What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Ian Bell conundrum

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
68,409
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/902675.html



24-7-15

Since the beginning of 2012, Ian Bell averages 34.69 when batting in the top six; among regular top-order batsmen, only Shane Watson has a lower average


When Ian Bell is playing well, there are few better sights in cricket. No matter what the match situation, he has an assuredness and solidity that immediately calms dressing-room nerves, while his grace and elegance makes batting look like one of the easiest tasks in the world.

The problem, though, is that Bell hasn't been playing well for much of the last few years. Since the start of the 2013-14 Ashes series in Australia, in 19 Tests (34 innings), Bell has averaged 28.48, with only two hundreds - one each against India and West Indies. While that itself is a pretty long run of poor form, Bell's lean spell runs even longer than that, though interspersed by a couple of exceptional series: since the beginning of 2012, Bell's average in 43 Tests (78 innings) is 34.28, which is well below what you'd expect from a player of his class and ability. The one exceptional series he has had during this period was the home Ashes contest in 2013, when he was by far England's best, scoring 562 runs at 62.44, in a series in which no other England batsman touched 400. Bell was colossal in that series, but on either side of that series have been barren spells which hardly do justice to a batsman of his calibre.

Over the last three-and-a-half years, Bell's stats are unquestionably one of the poorest for specialist batsmen. Among batsmen in the top six who've batted at least 40 innings - there are 28 on that list - only Shane Watson has an average lower than Bell's 34.69. Given that Watson has also bowled a bit during this period - 18 wickets at 33.50 - Bell's average is the worst among specialist batsmen. In these 43 Tests, the overall average for all players who batted in the top six was 37.41, which means Bell was about 7% poorer than the average specialist batsman. There are three other England batsmen in the list below, but Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen are no longer in the England squad, while Alastair Cook has clearly regained his mojo after a long lean spell.

England's best during this period, Joe Root, has averaged 55.22, and is one of nine batsmen with 55-plus averages. Hashim Amla is on top of that list with an average of 65.73, while Steven Smith, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Kumar Sangakkara and AB de Villiers have all averaged more than 63. It's true that England have tended to play in relatively low-scoring games compared to some of the other sides - the overall top-order average in the 28 Tests AB de Villiers played during this period is 41.03, compared 37.41 for Bell - but even so it's clear that Bell has underperformed, especially given that he has been one of England's senior batsmen during this period.


Bell has averaged 9.00 in his last 7 tests (13 innings)

I reckon he is either close to retirement or getting the sack
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
It is an interesting article.

Him and Clarke came into cricket around the same time and have played the same amount of tests more or less and Clarke has 1000 more runs over his career.

I don't know whats going on with Bell or why England are so patient when the guy has been a failure for the vast majority of his career. Sure he might come out and score a bit century against us on his home turf but he is an extreme case of looks pretty so gets a million chances. The rest of the article has even more damning statistics. Like he gets out for <20 ~50 percent of the time which is really quite astounding for a middle order batsman.

His average has gone from nearly 50 in 2011 down to 43 in 2015. Its just crazy that he is still in the team imo.
 

vvvrulz

Coach
Messages
13,625
I never rated Ian Bell right from the 2005 Ashes when he was favoured over the ageing but classy Graham Thorpe. I remember thinking "what is the big deal about this guy".

Over the years you can understand why he never got dropped, those rare times where he actually is going against a class attack it looks very very good. But he always was destined to be another one of England's nearly men along with the overrated Harmison and the underrated Hoggard and Simon Jones.

England always loved to create heroes though, just look at how Prior and Swann were lauded those few years when they were on top of things. Heck I don't even rate Anderson and Flintoff as highly as they will be remembered.

I think I mentioned somewhere else, at least Bell doesn't carry on like a muppet.

He can enjoy a respectable career, let's give him that.
 

Mr Bean

Juniors
Messages
184
I used to love watching Graham Thorpe bat he use to make you work for his wicket. Ian Bell is the opposite. Sure he has his knocks but most of the time he throws his wicket away with rubbish shots.

He is so highly rated because he is one of the few batsmen around today that is strong all round the wicket. Their are better batsmen around today that can only play half the shot repertoire he has. He is good on the front and back foot, onside, offside, off his pads. There is not many shots he doesn't know how to play. But the frustration is he a basket case and only turns up in patches.
If he played to his full potential he would be one of his generations best batsmen with an average of 50+ instead he is a dry in the wool know your place and don't rise above it.
Thats why he was never made captain he doesn't seek the limelight nor look for extra duties off field.
He will go down as another talent cricketer that could have been so much better.
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
68,409
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/913533.html


What will Ian Bell's legacy be?

He always made the difficult look easy and rarely got the recognition his batting deserved. The difficulty of replacing him may determine his worth


147324.jpg


"Happiness writes white," the old maxim goes. For me at least, so has Ian Ronald Bell done: there has been something frictionless about his long career, something hard to grasp. Even the news that he is to spend the next few weeks in contemplation of retirement seems strangely ambivalent. It's a very Ian Bell thing to do.

He has always been one of those players who made something very difficult look easy. It is his cross to bear. His struggles, physical or psychological, remain subterranean, hidden beneath the glossy and implacable exterior. Even the failures will often include a single boundary fizzed so effortlessly past the field that his bat barely appears to have moved from the perpendicular. Bell has glided through his career like a swan on a river, leaving just the slightest of ripples on the water behind. What will we think of him when he's gone?

He is still only 33, but there are miles on the clock. He first toured with England in 2001-02 and even before that, as a 16-year-old, he was the next big thing. It is perhaps not a decline in talent so much as in the will to keep going. Since the last Ashes in England, in which he made three hundreds, he has played in six series and in them averaged 26.11, 34.25, 42.42, 31.00, 10.75 and 26.87 - all are under his overall mark of 43.00. The move to No. 3 for the Edgbaston Test brought the briefest of spikes. He never quite seemed able to summon the thrumming energy that trailed Joe Root to the crease, nor the unadulterated concentration of his old compadre Alastair Cook. Both were once there.

That pair of half-centuries in Birmingham showed some symmetry with his first Ashes win in 2005. Then he wore Warne's nickname of "The Sherminator" like a black eye and was comprehensively eclipsed as a new star of England batting by Kevin Pietersen. Famously, his next eight Test centuries were scored in innings during which at least one other England player also passed three figures

The glide through his career had begun, and it's a reputation he has found hard to shake despite the tough runs he has made. Again, all of those - the hundred in Durban and match-saving 78 in Cape Town in 2009-10, the dazzling year and a half of batting that followed - were compiled so silkily it was easy to forget how hard it probably was. The Hot Spot camera appeared to have been invented for Bell in top form - not to adjudicate on his dismissals but to show again and again the ball leaving a perfect white circle in the dark centre of his blade.

The lo-fi hiss of frustration accompanies his decline. He has never been a demonstrative man. A poor dismissal might induce a brief stare at the heavens or a flip of the bat, but he's not a puncher of lockers, a smasher of windows. Getting out, like being in, is just another part of the job. Even in his prime as a batsman he was never seriously considered as a captain (at least as far as we know) and his nominal vice-captaincy has now been ceded to Joe Root. Did he care when it went? As usual with Ian Bell, it was impossible to tell.

His career will span those of Pietersen and Cook, three pillars of a decade of English batting. He seems to skate the line between the two without the vast highs and destructive lows of Pietersen or the relentless hunger of Cook. His most telling legacy, aside from the shimmering summer visions of his cover drive, will be the Bell-shaped hole he'll leave behind. The difficulties of replacing him may finally determine his worth. Until that time he remains somehow unreachable, and not entirely understood.


vvvrulz, Id like a comment from you. On Bells legacy and also the comment "he made difficult batting look easy"

Over to you man :)
 

Timbo

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,281
He's done an excellent job for England.

For mine, he reminds me of Damien Martyn. World class to be sure, but never the best. When he bows out, there wont be a lot of fanfare.
 

African Monkey

First Grade
Messages
8,671
He's done an excellent job for England.

For mine, he reminds me of Damien Martyn. World class to be sure, but never the best. When he bows out, there wont be a lot of fanfare.

Agreed. His time has most likely come to an end but definitely one of their finest middle order bats in the modern era imo.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
That speaks more for England being short of batsmen than Bell being especially good. As I said earlier he gets out for under 20 once every 2 innings. Like a lot of stylish batsmen just lacks a bit of fight IMO.

He is just as likely to throw the bat when out of form than dig in. Look at the runs he scored at edgbaston. It was just a mess of an innings. Especially in the strong position England where in.

He's OK, he has a very pretty technique but he's been at best up and down his entire career. He averages 35 in ashes test matches with 4 centuries. Steve Smith has played way less ashes tests and has 5 ashes test centuries.
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
68,409
He's never had a settled spot in the order. 25 Tests at 3, 30 at 4, 42 at 5, 29 at 6


has a great average at 5 and 6, on the back of when the likes of when Trott and Pieterson where in the side and doing well

Seems when asked to go up the order as a senior batsman, he cant deliver
 

Tommy Smith

Referee
Messages
21,344
It's interesting.

He's basically our Mark Waugh. 20+ Test centuries, with averages in the early 40s. Both were stunning to watch in full flight and yet both wasted their potential.

Most of you probably think that comparison is ludicrous given that you continually bash Bell, and yet their 100 test careers are remarkably similar.
 
Last edited:

Tommy Smith

Referee
Messages
21,344
Ian Bell: 199 innings, 7569 runs, avg. 43.01, 45 fifties and 22 centuries, S/R 50.06.

Mark Waugh: 209 innings, 8029 runs, avg. 41.82, 47 fifties and 20 hundreds, S/R 52.27.

Interesting that one is mocked by Australians while the other is highly regarded.
 

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
153,769
Compare the bowlers Waugh faced and the pitches, Waugh played some great match winnings innings against top quality bowlers. Bell is a minnow basher by comparison.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
10,998
Compare the bowlers Waugh faced and the pitches, Waugh played some great match winnings innings against top quality bowlers. Bell is a minnow basher by comparison.

THIS.

Which is exactly why it is misleading to compare on stats alone. By Tommy Smith's logic, Matthew Hayden was better than Viv Richards based on the following:

Hayden: 184 innings, 8625 runs, 50.74 average
Richards: 182 innings, 8540 runs, 50.24 average

:lol: ROFL!

Every Aussie knows that Haydos, although a good batsman, was your typical 21st century flat-track bully, hence why he only was able to cement his position in the test team from the summer of 2000/01, and although he piled on thousands of runs at Sheffield Shield level, struggled when he had his opportunities on the big stage back in the '90s against quality fast bowling from South Africa and West Indies (hence why he missed the '97 Ashes tour), and history repeated itself in his last test series when he was exposed against the South African bowling lineup that broke our 16 year unbeaten test series streak at home in 2008/09, culminating in his retirement. Tommy, you do realise Haydos test average during 1994-2000 before he replaced Greg Blewett as opener at the start of 2000/01 summer was....wait for this.....21.43?

Waugh played against far superior opposition during 1991-2002 and on non-flat tracks, and would've easily averaged 50 on one finger had he cared even 10% as much about his average as the likes of Kallis, Tendulkar et al. Although far more naturally gifted than his brother Steve, lack of motivation and poor discipline was his downfall, but even then, his average of 41 is worth another 5-10 runs if he was playing today (the same can also be said about other great batsmen of the '80s and '90s such as Martin Crowe). And yes, he produced crucial innings against undoubtedly the second best West Indies side of all time (1985-95, second to their 1975-85 side), whereas Ian Bell's average would be deduct at least 10 runs less if he had to face Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Patterson/Benjamin/Waqar/Wasim/Donald/De Villiers/Matthews/Pollock at their peaks. As much as the Aussies rissoled Mike Atherton in Ashes series, even Atherton was better than Bell.
 
Last edited:

undertaker

Coach
Messages
10,998
And regarding hineyrulz's comment on Waugh's match-winning innings (of which only Michael Clarke could've hoped to have dreamed of playing), let's run through some of them and see if this jogs some memories:

vs West Indies, Antigua 1991

Australia in a precarious situation at 4/158 and on the verge of going winless in the test series, Waugh's 139* was the difference, helping Australia get a large 1st innings lead, which eventuated in a 157 run win. And remember, this was against Ambrose/Walsh/Patterson/Marshall on a typical, erratic West Indian wicket that the Windies were notorious of producing back in those days.

vs West Indies, 1992 Boxing Day Test

Against Ambrose/Bishop/Walsh, Australia again were very precarious at 4/115 before a gritty, grinding partnership between Waugh (112) and Border (110) got Australia out of trouble and again helped set up a healthy 1st innings lead on an MCG pitch that started to deteriorate quickly, allowing Warne to take his first test 5-fer to wrap up the game. This was back when the MCG pitch was variable, unlike the crap drop-ins they now produce so the AFL players don't get 'injured'

vs South Africa, Durban 1994

In Allan Border's final test, Australia were in trouble on the 5th day being 4-down after clearing off a 150 run 1st innings deficit. Waugh and the great AB himself batted out the last two sessions (Waugh producing a man of the match 113*) against Donald/De Villiers/Matthews to draw the test and the series 1-all.

vs West Indies, Jamaica 1995

Although Steve Waugh's 200 gets the attention and praise in this test, Mark's 126 and 231-run partnership with Steve when Australia were 3/73 in the series decider mustn't be underestimated. That partnership helped Australia finally break the West Indies 20-year dominance.

vs South Africa, Port Elizabeth 1997

Ah, this is one of my favourites, if not, my favourite Mark Waugh innings (in the context of a test match). Chasing 270 for victory, Waugh's MOTM 116 in the 4th innings helped Australia just get over the line by 2 wickets and win the test series

vs South Africa, Sydney 1998

Waugh's 100 against very hostile, brilliant fast bowling from Allan Donald on a lively SCG pitch (back when the SCG used to be a rank-turner, as well as offering a lot of seam movement for fast bowlers), was one of the best under pressure. The battle between Donald and Steve Waugh was quite memorable as well, with Donald getting the last laugh bowling him out

vs South Africa, Adelaide 1998

Although there was that controversial hit-wicket incident that was given not out (which was the correct decision from the umpires according to the rule book), Waugh's 115* held out South Africa late on the 5th day to win the series for Australia.

vs India, Bangalore 1998


Waugh's 153* in bloody stinking hot and humid conditions when Australia was on the verge of being clean-sweeped on a rather dismal tour of India salvaged some pride, battling nausea and stomach pain the night before, paved the way for Kasprowicz to clean up in the 2nd innings and sealing a hard-fought, consolation win.

vs England, Sydney 1999

On a rank-turner against quality seam bowling from Gough (who got a hat-trick) and Headley, Waugh's partnership with Steve once again at 3/52 proved the difference. Mark Waugh scored 121, Australia won by 98 runs courtesy of MacGill's 12 wickets in the match.
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
68,409
THIS.

Which is exactly why it is misleading to compare on stats alone. By Tommy Smith's logic, Matthew Hayden was better than Viv Richards based on the following:

Hayden: 184 innings, 8625 runs, 50.74 average
Richards: 182 innings, 8540 runs, 50.24 average

:lol: ROFL!

Every Aussie knows that Haydos, although a good batsman, was your typical 21st century flat-track bully, hence why he only was able to cement his position in the test team from the summer of 2000/01, and although he piled on thousands of runs at Sheffield Shield level, struggled when he had his opportunities on the big stage back in the '90s against quality fast bowling from South Africa and West Indies (hence why he missed the '97 Ashes tour), and history repeated itself in his last test series when he was exposed against the South African bowling lineup that broke our 16 year unbeaten test series streak at home in 2008/09, culminating in his retirement. Tommy, you do realise Haydos test average during 1994-2000 before he replaced Greg Blewett as opener at the start of 2000/01 summer was....wait for this.....21.43?

Waugh played against far superior opposition during 1991-2002 and on non-flat tracks, and would've easily averaged 50 on one finger had he cared even 10% as much about his average as the likes of Kallis, Tendulkar et al. Although far more naturally gifted than his brother Steve, lack of motivation and poor discipline was his downfall, but even then, his average of 41 is worth another 5-10 runs if he was playing today (the same can also be said about other great batsmen of the '80s and '90s such as Martin Crowe). And yes, he produced crucial innings against undoubtedly the second best West Indies side of all time (1985-95, second to their 1975-85 side), whereas Ian Bell's average would be deduct at least 10 runs less if he had to face Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop/Patterson/Benjamin/Waqar/Wasim/Donald/De Villiers/Matthews/Pollock at their peaks. As much as the Aussies rissoled Mike Atherton in Ashes series, even Atherton was better than Bell.

Haydos better than Richards :lol: (love your work Undertaker)

Bell better than Junior :lol:
 
Top