The reason he disappoints both you and Ern, is because your expectations for him are too high. He's still only 26 and as Rachael rightly points out he still has another 10 years to go!

You appear to only want 'finished articles' in your side, Bell is work in progress and building on that work for the future - this is how teams are built - on solid foundations.

You hold up Vaughan as an example, based on what he did 5 years ago, what's he done recently? I can tell you that in the last Ashes series each of them played in, Bell averages more than Vaughan. Bell also averages more in his last 10 and 20 games than Vaughan, yet it seems you'd prefer to have Vaughan there rather than Bell! Explain that!

If Vaughan were in that side as a batsman only he'd have gone a long time ago, he's only still there because of his captaincy and how much longer that will carry on is anyones guess, but unless he starts producing some runs, not for much longer I'd guess.

Bell had a poor time against the Aussies the first time he played against them, when England won the series, so to suggest he only performs in losing causes is wrong straight away. He did better the second time, but only really 'average', but what's important to note is that he's improving - he's learning what he needs to do to be successful against the best side in the world.

I confess my patience is wearing thin with this discussion mainly because sometimes people fail to see the 'larger picture'. Players need to be 'invested in' to produce quality playing performances in the future, you can only do that if you give them the experience to learn from. Bell is learning and improving from his experience in International Cricket and by the time he hits about 30, we should have one the best batsmen in the world playing for us and have a playing window of about 5 years or so to produce his best.

The series that marks him out in my mind is ironically the Bangladesh series, which many of his opponents simply wave aside as an irrelevance. Certainly Bangladesh are no better than a top English county side in my opinion, but the point people miss is the way Bell destroyed them. No other batsman in the English side compared, does that mean none of them can prosper against weak opposition? if not, why not? It wasn't that Bangldesh were weak, which they are, but the way Bell took them to pieces, that showed his mental ability and technique at its best, and I don't think he was dimissed in any of his innings. That's impressive even against a weak side like Bangladesh.

He's shown what he can do when he's relaxed and 'in the zone'. What he needs to do now is replicate that against the best opposition, because it's not a technique problem - it's a mental one. When he does, hopefully he'll show why he's had so much invested in him and will silence his critics.

We all know Bell needs to convert more of those starts and 50's into 100's and double hundreds, we know he can do it because we've seen him do it. When he's worked out for himself how to do it, which he will, we'll see him fulfill his potential.