Ian Bell

didn't partake in the Bell slanging match on the main thread as it's been done a thousand times before and gets very yawnsome...

But....

1. He was offered some overpitched balls to feast on and a couple of early boundaries were a bit scratchy. To borrow a phrase - you would have to be a thunderqunt not to recognise this

2. Once he got the fast start he's played just like any of us ever wanted him to. Best innings ever by him - deserves a ton of plaudits. You would also have to be a thunderqunt not to recognise this.

3. He can't use this score as a platform to cement his place in the side for the next 10 innings without doing very much, he needs to kick on now.

Glad i've cleared that up for everybody.

Ian 'flawless' Bell as i use to call him!

He is still very good.

Just accept that IR Bell is god!

I have to say, before the series I thought he wouldn't get a 50 so very well played.

I still wouldn't feel at all confident with him coming in at 30-3, but South Africa were on a bit of a roll when he did come in so there wasn't a complete lack of pressure this time.

Ian Bell > David Sales.

I don't like his hair.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Ian Bell > David Sales.

I wouldn't go that far .

I don't know why anyone's making a mockery of his march to 30. He got a few rubbish balls, but he put them away with such style and grace that he deserved the runs that came his way. Now and again, even good bowlers are going to give you an opportunity - Bell took 'em, simple as that. Seen many a good batsman miss out on those sorts of delivery when they're out of form. Bell, however, has come into this game in orgasmic form and has played a beautiful innings from start to finish. I still think that it's the second best innings of England's innings, but that's a personal opinion.

It was still a good effort against a strong attack whilst under a level of pressure. You can't really ask for anything more from him in this game. If he follows it up with a string of low scores then he's back at square one. I personally am not expecting great things of Ian Bell, for I think he actually has a lot of technical flaws, but I am nevertheless expecting an innings of this quality from Bell with some level of regularity from hereon in. Anyhow, great stroke-play, very enjoyable innings. Let's see a bit more of it. We'll need it if Fred's back at 6 next week...

For anybody who thinks this innings means Bell is a Test player.....Brad Hodge has a Test double century vs South Africa

I think he actually has a lot of technical flaws

What?

Even on 170* he still waggles his bats outside off-stump to the pacers, and tries to replicate that Pietersen-esque flick through mid-wicket that usually ends with the ball hitting him plumb in-front. He's not technically perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

embee wrote:For anybody who thinks this innings means Bell is a Test player.....Brad Hodge has a Test double century vs South Africa

Yeah?

Bell has 8 test hundreds, and averages 44 after 40 test matches.

He's as frustrating as fook, but that still means he has a record 3 of the Saffer batting line up would kill for...

The thing about Bell is he has 18 half-centuries as well as the 8 centuries. 18!!! FFS, if he converted just 4 or 5 of those into centuries, everyone would bum him and he'd be averaging 50 or more. Once he learns not to throw it away between 60-70, he'll be formidable.

JKLever wrote:

embee wrote:For anybody who thinks this innings means Bell is a Test player.....Brad Hodge has a Test double century vs South Africa

Yeah?

Bell has 8 test hundreds, and averages 44 after 40 test matches.

He's as frustrating as fook, but that still means he has a record 3 of the Saffer batting line up would kill for...

This innings has bumped his ave up from 41.79 ...which is within a few runs of the ave of the three yarps you mentioned ...i doubt they'd kill for 3 runs ...

Everybody would bum Cwis Wead if he had more Test tons. But he hasn't.

embee wrote:

JKLever wrote:

embee wrote:For anybody who thinks this innings means Bell is a Test player.....Brad Hodge has a Test double century vs South Africa

Yeah?

Bell has 8 test hundreds, and averages 44 after 40 test matches.

He's as frustrating as fook, but that still means he has a record 3 of the Saffer batting line up would kill for...

This innings has bumped his ave up from 41.79 ...which is within a few runs of the ave of the three yarps you mentioned ...i doubt they'd kill for 3 runs ...

Point was - average of 44 after 40 tests makes him a 'test player' - not one innings like Podge.

Then why didn't you stick with that point ...

Hodge averages above 50 ...but the selectors realised he was a FRV and dumped him ...

Geez... does everything have to be spelled out in simple terms for you Aussies?

embee wrote:For anybody who thinks this innings means Bell is a Test player.....Brad Hodge has a Test double century vs South Africa

that's all he has.

Who says Hodge isn't a Test player? He'd probably have played lots of Tests for any other country but Australia.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Who says Hodge isn't a Test player? He'd probably have played lots of Tests for any other country but Australia.

All Non-Vomits and most importantly the NSP

Truth is that if Hodge played for another test nation he'd do fairly well for himself, play 70 odd tests and average in the 40s. Aussies just wish they had genuinely rubbish batsmen.

You will never produce an Aftab Habib. Deal with it.

Eric Air Emu wrote:Truth is that if Hodge played for another test nation he'd do fairly well for himself, play 70 odd tests and average in the 40s. Aussies just wish they had genuinely rubbish batsmen.

You will never produce an Aftab Habib. Deal with it.

Well done Bellster - but just to make sure, let's have another 150+ score before then of the series.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Who says Hodge isn't a Test player? He'd probably have played lots of Tests for any other country but Australia.

Not India either.