

At 6 - 7 Innings versus Poorkistan and 6 innings versus the perennial underperformers that are the Worst Indies.

But then, I'm just being pernickety.

Batfink Begins wrote:

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

Ah. OK. Quality rebuttal. I stand corrected. You're totally right. He pounded the f*ck out of a massively moribund attack, before underperforming versus a good side, before pounding a totally classless 'Test' attack, before arguably performing for the first time against a decent side. But, if we could weight all the stats exactly the same, we can paper over some gigantic cracks.

Well, I was just using your own reasoning to come to an arbitrary number.

It wasn't that bad a Pakistan attack anyway. Going on and on and on about how bad it was doesn't make it true. Gul is a quality bowler, Nazie is ok and Kaneria is a decent bowler in English conditions. Razzaq and Afridi can be ok most of the time. No, it's not McGrath and Warne but what is? It's comfortably Test standard.

Sri Lanka wasn't the first time he's performed against a decent side. He was our best bat in Pak vs Pak, when they arguable had the best attack in Test cricket after Australia.

If you look at his record, he's got one major problem.

vs Aus - 59, 65, 50, 60, 87, 71

vs India - 57, 63, 67

vs Pak - 71, 92,

vs Sri Lanka - 83, 74, 54


From that, you can see that his BIG problem is converting 50s into hundreds. He does the hard work and then doesn't go on. If he'd converted even half of those into hundreds, the 90s, 80s and 70s, he'd have as good a record as KP and everyone would be bumming him. But he hasn't. Which is why it's clear that he needs to work on improving that aspect of his game.

I, personally, think he's capable of turning those 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s into centuries and that's why I think he should be persevered with. It's not like he's a total failure and he's not contributing. It's not like he's scoring duck after duck and he's being kept in the team until he "comes off". 50s are important and valuable but he could do better and I believe he will. If you don't think that, then I'm not really fussed. It's a difference of opinion and one that's not likely to get resolved.

Yes, you're right about Pak in Pak. Still, lets whitewash that Gul had just come back from injury, Naved had been heavily overbowled by Pakistan-by-the-sea and Canary must have been in the worst ever form for most Test bowlers. That Razzaq is pop-gun on a flat deck and Afridi is a more-than-useful part-timer who's got a pants Test bowling average. Wasn't that bad... that gnarled attack was the worst I've seen over here this Century, bar Bangladesh.

As for that list of scores, I see one innings versus Aus, one versus Pak and one versus SL that you could go on about 'turning into a century'. The rest, he had plenty of work to do but didn't do it.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote: No, it's not McGrath and Warne but what is? .

A measley 25.10 averaged over 10 matches and 20 innings against the Aussies
with a top score 87!!

I admit I'm not a stats freak - but anyone other than the Vawn/Gravey pet Bell would have been out on their arses given those
crap stats.
The lad has a guardian angel somewhere in the establishment.
No denying that fact.
he's good - but he ain't THAT good to command automatic selection at 3 or 6.

So what if Gul had been injured? Didn't stop him getting 18 wickets and being one of the best bowlers on either side. If you're going to look for every little excuse, for every bowler, then not many Test innnings' count. There'll aways be some problem with the attack. In this last series, none of Sanga's innings' counted. Harmy was rusty and rubbish. Jimmy was just rubbish. Monty was overbowled. Hoggy was just back from injury. Kaneria wasn't out of form anyway. In the Sri Lanka series before, he'd taken 8 wickets at 29 in 2 Tests. He didn't bowl well in the England series but at the same time, our batsman played him well.

Yup, like I said, a decent Test standard attack.

You've done the hard work once you get to the 60s and 70s. It's just pushing on. Especially the 70s. I don't see how 10 runs, going from the 70s to the 80s is "plenty of work".

Usually, once a quality batsman gets into the 70s, they only get out to a rare lapse in concentration or a very good ball.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Usually, once a quality batsman gets into the 70s, they only get out to a rare recurring lapse in concentration or a very good ball.

Which (a) isn't the Bellhop. and
(b) always occurs.

I just get the feeling that Bell's attitude (when reaching the 80's) is ... "well. I've done me bit, pat on the back ... whoops... oh shit" ...
every sodding time.

Yeah, and I agree that he needs to improve that.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:So what if Gul had been injured? Didn't stop him getting 18 wickets and being one of the best bowlers on either side. If you're going to look for every little excuse, for every bowler, then not many Test innnings' count. There'll aways be some problem with the attack. In this last series, none of Sanga's innings' counted. Harmy was rusty and rubbish. Jimmy was just rubbish. Monty was overbowled. Hoggy was just back from injury. Kaneria wasn't out of form anyway. In the Sri Lanka series before, he'd taken 8 wickets at 29 in 2 Tests. He didn't bowl well in the England series but at the same time, our batsman played him well.

Well, in Kaneria's last year of Test cricket before that series, he was averaging nearing 40. That's not the worst ever form, true - but you'd hardly call it incisive in any way, shape or form. re: Gul - yes you're right he'd had an 18 month layoff and came back into a team with no support and hence was only effective in his first couple of spells, which rarely coincided with Bell being at the crease. Mid innings, they always brought on the pop-gun part-timers.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:
Yup, like I said, a decent Test standard attack.

You've done the hard work once you get to the 60s and 70s. It's just pushing on. Especially the 70s. I don't see how 10 runs, going from the 70s to the 80s is "plenty of work".

Righto, sweetheart. S'a bit of a myopic view. I don't see how getting from 10 to 20 is "plenty of work". And so on and so forth. Fact is, it's extra runs between a batsman and his century, it's plenty of work enough.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Usually, once a quality batsman gets into the 70s, they only get out to a rare lapse in concentration or a very good ball.

Why's it a 'rare' lapse of concentration with Bell? He throws his wicket away all the time.

I've frequently stated that IMO Bells got a lot of talent, and yes he does flatter to decieve.

I just don't think anybody pushing him for a place is likely to do any better.

I think it's best if we agree to disagree. It makes no difference to me what you think about Bell and vice versa. We're not going to convince each other.

You'll probably flag this as running away and point dodging, but it's just that I really can't be bothered. Even if I did manage to convince you, what would I have achieved? Not a lot.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I think it's best if we agree to disagree. It makes no difference to me what you think about Bell and vice versa. We're not going to convince each other.

A bit like the famous "hearsay" argument, eh?

What about it?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:What about it?

Whooooooooooosh

ref.

Well, that's the whole point I suppose Lara. Personally I just wish that people who're quoting different bits and bobs about Bell would have the nouse to filter through to look for the substance, because there isn't much. I probably wouldn't have said a word but for that 'he averages 42' like a) that's massive, in this world of p1ss and b) that the people who analyse that 42 and see he flayed some sh!t attacks in favourable conditions start getting whinged at for being 'selective stats' boys. IMO, the whole 42 thing is selective stats.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:You'll probably flag this as running away and point dodging, but it's just that I really can't be bothered. Even if I did manage to convince you, what would I have achieved? Not a lot.

I see you added this bit. Quit the b1tch-whining.

Sageness from LP. Not bad for a dope sucking piece of terry towelling.

Whatever you say, Danny boy. You get knocked down, but you get up again, don't you? We're never gonna keep you down.

Btw, I didn't call Dello "a selective stats boy" for analysing his 42 average.

JKLever wrote:I've frequently stated that IMO Bells got a lot of talent, and yes he does flatter to decieve.

I just don't think anybody pushing him for a place is likely to do any better.

Shah?
Sales?
Key?

Like I said - Bell has to have had either Vawn's or Orangina's grace and favour.
He gets 30 plus opportunities to prove he's moderate ... Shah gets 2 !!
Sales ... zip
Key ... a half dozen, years ago!

Yep, that makes a lorra sense!!
Stick with the "he's young and talented" routine to paper over the cracks.

LOL, i'm actually hoping Shah & Sales get a decent run to show us how super smashing great they are.

I don't think Sales is in any way a better player than Ian Bell.

Anyway, you know my standpoint - we've been here before.

skully wrote:Sageness from LP. Not bad for a dope sucking piece of terry towelling.

Ah jus' wan git hiiiiigghhhh

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Whatever you say, Danny boy. You get knocked down, but you get up again, don't you? We're never gonna keep you down.

Btw, I didn't call Dello "a selective stats boy" for analysing his 42 average.

Um, AFAIC I haven't got knocked down - but if you'd like to provide iterated evidence to the contrary, do so.

JKLever wrote:LOL, i'm actually hoping Shah & Sales get a decent run to show us how super smashing great they are.

I don't think Sales is in any way a better player than Ian Bell.

Yeah... I prefer the views of his fellow professionals who rank him incredibly highly. He's certainly one of the best players of spin around.