Solving the Ian Bell Question

Thursday, 12th February 2009

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who ever defends Ian Bell. Not that this will do him much good since it seems probable that he'll be dropped for the second test against the West Indies tomorrow. An odd consensus appears to have emerged that Bell is especially culpable for England's failures in the first test and that, accordingly, his is the head that must roll. Mike Selvey fires his Katyushas at Bell today:

Last Saturday, before lunch on what was to prove the final day of the first Test at Sabina Park, Ian Bell played a stroke of such staggering ineptitude that it alone should be reason enough to ensure he does not bat again for England for a considerable while. Bell is a batsman of immense talent which he has failed consistently to covert that into ability by performance.

He is a fine technician, and for a while now has been in the sort of form of which others can only dream. He knocks it around like a champ. And that is the criminality of it: Alastair Cook has a proven temperament but is struggling technically; Paul Collingwood would scrap until his last breath but has no game to call on. But Bell, he has it all, yet is wasting it wantonly. He is either cricketingly thick or just mentally flabby.

There's obviously some truth to this. Bell is infuriatingly inconsistent. Too often he does not exude confidence at the crease and he too frequently supplies his numerous detractors with all the ammunition they need. And yet Selvey's argument is perversely illogical. True, Bell can no longer be considered a young or promising batsman but I cannot see the sense in acknowledging that Bell has more talent - and hence more upside - than either Cook or Collingwood and then arguing that it's the Warwickshire batsman who should be dropped. Bell's "floor" may be lower than those of his rivals/team-mate but his "ceiling" is also higher. Dropping Bell, then, limits the maximum potential in the England team. I don't see the sense in dropping the fellow you consider the better player.

However, it is also the case that I think it's also clear that Bell should not be batting at 3. In 31 innings at first wicket down he averages just 31 and has yet to record a century. By contrast, batting at 5 or 6 he has six centuries in 33 innings at an average of 51. This seems a sufficiently stark statistical difference as to be convincing. Granted, this doesn't solve England's problem at 3, given that Pietersen seems determined to stick at 4. But it does suggest that England will upgrade their batting potential if they drop Bell down the order to 5 - a position from which he has in fact consistently converted his ability into runs...

Yes, Bell played a poorly judged shot in the second innings at Sabina Park. But why pick on Bell alone? Cook scored just four runs in the match and played two equally awful shots to ensure that each England innings got off to a terrible start. And yet Cook's place seems secure (if only, perhaps, because England didn't take another opener), Rum.

Filed under: Cricket (152 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Kevyn Bodman

February 13th, 2009 4:42am Report this comment

No, you are not the only person to defend Ian Bell. And your analysis here is more or less correct.
But, as I commented here a couple of weeks ago, Bell needs a rest.
He is now under enormous pressure every time he goes to the crease.
Owais Shah should play at number 3 and he should be told that whatever happens he will be picked for all the remaining Tests in the West Indies.So he'll be able to bat without the pressure of playing for his place for the 3 remaining Tests.

After that it'll be clear whether or not he is the long-term solution.
Ian Bell is the long-term solution at number 5 and that's where he should be for the first Test of the next home series.

If Shah fails on this tour then Bell should not be restored to 3, someone else should be brought in.

As for Cook, he is not succeeding and England need another opener.
Strauss was terrible at the crease right from the first over in Jamaica. But, as I advocate for Shah, a batsman shouldn't be dropped just because of one, or two, bad matches.
But it wouldn't surprise me if none of England's top 3 for the next home series played last week in Jamaica.

Now, what about the bowlers.
Bowlers, not batsmen, win matches even if the average fan is more interested in the batsmen.

It's rather like Rugby Union where publicity goes to backs like Dan Carter,Brian O'Driscoll and Jonny Wilkinson earlier and Danny Cipriani (?) recently, but the most effective players in the world over the last few years have been Victor Matfield and Richie McCaw.

Louis

February 13th, 2009 8:36am Report this comment

Your last line says it all regarding Cook.

So the question would appear to be who do you drop, Bell or Collingwood? Assuming the later misses out Bell then shifts down to 5 where I agree he is best suited.

But if you take a quick look at the last few series, Collingwood has 2 100s and a 50 in 8 innings while Bell has just 1 50 since his 199 against SA in July or 15 innings ago. Which would swing it in the Durham nurdler's favour to stay in.

I'm not doubting that Bell is the finer player but sometimes people need to be dropped and his comment that last Saturday 'was just one of those days', in my mind at least, should ensure that he spends a bit of time out of test cricket where perhaps he can work out what it is all about.

It didn't do Damien Martyn any harm - not that I'm advocating a six year exile.

Post comment