Bell is a chronic non-achiever, take away his runs against Bangladesh and his average is very poor.
........
He's only played twice against Bangladesh and I don't think he scored heavily on either occasion. If I recall correctly England won both matches either by an innings or plenty.
The problem is that Bell is not suited to batting at #3, in that position you have to graft away and set a total and unless the openers put on a big partnership invariably you are going in with it all to do. Bell has scored most of his runs and all his centuries batting at 5 or 6, there you have to react to what has gone before - you are either rescuing an innings or adding runs onto an already decent total. I just don't see the necessary desire to graft away that is a vital component of batting first wicket down. But he can play, it's his bad luck that Collingwood is preferred to bat at five, otherwise he'd be a natural there.
Broad has to play because we can't have a tail that starts at number 8, the Aussies have Brett Lee at 8 and even Johnson and Hauritz and Krezja can all really bat. We can't have Sidebottom at 8, if we do then it will be six out - all out.
...............
As a bowler Broad needs to learn a few more tricks, but his batting is a credit to him, though with his cricketing dna so it should be. If Broad is dropped it'll be for Anderson, who is no mug with the bat. Otherwise you could bat an orthodox six batsmen (if you include Colly), then Flintoff, Prior and then three from Anderson, Harmison, Panesar or Sidey. Alternatively Swann could come in for Monty and bat 8.
I'm not so sure you'll see much of Hauritz or Krezja, one might make the Ashes trip, it depends if the Aussies go for the better spinner (Krezja) or the bowler with the better control of line and length (Hauritz), but the latter doesn't turn it much.
Sidebottom, at the top of his game and bowling 85Mph plus, is a definite Test quality bowler.
.............
His natural speed is around the 80mph mark with the odd faster delivery thrown in to keep the batsman guessing. He's had quite a few injury problems over the last few months - in my opinion they are the result of him striving for too much pace.
Evenly poised at the moment, I'd have taken this score when Strauss and Cook were out cheaply, especially as Bell didn't hang around for that much longer. However as Boycs would say - add two wickets on to the total and it doesn't look too good a score. If we can get a good start tomorrow then 280 should be feasible.
Did the Windies take the new ball? If not that will be taken first thing.
Amjad Khan and Robbie Joseph to force their way into the England set-up before the end of the forthcoming domestic season.
You read it here first !
I'd also play Rob Key instead of Ian Bell, although think some of the criticisms of Bell here are unfair. Only one of his eight Test hundreds has come against Bangla Desh. It was Pakistan he did so well against, with three hundreds in the one series in 2006.
Amjad, Joseph, Key - oh yes, and I'd recall Geraint Jones instead of Matt Prior.
And before anyone says I'm biased in favour of Kent players, let me save you the trouble.
I am VERY biased in favour of Kent players . And very proud of it.
on edit : and I forgot Joe Denly, who will also become an England player before 2009 is out. Think he was on Charlton's books as a schoolboy, too, before he opted for a cricketing career...
Rob Key is one of those players who needs a good start to next season. If Bell isn't going to make it at three then I think he'll be dropped as I can't see that England will ever drop Collingwood. That puts his position up fror grabs and Key is naturally suited to batting there. The only problem is that Michael Vaughan is ahead of Key, but if Bell fails in the Windies and if Vaughan doesn't score early season runs then I can see Key coming in.
Denly I think is maybe more of a shout for England's ODI side at the moment.
Yes agree about Denly, BFR. I said he'd become an England player without specifying in which form of the game and he's not going to displace Strauss or Cook in the Test side.
But they really should give him a chance in the one day squad. He played some thrilling 20-20 innings for us last season and a magnifcent 100 in the longer one day form v a very strong Durham attack.
Having seen him off the pitch as well as on it around the pavillion at Canterbury day in and day out for the last two summers, I also have to say he's got a superb temprement and attitude. Rob Key takes a lot of credit for that. As captain, he gives exactly the sort of strong leadership one sometimes feel the younger plays lack at CAFC.
Bell - Played twice against Bangladesh and scored 65* and 162* which gives him 227 runs against them with no dismissals which boosts his average above 40.
Against the Aussies he has played 10 Tests and averages a miserable 25.1, against India he has played 8 Tests and averages a miserable 24 - they have been the two best sides over the last 4/5 years and he has been a miserable failure against both of them.
His record is boosted by those four tons against a pretty mediocre Pakistan attack (apart from Shoaib when he fancies it), he averages 68 against them.
His 199 v South Africa in the 1st Test last year gave him an overall average of 47 against them - but he only scored 133 runs in his next SIX innings against SA after that 199.
The bloke has played 46 Test's for Gawd's sake and he still does not convince. I don't buy the Number 3 thing either, he had a long time in the side before he got promoted to number three so he had plenty of time to settle in before being given that responsibility.
Anderson - Anderson has improved his batting and is now an OK nightwatchman but is not a run-scorer. The bloke averages 14.4 in Test's and has only scored 274 runs in 31 Test's with a top-score of just 34.
By comparison, Broad is a genuine prospective all-rounder, he has already scored (at just 22 years old) 373 runs in 11 Test's at an average of nearly 34 and has scored three 50's with a top-score of 76! This bloke can bat at number 8 now and could easily bat 7 in a couple of years.
I agree though that his bowling is a bit vanilla at the moment, he needs to add some extra skills, but I think these will come.
Bottom line is though that we need 5 bowlers to bowl out the best sides so if Fred is number 6 and Prior 7 then HAVE to have a bowler who can bat, like Giles, at 8 otherwise its 6 out all out and that is no way to compete against the Aussies or India.
Maybe Rashid will have a shot at batting number 8 if his bowling gets to Test standard.
Sidebottom - The reason Sidebottom got dropped last year was precisely because his speed dropped back down to the 80mph mark where, even if the ball swings, he is just not quick enough to get out Test batsman. The key to his earlier success was that he was consistently bowling 85mph plus and even towards 90mph on some occasions, I was pretty surprised to see that myself!
Even Duncan Fletcher commented that he would have picked Sidebottom himself when he was coach if he had known he could bowl 85mph plus.
However, you are probably right in saying that in striving for this extra pace he has got himself injured.
For my money you have Sidebottom OR Anderson in the side, they are both out and out swing bowlers and if its not swinging then they are both ineffective.
Aussie Spinner - The odds are looking quite likely that the Aussies will bring Hauritz to England and leave Krezja behind. He had a bucket load of shit poured on him after they lost the 1st Test here against the SA's and they don't trust him because he gets taken for 5/6 runs an over. They will probably also bring 36 year-old leg-spinner Bryce McGain.
Geraint Jones - Jeez Nigel W, you really are one-eyed aren't you?!!!! Jones is a decent batter against the short ball, very good cutter and puller but very vulnerable against the moving ball and anything around the top of off stump. Not in the same class as Prior as a batsman, might be a better keeper but that is not saying much!!!
Rob Key - Did not have a great year last year and probably needed to go on the Windies tour to have a chance this summer. Is held back by his poor fielding and athleticism. Needs STACKS of early season runs to have a crack. Might fall behind Denly though.
But Denly plays for Kent. And we don't already have a major influence in the dressing room so both he and Key have to try that much harder to prove themselves. Historically take a look at how many players came from the Captain's County or by association with prominent members of the squad.
Had Key been given his chance when the likes of Strauss and Bell were failing there's every chance he would now be England's skipper and unlike Strauss would be able to hold his own in all forms of the game - and as a result Denly would have forced his way into the one day squad at the very least.
In principle, the more decisions the umpires get correct, the better.
But I'm not sure I like it. Batsman gets the benefit of the doubt, and all that...
Legit LBWs that the bowler doesn't get have always been part of the game - as have batsmen getting sawn off when they nicked it on to their pad...they cancel each other out over the course of a season and on balance I think I'd have prefered it to remain that way.
And the second over-ruled decision, this time Sarwan is reprieved after getting an LBW decision against him.
I have reservations about the system, the positives are that it'll take the very bad decisions out the game and perhaps make some of the narrower decisions safer. On the other hand it could diminish the respect of umpires.
The second over-turned decision in the batsman's favour effectively cancels out the first, which was in the bowler's favour.
I'm pretty sure this balancing out will be the way it goes over the course of a test match and certainly over a series. So it seems an awful lot of effort for little overall impact on the game...
I think the first use of the system has reinforced my view that things should have been left as they were.
The other thing that I think a lot of people forget is that without controversy to discuss after games (football included) there is no need to have all these ex pro's sitting in a studio discussing things as there'll be nothing to discuss as every decision is right. Alright for the first couple of years the system is in place its a talking point but once it becomes the norm there'll be nothing to discuss!
Comments
........
He's only played twice against Bangladesh and I don't think he scored heavily on either occasion. If I recall correctly England won both matches either by an innings or plenty.
The problem is that Bell is not suited to batting at #3, in that position you have to graft away and set a total and unless the openers put on a big partnership invariably you are going in with it all to do. Bell has scored most of his runs and all his centuries batting at 5 or 6, there you have to react to what has gone before - you are either rescuing an innings or adding runs onto an already decent total. I just don't see the necessary desire to graft away that is a vital component of batting first wicket down. But he can play, it's his bad luck that Collingwood is preferred to bat at five, otherwise he'd be a natural there.
...............
As a bowler Broad needs to learn a few more tricks, but his batting is a credit to him, though with his cricketing dna so it should be. If Broad is dropped it'll be for Anderson, who is no mug with the bat. Otherwise you could bat an orthodox six batsmen (if you include Colly), then Flintoff, Prior and then three from Anderson, Harmison, Panesar or Sidey. Alternatively Swann could come in for Monty and bat 8.
I'm not so sure you'll see much of Hauritz or Krezja, one might make the Ashes trip, it depends if the Aussies go for the better spinner (Krezja) or the bowler with the better control of line and length (Hauritz), but the latter doesn't turn it much.
.............
His natural speed is around the 80mph mark with the odd faster delivery thrown in to keep the batsman guessing. He's had quite a few injury problems over the last few months - in my opinion they are the result of him striving for too much pace.
Did the Windies take the new ball? If not that will be taken first thing.
You read it here first !
I'd also play Rob Key instead of Ian Bell, although think some of the criticisms of Bell here are unfair. Only one of his eight Test hundreds has come against Bangla Desh. It was Pakistan he did so well against, with three hundreds in the one series in 2006.
Amjad, Joseph, Key - oh yes, and I'd recall Geraint Jones instead of Matt Prior.
And before anyone says I'm biased in favour of Kent players, let me save you the trouble.
I am VERY biased in favour of Kent players . And very proud of it.
on edit : and I forgot Joe Denly, who will also become an England player before 2009 is out. Think he was on Charlton's books as a schoolboy, too, before he opted for a cricketing career...
Denly I think is maybe more of a shout for England's ODI side at the moment.
But they really should give him a chance in the one day squad. He played some thrilling 20-20 innings for us last season and a magnifcent 100 in the longer one day form v a very strong Durham attack.
Having seen him off the pitch as well as on it around the pavillion at Canterbury day in and day out for the last two summers, I also have to say he's got a superb temprement and attitude. Rob Key takes a lot of credit for that. As captain, he gives exactly the sort of strong leadership one sometimes feel the younger plays lack at CAFC.
Bell - Played twice against Bangladesh and scored 65* and 162* which gives him 227 runs against them with no dismissals which boosts his average above 40.
Against the Aussies he has played 10 Tests and averages a miserable 25.1, against India he has played 8 Tests and averages a miserable 24 - they have been the two best sides over the last 4/5 years and he has been a miserable failure against both of them.
His record is boosted by those four tons against a pretty mediocre Pakistan attack (apart from Shoaib when he fancies it), he averages 68 against them.
His 199 v South Africa in the 1st Test last year gave him an overall average of 47 against them - but he only scored 133 runs in his next SIX innings against SA after that 199.
The bloke has played 46 Test's for Gawd's sake and he still does not convince. I don't buy the Number 3 thing either, he had a long time in the side before he got promoted to number three so he had plenty of time to settle in before being given that responsibility.
Anderson - Anderson has improved his batting and is now an OK nightwatchman but is not a run-scorer. The bloke averages 14.4 in Test's and has only scored 274 runs in 31 Test's with a top-score of just 34.
By comparison, Broad is a genuine prospective all-rounder, he has already scored (at just 22 years old) 373 runs in 11 Test's at an average of nearly 34 and has scored three 50's with a top-score of 76! This bloke can bat at number 8 now and could easily bat 7 in a couple of years.
I agree though that his bowling is a bit vanilla at the moment, he needs to add some extra skills, but I think these will come.
Bottom line is though that we need 5 bowlers to bowl out the best sides so if Fred is number 6 and Prior 7 then HAVE to have a bowler who can bat, like Giles, at 8 otherwise its 6 out all out and that is no way to compete against the Aussies or India.
Maybe Rashid will have a shot at batting number 8 if his bowling gets to Test standard.
Sidebottom - The reason Sidebottom got dropped last year was precisely because his speed dropped back down to the 80mph mark where, even if the ball swings, he is just not quick enough to get out Test batsman. The key to his earlier success was that he was consistently bowling 85mph plus and even towards 90mph on some occasions, I was pretty surprised to see that myself!
Even Duncan Fletcher commented that he would have picked Sidebottom himself when he was coach if he had known he could bowl 85mph plus.
However, you are probably right in saying that in striving for this extra pace he has got himself injured.
For my money you have Sidebottom OR Anderson in the side, they are both out and out swing bowlers and if its not swinging then they are both ineffective.
Aussie Spinner - The odds are looking quite likely that the Aussies will bring Hauritz to England and leave Krezja behind. He had a bucket load of shit poured on him after they lost the 1st Test here against the SA's and they don't trust him because he gets taken for 5/6 runs an over. They will probably also bring 36 year-old leg-spinner Bryce McGain.
Geraint Jones - Jeez Nigel W, you really are one-eyed aren't you?!!!! Jones is a decent batter against the short ball, very good cutter and puller but very vulnerable against the moving ball and anything around the top of off stump. Not in the same class as Prior as a batsman, might be a better keeper but that is not saying much!!!
Rob Key - Did not have a great year last year and probably needed to go on the Windies tour to have a chance this summer. Is held back by his poor fielding and athleticism. Needs STACKS of early season runs to have a crack. Might fall behind Denly though.
Had Key been given his chance when the likes of Strauss and Bell were failing there's every chance he would now be England's skipper and unlike Strauss would be able to hold his own in all forms of the game - and as a result Denly would have forced his way into the one day squad at the very least.
we need them for OUR XI.
;-)
ps. HaHaHarmisson ?
Plays when HE wants too!
England 241-6
Should be the long-term England opener with Cook but could easily slot in at 3 when that useless twerp Bell is finally given the heave-ho
Spoke too soon, Prior gone for 64, 288-8
In principle, the more decisions the umpires get correct, the better.
But I'm not sure I like it. Batsman gets the benefit of the doubt, and all that...
Legit LBWs that the bowler doesn't get have always been part of the game - as have batsmen getting sawn off when they nicked it on to their pad...they cancel each other out over the course of a season and on balance I think I'd have prefered it to remain that way.
I have reservations about the system, the positives are that it'll take the very bad decisions out the game and perhaps make some of the narrower decisions safer. On the other hand it could diminish the respect of umpires.
I'm pretty sure this balancing out will be the way it goes over the course of a test match and certainly over a series. So it seems an awful lot of effort for little overall impact on the game...
I think the first use of the system has reinforced my view that things should have been left as they were.
My my that was productive?
But really I see cricket as an all day drinking session where some times you'll see a ball hit sweetly for a six....