If the so called better batsmen had done their job 1st innings then players wouldn't need to be saving a match 2nd innings.
England averages by innings number
THREE
45.89 Pietersen
44.04 Cook
43.06 Strauss
39.50 Collingwood
24.46 Bell
FOUR
46.77 Pietersen
37.50 Bell
36.00 Cook
32.80 Strauss
31.40 Collingwood
Betcha didn't think Bell would be right up there batting in the last innings. With a batting average of virtually 50, Pietersen was bound to be top or thereabouts. I stand by my assertion that I'd rather have runs in the 1st innings than 2nd.
And batting six is a pressure situation because your situation is determined by the batsmen before you. Why should Bell come in at six and be decreed a failure if he doesn't bail England out from say 40/4 that his team-mates left him in?!?!? Bell is England's Lucas/Kuyt, an easy target for constant scapegoating even though there are 9-10 others in the side who do little to escape criticism. Bell scores a 100, helps build pressure that wins the match, and some bright spark calls it "icing on the cake". Maybe England would have got a lead regardless at Durban, but he made sure the saffers were so far behind THEY made mistakes. I bet people on here aren't going to criticise their stars for crumbling under pressure like they would Bell in the same situation. Should the saffers drop Kallis, Smith, Amla and De Villiers?!? Trott only made 18, perhaps he should be dropped, or KP for 31?
Despite much criticism, Bell has maintained a Test average of 40, scored a hundred every 10 innings and taken 47 catches, including the key brilliant catch that set England on their way to victory in Durban. I bet players like Bopara, Shah and Key wish they had an average of 40 and people shouting for them to be dropped for only putting "icing on cake". Maybe Collingwood, Strauss and Cook do average more, but only by 3-4 runs and the number six batting position is very important in the side as the batsman comes in at four wickets down which is a decisive point in the innings. Five down quickly and the opposition will have an end open, also the thing a lot of numpties don't factor in is who the number six has to bat with. Sure he may join a batsman, but after that he is batting with 7-11 and that in itself is a skill many batsmen wouldn't want to practise. It may buy you a few not outs, but it can also cut your innings short when you're in form.
And Bell has had to bat seven FOUR times, I don't doubt because of England's obsession with nightwatchmen. Well maybe they'd reconsider this tactic when they see Bell averages just 24 batting seven, 2/3 of the runs coming in the one innings of 63. Hick too got shafted by silly England policies and tactics, averaging 16.58 at seven from 12 innings with two fifties, and 29.50 at EIGHT from two innings. While England may currently have a long-ish tail, the nightwatchman pushes Swann down the order, and while he may average 36 from four innings at 10, that is 72 runs with a HS of 47no (left stranded) and one other not out. Anderson may score a few runs as nightwatchman, averaging 24 at four, but his averages at 10 and 11 of 11.38 and 14.14 help support a better batsman (or an 11) in adding valuable runs at the death while not pushing someone down the order. Normally all the nightwatchman does is survive the night like the man he "protects" would have, and then gives the opposition an early breakthrough in the morning - possibly two if the other batsman gets out.
Owzat added 6 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...
Could be key, even Giles in 04/05 played his part. The key for England then was Flintoff and Hoggard taking 20+ wkts each, support from Jones (15) and Giles (11), with Strauss scoring 656 runs @ 72.89 and Trescothick averaging 44.80. Flintoff had two good series in a row with ball, not so good with the bat in South Africa but 402 runs in the subsequent Ashes. While England constantly seek to play five bowlers, I think the key is having an all-rounder who really can bat and bowl and not just someone who bats a bit and bowls a bit (Luke Wright) We start relying on bits n pieces cricketers in the Test side and we'll be effectively a bowler light and struggle for runs. We just won a Test with four bowlers, England selectors need to take note. If you don't score enough runs it doesn't matter how many bowlers you throw at it, and often five bowlers will be no more effective than four bowlers and just means you are chasing 500 or 600 with only five recognised batsmen.
. On the topic of the next test, I really wouldn't mind Carberry making his debut, he is a very good player, and if he doesn't get a go here, I wouldn't mind seeing him get a go against Bangladesh.
