England’s middle-order is wobblier than a toddler’s temperament. It’s based on hope rather than expectation. And now that Joe Root has been moved up the order, due to a misguided notion that the best player must bat three, it’s looking weaker than a glass of shandy Bass.
So why oh why do the selectors refuse to pick a batsman with nine test hundreds at number 5 (and 22 tons overall) and an average well in excess of 50 when batting at third and fourth drop?
England need an experienced head, and a class act, in the middle-order more than ever. Yet the selectors, and / or the management, seem happy to turn their noses up at Ian Bell. It’s like a starving man refusing to eat entrecôte because he thinks he might get chateaubriand tomorrow.
Let’s just get this straight. Ian Bell is not too old. He’s just turned 34. That’s just 14 months older Nick Compton, an inferior player by far yet inexplicably recalled to begin his second life as an England player last winter. Bell is also three years younger than Adam Voges and just a few months older than Jimmy Anderson.
Age shouldn’t really matter anyway though. It’s how good you are that counts. Does anyone who really understands cricket think that James Vince or even Garry Ballance, who stubbornly refused to work on his technique after being schooled by Australia last summer, are better players than Bell?
Yes, I appreciate that Warwickshire’s finest had a poor run of form last year. In his last four test series in an England shirt, he averaged just 31, 11 (in a two test series), 27 and 32. But he’s not the first player to suffer a dip in form. Between 2013 and 2014, Alastair Cook averaged 28, 25 and 20 in three consecutive series. Yet whereas Cook was forgiven and given time, Bell has been flicked on the floor like an unwanted bogey. “Thanks for the 118 test matches Ian, now **** off”.
After playing non-stop for England for a decade, without much of a rest, wasn’t Bell entitled to have a break, refresh his mind and body, and come back stronger? Andrew Strauss once had a poor run, was rested for a tour, but then came back and made a triumphant century against New Zealand. The rest is history. Why are some players given more opportunities than others?
I guess the problem with Bell is that everyone expects so much. He’s such a talented player that he could, and perhaps should, have averaged 50 in test cricket. But averaging 43, over a decade, is a fine achievement in itself. Why should Bell be judged on whether he’s fulfilled his potential when the bottom line is that he’s still been very productive? Paul Collingwood averaged 40.5 in test cricket. England would kill for someone like like that now. So what’s the logic in shunning Bell?
I know there are a lot of Bell critics out there. I’ve heard the arguments many times: “he’s soft, flakey … time to move on”. They used to say that about Andy Murray too. But let’s get one thing straight: you should only move on if you’ve got someone better waiting in the wings. England moved from Bell to Compton, and now they’re picking Vince and Ballance ahead of him too. It’s like swapping a Mercedes for a clutch of Morris Minors.
What’s more – and this is something that’s particularly unfair – nobody knows where Bell stands. I assume he doesn’t know himself. He hasn’t retired; he’s scoring runs in county cricket; so what’s the problem? It seems that poor Ian has been left hanging, unsure of how to reclaim his England place, and not knowing whether he’s been dropped indefinitely for reasons nobody understands.
If I was Bell, I’d assume the worst. England’s middle-order is possibly the weakest it’s ever been, yet our best number five in recent times still can’t get a look in. Perhaps he looked out of a window at the wrong time? Or plays for the wrong county? He must have done something wrong because in pure cricketing terms his omission makes less sense than Phil Tufnell after ten pints.
If Ballance’s groin injury prevents him from playing at Lord’s on this week, Ian Bell must, must, be the man to replace him.
James Morgan
Think KP hit the nail on the head in a tweet to Shane Watson yesterday.
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s what Shane Watson said
Shane Watson’s judgment is notoriously suspect. If you don’t believe me watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdwelPDdBVo
Ha ha! I believe Watson is probably expressing what 99% of England opponents are thinking. Would the Aussies rather be up against Bell or Ballance?
Sorry James don’t agree. I loved to watch Bell in his pomp a few years ago, so graceful and exact. Not totally sure selectors were right to drop him, but now they have I would have expected him to go back to county cricket and score a ton of runs, top the averages and demand his place back. At the moment he is behind James Hildreth, Scott Borthwick, Trotty, Adam Wheater and………..Paul Collingwood!
Sorry, just hasn’t made the case for himself so far.
Averaging almost 50 is good enough. All the others are unknown quantities. Ballance averages 33 this year.
Bell was a superb 5 and 6 for years. He only struggled when they moved him to 3. Let’s hope the same doesn’t happen to Root :-)
A breezy 5 against the mighty Hampshire isn’t going to further his cause I’m afraid ! :)
No batsman makes runs every time!
I think we’re in for a nasty surprise against Pakistan courtesy of Amir and Wahab. I can see them not only ripping out the top order, but also exposing the hitters lower down. I expect a regular collapsathon from both sides and lots of 3-day games, weather permitting. I’m torn about Bell. I get what you’re saying James, but his season for Warwicks rather mimics his England career. He’s underperformed, without being awful. One hundred and 3 fifties in 10 innings isn’t good enough for me. Ballance does average nearly 50 in 15 Tests. How about Sam Robson at 3 if Ballance is not fit?
This also exposes the folly of the experiment with Jonathan Trott opening in the WI, when Adam Lyth should have been blooded and which ended Trott’s international career. He’s in great nick now and had he been made to wait, now could have been a good time for a recall.
Wahab has said that he thinks England’s middle order is suspect, but i don’t think Ian Bell is the answer. Wonderful elegant batsman when the going is good. Far too prone to f***ing up when it gets difficult. How many times have you seen Bell get out shortly before lunch/tea/close of play to a soft dismissal when England are in bother? Sorry, but I just don’t think the “Sledgehammer of Eternal Justice” (Andy Zaltzman’s name) has the necessary balls for tests.
Bell was a giant in the Ashes summer in 2013 and held the batting together on his own. Those were very tough runs.
Yes he can be frustrating but why does he have to be perfect? We’re not looking for the next Bradman, just a good player with a good record to bolster a feeble and inexperienced middle order.
Fair point, but that was the only series where he made tough runs.
That’s a bit harsh on someone who averages 42 against South Africa and 43 against Pakistan.
Bell was also very good down in SA in 2009/10 and scored 320 runs at 45 – which was considerably more than KP, Prior, Strauss and Trott. He held the batting together alongside Colly.
I’m not trying to argue that Bell isn’t frustrating. We all know he is. But part of this is because we all know who good he could be. If you take away the expectations, you’re still left with someone who has a good record at 5 and has been very productive (if not prolific) for a decade. I’d certainly take that at the current time, when we can’t find anyone to bat 4 & 5.
His season doesn’t mimic his England career in the last year because he’s averaging 47 and he’s got new duties as captain. Ballance by the way is averaging 36 this season just to put it in context yet no problem about a recall for him! (And that includes his latest ton). Bell suffered an injury which kept him out for a couple of games which also affected his form. The last few games he’s been scoring steadily in all formats. Captaincy was thrust upon him because of issues around Chopra who resigned. The timing isn’t right. But he’s not one to shrink from or shirk responsibility – so much for ‘he’s soft…flakey’…etc. However what he’s learning now – captaincy in all formats – playing t20 – can only make him a more well rounded player.
Too old at 34? – of course not – but Nasser Hussain initiated a campaign in the Daily Mail that anyone dropped aged 34 should never be recalled. Actually Bell was dropped at 33. It demonstrates cliques exist because it didn’t stop the recall of Compton recalled at 32 without any evidence that he was a better player and without any track record. Ballance has also got the nod without demonstrating he’s improved. Some rules for some folks, some for others. Bairstow had to work hard for a year to prove he was good enough.
Bell has been left dangling. There were encouraging noises until England decided to give Compton another Series. In reality a place was being kept warm for Ballance who unfortunately was batting rather badly at the time. Ballance and Vince are under the wing of Andy Flower and he’s out and about these days with Whitaker giving his opinions so it can’t all be blamed on Newell and Fraser.
Flower has favoured Vince since he impressed in white ball cricket for the Lions. Ballance is a former protege from the days when he was Director of Cricket. Bayliss seems to have no input whatsoever and relies heavily on Strauss and the selectors.
Flower might still hold a grudge over the KP debacle. Strauss certainly does. Bell never toed the line about KP being a difficult player hard to get on with. Too honestly he said – when questioned by the media – that he thought England was a better side with KP in it. Strauss has made clear his attitude to KP. Should it all matter? It shouldn’t. But grudges die hard. If Bell is being punished in exile – not unlike poets who were exiled to islands when they offended the Emperor in Rome – then he’s unlikely to get the call. However if the team doesn’t deliver things can change quite rapidly. Just like politics.
Bell has plenty to do for Warwickshire. He shouldn’t retire from international cricket – that’s nonsense when he has so much batting ahead of him. He needs to remember England may need him.
Like Watson said, he’s a class batsman. KP’s reply was that Cook doesn’t like players who are close to his record of England’s highest ever runscorer. Actually Cook has only just passed Bell but still remains below KP.
13779 KP
13441 Cook
13331 Bell
13190 Gooch
I’m not having any of this guff about Bell being “punished” for not towing the party line on KP. The truth is that Bell was given a much longer rope than any other England player bar Cook, before he was dropped. He’d earned that, by dint of seniority and track record – but the logic doesn’t suggest any Strauss-led (or anyone-else-led) grudge.
There’s certainly a case to bring him back. He’s in better form than Ballance over the season, for a start. Vince isn’t convincing yet, and Hales isn’t established, so blooding another newcomer would give us 3 marginal picks in the top six, which wouldn’t bode well against a decent attack.
But part of me isn’t convinced. An average of 50 at county level is a decent season, without kicking down the door. And there’s definitely more long-term value in trying a Borthwick, or even Robson. To me, once you’re dropped then you rather lose the right to be picked on former glories – the next cab off the rank should be the best combination of current form and longer-term upside. And I’m just not sure that’s Ian Bell.
All that said, the arguments end up being just about a dead heat for me – so if he does come back I’d be happy enough. And forever hoping, as always, that he’d score enough runs to take all my doubts away for good!
He’s our Mark Waugh, isn’t he. Do you appreciate the runs he scored, or lament that someone with such sublime talent could and should have scored a lot more?
Great comparison to Mark Waugh. The point I’d make is that Bell’s bad patch could be attributed to (a) playing non stop for a decade (he’s also our leading run scorer in ODI history), and (b) being moved up to No3. If we’d left Bell alone at 5 he’d probably still be a lynchpin of the side.
Other players have had poor runs and been given another try so why not Belly? Even Trott was invited back (as an opener!) yet Bell has seemingly been dumped for good. I just don’t get it. It seems a tad bizarre to me. I could understand it if there were plenty of good young players knocking the door down but I don’t believe there are.
England have a couple of very good players who are a bit too young for test cricket at the moment but supremely talented. Joe Clarke at Worcs is a phenomenal talent. But he’s not quite ready yet. My strategy would be to recall Bell as a bridge until someone like Clarke is ready.
We can make a case for Ballance on the basis that he was always a more natural 5 than 3 (and I’m not totally opposed to picking him again) but not at the expense of a player who is still more than good enough to play for England imho. With Root moving up to 3, we have a weakness at 4 and 5. It would make sense to me to blood a promising player like Vince at 4 but then have someone more experienced at 5.
It’s a tricky one. I’m like you – I hate the idea of Root batting at three, just because “someone” (usually someone Australian) spouts the inanity that the best player bats at three. It’s just rubbish of course. The irony is that even the biggest proponent of it (Ian Chappell) wasn’t the best player, even though he batted at three. Greg was, of course. Players should bat where they’re comfortable – so Root at 4 and Bell (if recalled) at 5.
But it looks as if Bayliss has got his way – so we are where we are. I certainly wouldn’t complain with Root – Vince – Bell at 3,4,5. It certainly made more sense to recall Bell than it did to recall Ballance.
I just feel sorry for the likes of Borthwick. Having a cracking season. Scoring runs in the very position that’s a problem – but can’t get a game because of the cricketing equivalent of “jobs for your mates”.
I see both sides, I really do. I’d probably toss a coin!!
To be honest Kev, I think coin tossing has been the cornerstone of England’s selection policy for decades :-)
Bell wasn’t given much rope compared with Cook. Unless it’s rope to hang himself with. Unlike Cook who had a phalanx of ECB top brass supporting him for a couple of years as well as most of the media – The Times had a picture of Cook on its cricket page every day – Bell was threatened by the Edgbaston Ashes Test that his place was in danger. This was about 3 months since his last century. Bell played a storming role on a green seamer on his home ground and swung the Ashes Series in England’s favour. But the media gave him scant recognition. Cricinfo organised quite a nasty response. Once the media gets on that kind of bandwagon then you become a marked man. Social media was pretty rabid as well. I don’t know how much scorn a player can stand before it affects his equilibrium but you certainly need a lot of support from your own camp. Strauss notably withheld any. While Cook was in that position Strauss spoke up for him all the time. It’s laughable when grudges are dismissed when we’ve seen the evidence of what happened to Pietersen.
Jackie,
From his last hundred in West Indies until he was dropped, Bell played 12 Tests averaging 21. If you can find me another England top order batsman – excluding any captain – over the last 20 years, who was given longer than that, without a hundred and without being dropped, then I might think you have a case. But I don’t think you’ll find one.
I agree that Cook was given too long – but England have a tendency to give their Captains a very long rope. The only comparable struggle to Bell’s was an even worse one – Nasser Hussain’s run in 1999/2000 when he was also captain.
But Bell wasn’t a captain – and in that context, 12 consecutive tests without a hundred and without being dropped is the longest run I can recall any England batsman getting. Happy to stand corrected, of course!
He actually averaged 24.5 during this period Kev (I’ve just checked the stats). He didn’t make a ton but he did score 4 half centuries (including 65 not out) and scores of 46 and 40 too.
The fact he was getting in and then getting out, when he has a career conversion rate of 50%, suggests to me that he was simply burned out and needed a rest.
I mentioned Andrew Strauss in my article. Between 2006 and 2007 (before he was captain) he scored 600 runs at 27 over a 12 test stretch – which included a supposed ‘fill ya boots’ series at home against the Windies. Burn out was given as an excuse, Strauss was rested from one tour, but then he came back after a rest and scored heavily against NZ. Why was Strauss given this leeway but not Bell … especially as Bell has considerably more test runs under his belt than Strauss did at that point.
I’m sure there are other examples of very good players who endured a terrible run of form but came back strongly.
From the start of the Grenada test (ie the one after his last hundred) I made it 417 runs at 20.85 – including 2 not outs. I’m sticking with that for now :-)
You’re right about Strauss though. His run was longer (16 tests) albeit his form wasn’t quite so bad. In defence of my theory though, everyone (including Strauss) knew that he was batting for his career at Napier when he finally made that hundred. He’d actually failed in the first 2 games in that series, and it was generally accepted that the final test was his last hurrah unless he made big runs. Contrast that to Bell, whose omission from the SA tour was considered a shock by most.
As for why Strauss was given so long, wasn’t he vice captain by then? He was certainly considered for the captaincy for the 2006-07 Ashes, and was clearly an FEC.
Ah right I see. You’re splitting series. I made my calculation on whole series i.e. from the end of that Windies tour until the present day.
If we’re splitting series, Strauss actually went an amazing 30 innings without a century from 2006-2007. Bell had played 23 innings without a century when he was dropped.
PS don’t you think we ought to do some proper work at some point today ;-) this stat diving isn’t doing my productivity much good.
“If you can find me another England top order batsman – excluding any captain – over the last 20 years, who was given longer than that, without a hundred and without being dropped, then I might think you have a case. But I don’t think you’ll find one”.
Collingwood was given 14 Tests between 100s in 2007-08 (and 13 Tests in 2009-10 which was only broken by a century against Bangladesh – his only century in his last 22 Tests).
Also FTR, Cook went 15 Tests without a century in 2008-09 (when he wasn’t captain) and 19 Tests without one in 2013-15 when he was captain. He’s only scored one century in his last 15 as well.
No real suggestions emerging on clear cut candidates for an England batting spot.
All in all, England’s top 6 looks very inexperienced with Ballance, Vince & Hales mustering less tests (25) than Bairstow (27); and those 4 only 10 more than Root (42).
Balance is hardly an experienced player to bring back nor the man in form in the Championship – Borthwick must be wondering how many he must score.
As ever one wonders who the Pakistanis would least like to bowl to?
Unfortunately while Strauss and his bunch of sycophants are in charge Bell will remain in the wilderness and Borthwick will still be on the periphery for the foreseeable future. I hate drawing comparisons between the ECB and the FA but imho they both need a complete overhaul. Teams need to be selected with the aim of giving the best chance of winning, not on recognition of past performance. Ian. York
The series hasnt started yet and u guys have already pressed the “Lets Panic” button. Perhaps it would be better to wait and see what happens at Lords before making such statements
That was the let’s stick with Compton argument. Meanwhile another Series goes by. What did we learn that we didn’t already know? Compton meanwhile has learnt a hard lesson. Even Vince supporters said he wasn’t ready. I watched him bat at Durham. He didn’t look ready. We’ve survived because SA was going through a crisis of captaincy and Sri Lanka a shadow of its former self. Pakistan are weak on batting and strong on bowling. Whoever wins the toss could win the game.
I’ve never doubted Bell’s quality. He was just too unreliable for me. Never felt “we’ve got Bell walking out now. He’ll sort things out”. For all his efforts 23 innings since his last test century doesn’t make me feel he’ll change our middle order being wobbly.
Yep I’m with you on this one James. A middle order of Ballance and Vince alongside a Captain who has historically struggled again left arm quicks, doesn’t inspire confidence. I’d have Bell in an instance for this series.
I watched the Test in Dubai and can confirm Pakistan have a very good attack (Wahab won the game for them on the third morning with a fiery spell on what was a flat wicket). Amir, whatever my own personal thoughts on him are, bolsters their attack even further.
Whoever bowls best will win the series IMO.
I think the key is that no-one is banging the doors down demanding to be selected, so naturally supporters look back. I got the feeling when Bell was dropped it wasn’t forever and I still have an inkling he may make the Indian party.
The selections do look confused recently, Compton getting that extra series, Ballance brought back (although he did tour SA) when not really earning it. Bairstow despite being in the form of his life being hidden at 6/7
And now Root being promoted to 3 ( a decision I’m in favour off)
Its gonna be a tricky series, especially if OT and Edgbaston produces the wickets we know they can.
I’ve always been a big Bell advocate but (and I know you won’t like this) it’s time to move on. There needs to be an extended investment in the likes of Vince, and I think Ballance always had a rough gig playing at 3 even though he made a very good go of it initially. I expect the latter to be much better in the middle order.
I also think the Root at three experiment is worth trying. Even at four he has consistently come in early so don’t expect a major difference. Looks like I’m alone in that though!
Not at all convinced about Ballance. He was consistently selected for the ODI team without much success but that didn’t stop him being recalled at the earliest opportunity. The same thing seems to be happening in Tests. When I first saw him bat at Headingley I was surprised at the limited number of strokes he had and he crawled along. True he got runs but he really laboured. You have to admire him for sticking in because he appears to be really struggling. In the end a number 5 is required to move things along. I can’t see him doing that.
Ballance’s stats really are extremely impressive, especially considering where he batted in the team. He may not be pleasing to watch but his England record is quite simply better than Bell’s pound for pound. Bell obviously is pleasing to watch but has never shown the same consistency. And I do say this as a Bell fan.
If Ballance’s form hasn’t been good enough since then I can see an argument against, but personally I think it’s a gamble with more potential upside worth taking. Bell isn’t going to be a long term option, whereas Ballance may be.
Given the dearth of proven batsmen, anyone who has an average of 48 for England really should be looked at again in my view, especially in a lower pressure position in the order.
Hi Jamie. I agree that Ballance is a long term option, and the selectors have to look forward at some point, but it’s not really true to say that Ballance’s England record is better pound for pound than Bell’s. The former has only played in 5 series and 3 of those were against very weak bowling attacks (India, Sri Lanka and the Windies). In the series against better bowlers Ballance averaged 20 against Australia and 9 against New Zealand.
Bell, on the other hand, has had success against everyone (except for NZ oddly enough) and over a long period of time. He also has an impressive average against lesser opponents.
I agree with you thought that Ballance should not be thrown on the trash heap forever, and has shown enough to warrant another chance at some stage. I just don’t feel that now is the right time.
It’s also important to place Ballance’s runs against the West Indies etc in context. Ravi Bopara averages 118 (with 3 tons) against the West Indies and also averages 51 against India. The problems arrived when he faced Australia and South Africa. Much like Ballance he fell on his face when confronted by better bowlers. He averages just 15 in 4 tests against the Aussies.
I think we’ll have to disagree here; I take your point about longevity but for context in the very same run of tests Bell’s record was markedly worse (to the tune of half the runs actually). This is the only like reasonable like for like comparison as it was in the same tests and against the same bowlers, and Bell had the not insignificant advantage of batting lower down the order.
After this point Ballance was dropped and Bell wasn’t; Bell’s performances saw only a marginal improvement after that point. Since the start of 2014 Bell has two centuries in around 35 innings, Ballance has four in about ten less.
Bell has obviously done better at other stages of his career (the away 1-1 draw to SA and the 2013 Ashes leap out as truly exceptional performances) with which I should have probably qualified my original statement, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that his career is in irreversible decline based on the evidence.
Ok I’m with you. Different definitions of pound for pound. I’d argue that comparing Ballance’s purple patch with one of Bell’s troughs is a little unfair on the Warwickshire man but I take your point.
I kind of agree.
I said at the start of the summer, that this is the summer to experiment (that’s why the Compton selection baffled me)
Sri Lanka was really the series to bed new players in with the hope they felt settled against the more talented Pakistan, that opportunity has been taken with Vince (although he’s not convinced yet) but wasted with Compton.
We are now in a slight pickle because of that.
However if the Root experiment doesn’t work (and you’re not alone, I’m fully behind it) and Vince & Ballance don’t cut it, I hope they have no hesitation in going back to Bell.
Three out of the next four series – India, South Africa & Australia.
Here’s another talking point. If Ashley Giles was a selector or England coach do you think Bell would be in the wilderness? I think probably not. Fraser and Newell, on the other hand, have a slight bias (whether conscious or subconscious) towards Notts and Middlesex players – hence the call ups for Ball, Compton and Roland Jones, all of which seemed a little leftfield or fast-tracked above other candidates. The problem, which we’ve talked about many times before, is that choosing selectors who are affiliated to specific counties and spend most of their time there, creates a clear conflict of interest. Even if there’s no subconscious bias at all, even the perception of possible bias complicates things and makes the situation untenable imho.
James,
But that can’t be avoided. Whoever you pick has a history – regardless of whether they’re currently “affiliated” with a county or not. It’s not unique to England either. Victorians have been whingeing about the perceived NSW bias in Australian selection for decades – usually followed by the names Jamie Siddons and Brad Hodge. English cricket has too many daft conspiracy theories floating around without adding another one.
By its’ very definition selecting – and selecting the selectors – is a subjective exercise and open to disagreement. At the end of the day the test is simple – selectors should stand or fall by results. If England are winning games, then they’re getting most selection calls right.
I don’t agree. It’s only very recently that we’ve appointed selectors who still work full time at a county. Simply being affiliated to a county is a different matter. The problem is that Newell / Fraser have close personal relations with many of the players they’re picking from. They see them in practice every day; therefore players from outside those counties are at a disadvantage. The personal relations thing (the emotion of it all) also makes it difficult to be truly objective. Fraser and Newell are more than ‘affiliated’ to their counties – they’re full time employees who run those particular sides.
They’re also not at liberty to watch players from other counties as much due to their commitments with Notts / Middlesex. They do try to get out and about, but their schedules are naturally curtailed.
I think James Morgan has been very brave in raising this topic. It is easy to go with the current flow of directed opinion – directed by the media away from Bell. The question of Bell hasn’t been raised. Which is odd in itself. It’s as though there is a consensus that he doesn’t exist and hasn’t recently played for England. Ignoring a player in such a discussion tells us quite a bit about how spin and manipulation is used at the highest level much as we dislike it. It has infiltrated into the sporting media from other cultures such as the political culture. But we are lucky that there is a growing counter culture on the internet. Here it is possible not to be part of the establishment view whether coming from the Mail, Guardian or Telegraph which are too embedded for my liking.
I think James has an important point about Giles and the other selectors. When Giles was a selector the question about bias was always being raised. But now we have two County coaches as selectors it is never raised which shows a bias in itself. Bell probably feels that he has no “voice” to speak up for him. The media itself has County loyalties. Marks to Somerset. Selvey to Middlesex. Hussain to Essex. Vaughan and Boycott to Yorkshire. Directors of Cricket – Flower to Essex, Strauss to Middlesex. ECB – Colin Graves to Yorkshire. Then of course the old pals act. This is natural but it’s very marked in cricket. You don’t get actors becoming critics in theatrical circles and they rarely become managers. In the Arts admin and practitioners tend to be far apart.
I would say the calling up of Ballance is a sign of arrogance in the system. It hasn’t been justified. It suggests that patronage is stronger than merit. I have no idea of Bell’s view on this but it is hard not to interpret this as a kick in the teeth to his aspirations – that and the total silence emanating from the England camp and media. It was a selection even left field for the media.
Bell will have to show a lot of character to ride this snub. I would expect to see some dip in confidence. Cricketers are very thin skinned when it comes to praise or abuse which is an aspect of being a performer. Confidence plays a key role. A number of cricketers when rejected become depressed or go into decline for a while. Trott is a case in point. Only last year he was considering retirement. Bell has had a rough period since the Pietersen debacle. He has great ability and he’s a survivor. He’s also the only classical batsman we have. He may need to be told he hasn’t been forgotten.
I do appreciate that it’s difficult to find suitable people to be selectors. However, we always managed it in the past. One of the problems is that there’s a convention that former players who work in the media cannot be selectors. This is strange imho. Why is it ok to have selectors who work full time at particular counties but not those who are retired but still watch lots of cricket from the media rooms?
That’s why we have the tremendous James Whittaker. Oh…..
Bell still had one of the best techniques in the system called UK cricket – yards ahead of others.
Just pick the best on form, all the time. That what Lehmann does. All the balcony about looking for the long term is false. It’s ok to give younger players an entry point but not at 3 or 4. Batting new talent at 5 and 6 is better. And this needs to happen around a solid core of experience that can cover for the new talent as it learns and matures. England apart from Root doesn’t have that core. They would have had it with Cook, Pietersen and Bell but that option is gone. Can’t see Rngland coming up with a series win easily this year
Nice article and England need to bring back Ian Bell now.i agree to the author of the article.