Ian Bell

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Bit of an arrogant reply that. It is true though for years he didn't make tough runs for England. Made his debut in 2004 and didn't make a century (where he was the only player in the innings to score a century/ therefore in tough conditions) until Durban 5 and a half years and 51 tests later. It is believed he would have been dropped after that test. He did have a great 2013 Ashes series as you point out and became a reliable performer.

It was more arrogant than I would usually go for - but tbf, the point had already been made about three times on the thread.

The contention was that he never stepped up in big games - well, he was immense in 2013.

 

[The Rat]

Bags of talent but never really stepped up and dominated when England needed him to. Wasn't there some stat that the majority of his hundreds were scored when someone else in the team had already scored a hundred (and therefore innings was in a comfortable position with no pressure on him when he came the crease - at least I think that was the inference)

Is this a f***ing wind up?

Can’t surely be serious

Bit of an arrogant reply that. It is true though for years he didn't make tough runs for England. Made his debut in 2004 and didn't make a century (where he was the only player in the innings to score a century/ therefore in tough conditions) until Durban 5 and a half years and 51 tests later. It is believed he would have been dropped after that test. He did have a great 2013 Ashes series as you point out and became a reliable performer.

Absolutely fAntastic player for England and his record shows that

I honesty can’t believe what I read on here sometimes

 

[TopCat]

You said he never really stepped up or dominated when England needed him too... Despite the fact he was utterly dominant in a closely fought home Ashes series, swinging at least two matches decisively.

Closely fought? Probably the worst Australian team in a couple of generations. They didn't come close that winning a test other than the first one and that was down the Englands bowling..


Whilst I don't deny he has had some good series, the general feeling is that he didn't make the best of his abilities. Was dropped too many times for a lad with so much ability

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Closely fought? Probably the worst Australian team in a couple of generations. They didn't come close that winning a test other than the first one and that was down the Englands bowling..


Whilst I don't deny he has had some good series, the general feeling is that he didn't make the best of his abilities. Was dropped too many times for a lad with so much ability

The reason the others tests weren't close were almost entirely down to Bell, who was pretty much the only competent batter for the whole series. Well, KP and Root had a dash too irrc, but his runs were decisive and the top order failed more often than not...

 

[TopCat]

The reason the others tests weren't close were almost entirely down to Bell, who was pretty much the only competent batter for the whole series. Well, KP and Root had a dash too irrc, but his runs were decisive and the top order failed more often than not...

So, half a series in a career of 12 years more or less? So my opinion that he never really stepped up is probably accurate. Or maybe i should reword to he "hardly ever stepped up and dominated like his talent should have allowed him to do"

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

So, half a series in a career of 12 years more or less? So my opinion that he never really stepped up is probably accurate. Or maybe i should reword to he "hardly ever stepped up and dominated like his talent should have allowed him to do"

If you say so mate.

I just think 7000 runs at 42, an Ashes man of the series, and an integral part of a very good England team deserves a bit more respect, clearly.

His average is better than Cook - and a fair few other more lauded players.

And he's been involved in more Ashes series victories than any other Englishman, level with Botham.

 

[rentaghost]

If you say so mate.

I just think 7000 runs at 42, an Ashes man of the series, and an integral part of a very good England team deserves a bit more respect, clearly.

His average is better than Cook - and a fair few other more lauded players.

And he's been involved in more Ashes series victories than any other Englishman, level with Botham.

Bell's overall record is very good and deserves to be remembered as a good England player which he was. However I think when you look back at players averages they don't tell the full story. Michael Atherton had an average of 37 but I think he has a very good gutsy opener who played some fantastic back tio the wall innings. I think his contribution to England as a player was better than his average suggests. Bell averaged 42 but he wasn't, in my opinion, a better batsman for England than Atherton. The reason his place was under threat so often was for a long time he failed to produce hard runs, in fact over 50 tests before getting the solitary to in an England innings. That 2013 series was fantastic by him though on difficult pitches. His finest moment.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Bell's overall record is very good and deserves to be remembered as a good England player which he was. However I think when you look back at players averages they don't tell the full story. Michael Atherton had an average of 37 but I think he has a very good gutsy opener who played some fantastic back tio the wall innings. I think his contribution to England as a player was better than his average suggests. Bell averaged 42 but he wasn't, in my opinion, a better batsman for England than Atherton. The reason his place was under threat so often was for a long time he failed to produce hard runs, in fact over 50 tests before getting the solitary to in an England innings. That 2013 series was fantastic by him though on difficult pitches. His finest moment.

He played 118 tests - his place can't have been that under threat.

And sorry, he was a better batsman than Atherton as the statistics point out. Atherton stands out more because England were utter dogshit during that period, whereas they were very handy during most of Bell's.

 

[rentaghost]

He played 118 tests - his place can't have been that under threat.

And sorry, he was a better batsman than Atherton as the statistics point out. Atherton stands out more because England were utter dogshit during that period, whereas they were very handy during most of Bell's.

That’s a bit of an autistic way of looking at things. Athertons average plummeted in the last two years due to a chronic back injury and huge political pressures. He captained England more than any player in history having to focus on his batting alongside captaining a dog shit side and dealing with political issues that modern day players/ captains don’t have to. Modern day players including Bell don’t have any of that. Atherton didn’t have the Bangladeshes, Zims or a very weak WI side to score big against. It’s not as simple as comparing two sets of averages.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

That’s a bit of an autistic way of looking at things. Athertons average plummeted in the last two years due to a chronic back injury and huge political pressures. He captained England more than any player in history having to focus on his batting alongside captaining a dog shit side and dealing with political issues that modern day players/ captains don’t have to. Modern day players including Bell don’t have any of that. Atherton didn’t have the Bangladeshes, Zims or a very weak WI side to score big against. It’s not as simple as comparing two sets of averages.

I think its a bit rich, if not outright perpetuating negative othering of disabled people, to call a differing opinion "autistic".

Therefore, I'm not going to push this further.

Will pick you up on one thing though. Bell never played a test against Zimbabwe. Atherton played four.

 

[rentaghost]

I think its a bit rich, if not outright perpetuating negative othering of disabled people, to call a differing opinion "autistic".

Therefore, I'm not going to push this further.

Will pick you up on one thing though. Bell never played a test against Zimbabwe. Atherton played four.

I don’t blame you for picking up on that one point as the rest was a bit too tricky for you tbf

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I don’t blame you for picking up on that one point as the rest was a bit too tricky for you tbf

I'm leaving it not because I am incapable of debate.

I'm leaving it for two reasons.

One, there doesn't appear much else to say - I think Bell was a better batsman for England, you disagree and think Atherton was. Fine - the world is made of different opinions.

Two, you seem incapable of continuing this in a way which doesn't perpetuate discriminatory language. There will absolutely be parents with autistic kids on this message board. What do you think they feel when people like you use it as a pejorative slur?

No more.

 

[Deleted member 35923]

He played 118 tests - his place can't have been that under threat.

And sorry, he was a better batsman than Atherton as the statistics point out. Atherton stands out more because England were utter dogshit during that period, whereas they were very handy during most of Bell's.

I couldn’t disagree more. Atherton faced up against the new ball in an era with some of the finest fast bowling opening duos of all time, and whilst they were in their pomp. Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie and then Brett Lee, Wasim and Waqar. If he survived those he had Murali, Warne, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq to contend with. Even the poorer pace attacks had good seamers (Chaminda Vaas and Heath Streak for example). You can also chuck into the mix that pitches have improved considerably since he retire and that English pitches are more batting friendly.

As someone else pointed out, he did all that and succeeded in a desperate era of English cricket. He is one of our all time greats IMO

 

[Ageing trundler]

I'm leaving it not because I am incapable of debate.

I'm leaving it for two reasons.

One, there doesn't appear much else to say - I think Bell was a better batsman for England, you disagree and think Atherton was. Fine - the world is made of different opinions.

Two, you seem incapable of continuing this in a way which doesn't perpetuate discriminatory language. There will absolutely be parents with autistic kids on this message board. What do you think they feel when people like you use it as a pejorative slur?

No more.

There are.

 

[rentaghost]

I'm leaving it not because I am incapable of debate.

I'm leaving it for two reasons.

One, there doesn't appear much else to say - I think Bell was a better batsman for England, you disagree and think Atherton was. Fine - the world is made of different opinions.

Two, you seem incapable of continuing this in a way which doesn't perpetuate discriminatory language. There will absolutely be parents with autistic kids on this message board. What do you think they feel when people like you use it as a pejorative slur?

No more.

Well that moral stance of yours lasted a long time Pathetic overreaction also and one where parents of autism sufferers wouldn't appreciate someone trying to score cheap message board points . If there is one thing I do know a great deal about in life is autism and how it affects people. I simply compared your inability to understand wider wider context with autism where sufferers encounter similar problems. No slur remotely given

No more.

I couldn’t disagree more. Atherton faced up against the new ball in an era with some of the finest fast bowling opening duos of all time, and whilst they were in their pomp. Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie and then Brett Lee, Wasim and Waqar. If he survived those he had Murali, Warne, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq to contend with. Even the poorer pace attacks had good seamers (Chaminda Vaas and Heath Streak for example). You can also chuck into the mix that pitches have improved considerably since he retire and that English pitches are more batting friendly.

As someone else pointed out, he did all that and succeeded in a desperate era of English cricket. He is one of our all time greats IMO

Yes but he only had an average of 37 against bell's 42

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Well that moral stance of yours lasted a long time Pathetic overreaction also and one where parents of autism sufferers wouldn't appreciate someone trying to score cheap message board points . If there is one thing I do know a great deal about in life is autism and how it affects people. I simply compared your inability to understand wider wider context with autism where sufferers encounter similar problems. No slur remotely given

No more.



Yes but he only had an average of 37 against bell's 42

Fine. But I also think it's important to make clear that just as "gay" is no longer acceptable as a pejorative, neither is "autistic" really acceptable to express what you were accusing me of - being pedantic, or annually rententive, whatever. It contributes to a social stigma.

I couldn’t disagree more. Atherton faced up against the new ball in an era with some of the finest fast bowling opening duos of all time, and whilst they were in their pomp. Ambrose and Walsh, Donald and Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie and then Brett Lee, Wasim and Waqar. If he survived those he had Murali, Warne, Kumble, Saqlain and Mushtaq to contend with. Even the poorer pace attacks had good seamers (Chaminda Vaas and Heath Streak for example). You can also chuck into the mix that pitches have improved considerably since he retire and that English pitches are more batting friendly.

As someone else pointed out, he did all that and succeeded in a desperate era of English cricket. He is one of our all time greats IMO

Funnily enough Atherton is in the times today literally penning a column that says how batting has got more difficult in England than in his day.

His argument is that the drainage has got so good at leading pitches, that you are now out in tougher, more swing-friendly conditions than he ever faced - they'd be back in the dressing room then. He's doing it to defend the Indian batting and I'm not sure it's relevant to the Bell debate. But I do think it's important because it punctures the idea that every modern development has favoured the bat.

 

[Deleted member 35923]

Fine. But I also think it's important to make clear that just as "gay" is no longer acceptable as a pejorative, neither is "autistic" really acceptable to express what you were accusing me of - being pedantic, or annually rententive, whatever. It contributes to a social stigma.



Funnily enough Atherton is in the times today literally penning a column that says how batting has got more difficult in England than in his day.

His argument is that the drainage has got so good at leading pitches, that you are now out in tougher, more swing-friendly conditions than he ever faced - they'd be back in the dressing room then. He's doing it to defend the Indian batting and I'm not sure it's relevant to the Bell debate. But I do think it's important because it punctures the idea that every modern development has favoured the bat.

Maybe not every development but certainly most.

 

[rentaghost]

Fine. But I also think it's important to make clear that just as "gay" is no longer acceptable as a pejorative, neither is "autistic" really acceptable to express what you were accusing me of - being pedantic, or annually rententive, whatever. It contributes to a social stigma.



Funnily enough Atherton is in the times today literally penning a column that says how batting has got more difficult in England than in his day.

His argument is that the drainage has got so good at leading pitches, that you are now out in tougher, more swing-friendly conditions than he ever faced - they'd be back in the dressing room then. He's doing it to defend the Indian batting and I'm not sure it's relevant to the Bell debate. But I do think it's important because it punctures the idea that every modern development has favoured the bat.

OK i'll accept your point and move on.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Maybe not every development but certainly most.

Yes, I agree. Around the world certainly. But the stats would show that scores are getting harder to come by in England - in very recent years. Atherton's argument first I've heard that plausibly explains why.

 

[TopCat]

If you say so mate.

I just think 7000 runs at 42, an Ashes man of the series, and an integral part of a very good England team deserves a bit more respect, clearly.

His average is better than Cook - and a fair few other more lauded players.

And he's been involved in more Ashes series victories than any other Englishman, level with Botham.

You're completely missing the point.