Bell - automatic selection?

[Owzat]

I see Bell is in the squad, seems an automatic pick regardless of form. I decided to look at his form, taking it for all Test innings 2012/13

Bell (Tests 2012-2013)

Inns : 30
Runs : 825
Not Outs : 6
HS : 116no vs India
100s : x1
50s : x7
Ave : 34.38

He's averaging 27.5 runs per innings, scored just the one hundred and four of those seven fifties, including two not out, have come against West Indies or New Zealand. Is this good enough for automatic selection or should he not get so many "free rides" against the lesser nations?

He had a purple patch of form averaging over 40 in six consecutive series, although two of those were against Bangladesh against whom I maintain players should be rested on a rotation system anyway. Since then he's averaged under 40 in four of the six series, just over 40 against India thanks to said 116no (28.67 runs scored per innings in the series) and 111 against West Indies thanks to being out only once.

Strauss retiring has freed up one batting slot, as has KP's injury spates, but is this 'selection consistency' all it's cracked up to be when a batsman can average less than 30 runs per innings over 30 innings......?

 

[zeustrojanstark]

Bell is an amazing cricketer espically back in English conditions.I dont see any reason to drop this rock solid guy espically in his own backyard.

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

Surely not in the best of his form!!
But I'd like to mention here what I've noticed in the past. The English selectors tend to drop a guy regards series or two, which in no way helps a cricketer at all. As the stats suggest, not many English cricketers had touch the mark of 100 ODI matches till 2006/7, there were a handful of players. Again and again, bringing in the new players, then dropping them, eventually reverting back to old players.

If I remember correctly, Bell had a purple patch in 2007/08 season , but lost is form, and dropped, only to return back again!! I'd rather like the selectors sticking with the more experienced crop, and Bell should have a couple of more chances I'd say. He hasn't been too bad IMO.

----------

And experimenting with vacant spots will always be more useful, I've seen some fine English batsmen this season who might well leave an impact this season.

 

[used2bcool]

I think Bell is one of those players who tends to just get by when he's off form. When he's on song, it is clear for all to see that he has the requisite class to play at this level - over 86 tests, he averages 46.

Maybe it's not simply current form that goes into picking Bell. It could be a matter of deciding against too many changes - Strauss has retired fairly recently, and Pietersen's been on and off, and dumping Bell would make three changes in a short time to a batting lineup that did not look particularly solid in New Zealand. Maybe the selectors chose to stick with Bell's serious experience and reputation, and I can't really fault them. The English selectors have been lambasted for their knee-jerk reactions to dips in form of players, and it's good to see them get behind a player the way they have with Bell.

In any case, in three games for Warwickshire this season, he does have two fifties, so he's not coming in completely cold.

 

[puddleduck]

I always like the way Owzat manipulates stats to suit whatever point he's trying to make (usually that England should drop Bell ha).

Starting with his stats and then beginning with "He averages 27.5 per innings" is classic.

 

[sifter132]

My perception is that Bell has perhaps slipped under the radar recently - but not egregiously so IMHO. It was only a couple of years ago he was FANTASTIC - probably the best Test batsman in the world in 2011. He seemed to have turned a corner. So I can certainly understand why he'd be given a slightly longer run in the team because of that. And now that he scored a 100 vs India, that run will continue. Sorry if you don't like it Owzat

Strauss' retirement would also be a factor. I'm guessing the selectors didn't want to dump too many young guys into the team at once.

 

[puddleduck]

I like the way that he'll bash him for scoring runs against "lesser opponents" whilst simultaneously using his unbeaten hundred against India as a way to downgrade his average because he didn't have the decency to get out. Fantastic.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I kinda agree with owzat on his conclusion on that one, that 100 at the end masked another pretty bad series, I certainly was not left with the impression that he had batted well in india, and he was terrible in sri lanka and pakistan.

 

[puddleduck]

Not saying there isn't merit to considering Bell's position. His purple patch is actually now quite a while ago, but it's the way even an unbeaten century is used against him. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

 

[sifter132]

OK so after my comment I went and looked up the English batsmen in the last year and a half, and I was surprised by how relatively low ALL their averages are. If you listen to the hype, Cook is meant to be the best opener in the world by a long way, but his average since that 2011 India series is only 46. Trott is at 41, KP 42, Prior 47 (but only 40 per innings ). Suddenly Bell's 34 doesn't look too outrageous. Especially when the new guys haven't been killing it either (Compton 40, Bairstow 26, Root 30, Taylor 16).

Full list here:
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

The other thing to emphasise is that an established player is probably only going to get dropped if he has back-to-back poor series. Bell's only 2 back-to-back poor series in this time period were in early 2012 vs Pak and SL (9 innings for only 134 runs). But given that every Englishman struggled in those 2 series, and he'd just come off 3 brilliant series in a row (10/11 Ashes, big home series' vs SL and India), it would have been a fairly brave selector to drop him. Besides, since those 2 struggling series in early 2012 he's averaging 46 over his last 4 series til now - pretty respectable to me. All depends on how you slice the numbers as to what conclusion you want to draw I'd say.

 

[MUFC1987]

Bell's a flat track bully. He'll score runs when someone else does and when the pitch suits him. I wouldn't back him to consistently score runs when his back is against the wall though.

 

[Owzat]

I always like the way Owzat manipulates stats to suit whatever point he's trying to make (usually that England should drop Bell ha).

I've picked a selection of recent form, not excluded any innings, hardly a crime. But if all you can do is nitpick and try to discredit the stats then knock yourself out I'd tell you what I think of prannies that come out with that sh** you just have, but it would breach forum regulations.

Starting with his stats and then beginning with "He averages 27.5 per innings" is classic.

Funnily enough England don't get more runs for him being not out, regardless what runs he might have made had the innings not closed.

----------

Not saying there isn't merit to considering Bell's position. His purple patch is actually now quite a while ago, but it's the way even an unbeaten century is used against him. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Oh good god, you don't like what the stats say, we get it. His entire series average WAS down to one innings, whether you like it or not. What do you want me to say, he had a fantastic series and has been in great form but for all those blinking nuisance and unlucky poor scores

You just come across as a right plank with your rantings in this thread, I thought several people might have had something to say but you keep on with the "manipulated stats" and "damned for scoring a century against India"

I've presented facts and asked if he shouldn't be picked when he's in form, you've just thrown a hissy fit. You don't even present any evidence of your own, just try to discredit what you don't like. Stand with hand on hip, wave your finger and say "oh no he di'n't.................."


Congrats to all the objective replies. Whether or not he should be dropped to find form is the main debate, not that he should just be discarded completely. He has a pretty healthy career average against India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, but if you just look at that career average and not at form then you end up with the Collingwood and Strauss situations to name two who went through quite lengthy spells of poor form.

Sifter - nice work , but even 41 or 42 is relatively healthy compared to 34. I highlighted the impact of not outs because they can cover up real problems. 55 runs per match compared to nearer 80, allowing for batsmen averaging 40+ also benefitting from not outs, is quite a difference.

Of course one option is to carry Bell until he gets is average boosting innings and not outs, but when you start carrying batsmen then you will affect the dynamic of the team. England could have done with a bit more from him today than a weak waft



This may just serve as the kind of fate tempter criticism of Broad has But I suppose we ought to let hissy fitters have their say too

 

[sifter132]

Yeah the not outs boost him a bit, but I don't think he's too far away from being acceptable. Being moved around the order constantly doesn't help eg. last 2 years he's batted 3,4,5,6 and now 8. Some of that is nightwatchmen pushing him down one spot, but it can't be ideal. The other thing about his not outs is that often he's deserved them of late. His scoring rate has gone down and he's taking up a lot more balls - that's less runs for him, but means he's often in good partnerships. More of a Dravid type role. Whether that's wise on a team that already has Cook and Trott is debatable...This summer will be a good test for Mr Bell and his long term fortunes.