Has the Bell tolled for Ian?

We’ve talked at length about England’s emerging teams over the last few months. Great strides have been made under Trevor Bayliss’ delicate guidance, and several new(ish) faces are gradually starting to build themselves reputations across the world.

The absence of old pros like Stuart Broad and Kevin Pietersen from England’s World T20 squad typifies the mood in some ways. The management gambled big time, and thus far it’s paying off like a successful wager at Virgin Games. This has enabled them to plug a message the PR men love: ‘brave new era’, ‘positive cricket’, ‘emerging young team’ etc. It’s certainly an upbeat message that’s starting to resonate.

But we should we forget about the old guard completely? Personally I think not – particularly if the younger players who have replaced them aren’t noticeably better.

I spent yesterday drudging up some of the old arguments about Kevin Pietersen – an old face that has fallen by the wayside for various reasons. I’d like to continue a similar theme today by looking at Ian Bell’s future. If indeed he has one. Do you think that Bell, who was the last remaining batting stalwart of the fantastic 2010/11 Ashes triumph, has played his last test match?

Normally when senior players the wrong side of 30 are dropped, it’s curtains for their international career. Some energetic fresh-faced tyro usually strolls into the team, scores some runs, and said senior player becomes fossilised in the Cricinfo archives. They might play another two or three years for their county, pick up a benefit year if they’re lucky, and then call it a career. They might even get fast-tracked into the Sky or Test Match Special commentary teams.

Somehow, however, I think Ian Bell will be different. For starters his fitness is still very good and he isn’t exactly a natural with a microphone. He’s been awarded the Warwickshire captaincy for the coming season (he’s also been lined up to captain the MCC against the champions in the Emirates) which suggests he isn’t going to walk into the sunset anytime soon. I get the impression he’s highly motivated, would love to get his England place back, and could have another couple of years of international cricket left in him. The question is, do you think the selectors have moved on?

Personally I hope Bell does make a return – preferably at his favoured position of five. Why? It’s not because I don’t think he deserved to be dropped; it’s because I still believe he’s palpably better than the two players who have replaced him (Nick Compton and James Taylor). What’s more, Compton is only a few months younger than Bell. If the selectors think Compton has an international future, then why not Bell?

It wouldn’t surprise me if Bell has enjoyed his time off – we all know how tedious and exhausting the international treadmill can be – and returns energised and ready to score big runs again. Let’s not forget that he’s been touring with England full time for the best part of a decade now. Maybe the break will do wonders for him?

The other point about Bell is that his career has followed a remarkably similar pattern to Alastair Cook. Bell averages 35 and 41 against Australia and South Africa respectively, while Cook averages 39 and 35 against England’s biggest rivals. Bell averages 58 and 47 against Sri Lanka (England’s next opponents) and the West Indies, while Cook averages 51 and 57 against them. Meanwhile, if you take off Cook’s recent double hundred in the high scoring match in the UAE, they both average just over 40 against Pakistan.

Bell and Cook’s career averages of 43 versus 46 are also quite similar (Cook’s superior performances against India give him the slight edge here). My point is that England could’ve written off Cook after his long period of bad form in 2013/14. Instead they dropped him from the ODI team, he had some rest during the World Cup, and he’s come back very strongly. Perhaps we could expect Bell to do the same after a similar period away from the team?

England have showed remarkable patience with Cook in the past – and it’s a good thing they have too. His runs in the last calendar year have been extremely important. I’d like to think they hold Bell in the same regard and might extend him the same leeway (or perhaps I should say courtesy).

Andrew Strauss himself should appreciate the benefit of a good rest. It wasn’t that long ago when Strauss was left out of an England tour to work on his technique. He made a triumphant return in New Zealand and soon silenced his critics. Lord Brocket, as his teammates used to call him, knows Bell extremely well and surely realises there’s something left in the tank.

Or does he? My fear is that England might get carried away with talk of new eras and begin selecting on image rather than substance. Reverting back to Bell might seem like a retrograde step. In some ways it possibly is. However, if you’re going to write off nearly 8,000 test runs, 22 centuries, 46 fifties and 958 boundaries, you’d better make sure you’re changing things for the better.

Do England’s management really have that much faith in Nick Compton and James Taylor? Personally I doubt it.

Thoughts?

James Morgan

Written in collaboration with BR Agency

25 comments

  • An interesting argument, but what’s notable if the tumbleweed response, in. contrast to the heated Pietersen discussion.
    Having said that, I like Bell, and there’s no reason why he ought not to figure in selection debates next season.

    • I haven’t mailed this article to subscribers yet, but the number of comments on the Pietersen article shows that people are still fired up by the issue. Some might be bored senseless by the whole thing but a lot of people clearly aren’t. I certainly hope people care enough about Bell as a cricketer. Is he really that vanilla?

  • I definitely think that Bell could still be a key player at no.5 rather than in the positions that he largely has failed in over his career further up the order. Would I reckon that he is a better player than the likes of Ballance, Taylor or whoever else might be a candidate for that position? Absolutely and 33 is no age to be writing someone off now, especially as he will be considered for test matches only.

    I’ve been critical of him over the years for having a disappointing century conversion rate and having his stats held up a bit for runs against Bangladesh, heck that’s how I found How Did we lose in Adelaide a few years ago, (!) but he has put in his most consistent performances lower down and I don’t think England can overlook that.

    • I think part of the problem with Bell is that he’s never quite fulfilled his potential; therefore people get frustrated with him. However, he’s still been a very productive player.

      If you compare Bell to say, Paul Collingwood, I’d argue that the latter is a bit of a cult figure and something of a hero to England supporters. It’s because he made the most of his ability. I think people just expected more from Bell because he’s so good to watch and had a much higher ceiling.

      This is a bit unfair in a way. Collingwood averaged 40 for England with 10 tons. Bell averages 43 with 22 tons. Yet it’s Bell who’s considered something of a disappointment.

      • I know what you mean but Bell has played 118 tests. I don’t think 22 tons for this era is that fine a return. He’s a way more gifted player than Cook, but is a fair distance behind him overall in average and overall achievement. Colly played obviously a lot less and was rightly seen as a limited player who made the most of his ability like you say.

        I think there are only two players who’ve got more test caps in Cook and Alec Stewart. Bell with his ability should have been able to nail the no.3 or 4 spot but hasn’t. That alone suggests that there was something missing. Perhaps his defensive technique was picked apart a bit more up the order, because his ranges of drives and late cuts suggested a player with far greater depth to his game than the Cook or Collingwood.

  • James, apologies for going off-message (no lack of regard for Bell here – but I feel I said all I had to say about him when the tour party was announced), but have you seen –

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3442996/England-cricket-lose-sponsor-Waitrose-supermarket-chain-checks-ECB-deal.html

    Those letters had some effect! Nothing to do with the 100% price increase the ECB were asking, nor what sound like some stunningly-bad personal skills from the ECB! Hands up if you’re surprised at either of those….

    Also, I saw your Tweet about SA in the U19 WC. SA, I think, are going to finish below Zimbabwe and Namibia in the tournament and yet they will qualify automatically for the next one, unlike those two, and their cricketers still stand some chance of carving out a decent career in the game, unlike those two. No wonder full-members oppose any system of regional qualification. The U19 competition is showing up the ridiculousness of how the game is structured even more than the senior game.

    One could also point out that at least SA won it in 2014 whereas England haven’t won it since 1998 which remains England’s only win in the tournament (Australia, India and Pakistan have all won it three times).

  • Why not??????!!!!! Let Compton and Taylor do the hard yards in SA that would have totally finished Bell off, then bring ECB pet Bell back in for easy runs(!?) this summer.

    Rather childish, unfair on Compton or Taylor or Balance. And what if Belly doesn’t score any runs back at international level?

    No. Nice chap he may be, and not horrid like the awful KP(!) but the crucifix should remain just as firmly in Bell’s chest too.

  • You say Ian Bell is “the last remaining batting stalwart of the fantastic 2010/11 Ashes triumph”. Sure I remember a chap called Cook scoring runs? Whatever happened to him? Back on subject, I’m afraid I don’t think Ian Bell will or should return. Too many of his runs (I except the 2013 Ashes) were scored when the going was good. Batting is partly about style, but it’s mainly about substance (it’s not how, it’s how many). For me, Bell too often failed when the pressure was on, often being subject to soft dismissals at bad moments.

    • Agreed and horribly exposed to the new ball when he was bumped up to 3, Strauss, Cook and Trott did him (and KP) a lot of favours when he was down the order.

    • “Bell too often failed when the pressure was on”.

      The pressure on here:

      http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/387572.html

      That innings was every bit as good as Collingwood’s in Cardiff (Bell didn’t survive quite as long but it was away from home and against a better attack) and yet Bell gets virtually no credit for it. He also played a crucial innings to save the match in NZ where Prior made a century.

  • Bell is a much more gifted and classy batsman than Compton, Balance or Taylor. The central problem remains who to pick at 2 and 3 if you have Bell at 5?
    The trouble is most of the best English batsmen currently are more suited to the middle and lower order. As the most experienced player I think you have to have Bell at three, probably Taylor at 5 and give Compton another go at 2.

  • Agree re: Compton, but Taylor is still emerging, I wouldn’t write him off yet, nor Ballance for that matter.

    One thing I’ll always admire about bell is his dignity, he’s a class act, he’d never take to social media to air his grievances for example and to this end he’ll always be held in high regard by management and fans alike.

  • KP is box office , has a well oiled PR machine with lots of media champions , which is not the same for Bell.

    With white ball cricket there is a clear plan for playing fearless batters in the KP mould,but they aren’t going to pick the original! So we have to move on…..

    With Bell there is a way back in Tests as we haven’t got a successful opener to partner Cook , so an option might be Compton to open and Bell at 3 in my opinion a better option than going with Ballance.

  • Bell is not the wrong side of 30 – that comes past 35. Quite a few players have ended their careers well including those batting until 40. His fitness is not in doubt. Nor his hunger. His form is another matter. Of course he is still in the frame. But he has to perform.
    In any Bell discussion fans appear who are more keen to rubbish his past than discuss his future. We cannot apparently take for granted his great career up to now? For a player who hasn’t fulfilled his promise the bar is set very high because he is England’s leading run scorer (still) in all formats apart from KP who heads the list. Longevity isn’t a question of amassing runs it’s the strength to stay the course and amass those runs. Trott didn’t make it. Colly wasn’t good enough early enough. KP fell out with coach and captain and was undeservedly sacked but his ego contributed to his downfall. Anyone defending that decision though has no moral compass.
    Cook had a nightmare run of two years without a century and was an appalling captain to boot. But England stuck by him with almost religious fervour. That helps a player survive a rough patch! By contrast Bell was put on his mettle as soon as he began his run of low scores. Cook likes to pose as a hard guy and his threats and talk of cut throat competition remind us of his mentor Flower. Strauss holds grudges and seems prepared to act on them. So no support for Bell who had the balls to suggest that KP had good reason to feel aggrieved after the encouragement by Graves. Bell has always refused to toe the party line on KP. Strauss stripped him of the Vice-Captaincy and he was dropped from the ODI side despite having a good record opening since 2012. Yes New England and all that. But Bell was being targeted without a thank you.
    I may be wrong but I think his desperation showed in the Emirates where he put up a good fight and got runs despite his lack of form. Bell was knifed by the media for not looking fluent. They used to criticise him for his lack of ugly runs! Pakistan have bossed their backyard since moving to the UAE and Bell was the next best batsman after Root and Cook but he was dropped. Why wasn’t the management looking after Bell? Why wasn’t he rested? Does anyone seriously think Compton is a better batsman – who is more or less the same age? Flower now in charge of the Lions is keen on pushing his proteges – so it isn’t only Bell who will suffer but anyone who is out of favour with Flower. Bell has never been anyone’s pet. Fans don’t think he is brutal enough, artistry is not welcome in cricket any more. All the sneers about his so-called “cowardice”. And this of a man who fielded at short leg for most of his career. Bell has the same kind of enemies as Clarke in Australia. He’s too decent for the bullish fans. He’s a class act and they have no time for anything but cavalier batting. He’s too English for them because he doesn’t impose himself. But he can thread a cover drive through the eye of a needle.
    The discussion has been the usual one of equivocation but it’s up to Bell. If he regains his form then he will be awesome because that is how he bats. If not then he may have run his course despite his hunger. But he won’t go without a fight. And England have lacked that when the going gets tough. Bell didn’t only bat well in 2010-11 (and 2013), he batted well in SA last time round in 2009 and against much better bowling than currently on offer and took bowlers apart for years until dented by Akmal.
    More importantly he has played crucial Series and match winning knocks. Does anyone really doubt that he turned the Ashes tide at Edgbaston on a seaming paradise? If Bell had been dropped for Compton at 3 does anyone seriously think Compton could have slayed the Australian dragon? Bell dug that out of his poorest run of form like a man possessed.
    Let’s see how new England goes in the t20 WC without Pietersen. Now Graham Ford is coach of Sri Lanka they may not be a pushover either. Let’s see how Compton and Hales respond in the county season. If they want to be Test players then start digging.

    • An excellent summation, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
      I don’t think England were at all wrong to drop him, but I do think they would be wrong to exclude him from further consideration.

  • We’re always very keen to write experienced players off too soon in this country. Bell’s record is good, the frustration is that everyone feels it should be even better. But whether he plays again is probably a pretty straightforward, performance-based decision – if he scores runs for Warks and England have underperformers in their middle order, then he’ll get another chance. If not, he won’t.

      • Interesting numbers. I think the view in Aus is now that if you are in Good enough form mid thirties is not too late to pick someone particularly if there is no younger player banging down the door.

        Both Voges and Rogers have been very successful moves. Voges now averaging 97 after 19 innings.

        So as to Bell if he’s keen, scoring and no obvious young candidate why wouldn’t you pick him.

  • Definetly, showed faith in cook rightly and so they should with bell. Taylor and Compton are still way off test standard for differing reasons. Bell at 5 would be perfect, perhaps 4 with ballance at 5. Ballance has also been treated poorly, his record is fantastic in an unfamiliar and unsuited position. I hope the selectors take the chance to move root to 3 so he can dominate. Bell is motivated talented and experienced. Bell is a player who is most effective when he has a point to prove!

  • As with Gower, I always loved watching Bell bat. Except for in the 2005 Ashes. For whatever reason, I felt that he never got over the trauma of those Ashes tests, in particular the 5th at the Oval (just read the cricinfo commentary around his 2 dismissals, both for 0 IIRC). I think he (or Collingwood) should have been replaced by Thorpe. But he has been a great, faithful and quiet servant to England over the years, quite frequently showing us all his undoubted class. I’ll really miss him when he finally calls it a day (and yes, I think he’s been targeted a bit by Strauss and others due to his support for KP, which is unforgivable if true – but then quite a lot of what ‘Strauss and others’ have done is unforgivable IMHO).

    • Just a couple of things. Agree re Strauss and KP. Using your position as Director of Cricket to settle scores is unforgivable.

      Bell’s next Series post Ashes 2005 was Pakistan Tour 2005. He top scored and got a century. Good comeback.

      Thorpe had already announced his forthcoming retirement pre-Ashes and had a job lined up in Australia for Sept 2005. So wasn’t available for re-selection.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting