Rachael with respect - you have been cherry picking again. Anyone can produce individual performances to prove a point.

I will do the same - What did Bell do in Multan in 2005 in Englands second innings when England were under pressure?.

That was the question mikey was asking.
PS: Bell has done nothing against the Aussie's - the stats back that up.

-

__________________
Ern

Cherry picking?

That was an entire series against the world's no 1 rated Test side... and whilst Bell's record in four of the five Tests was impressive (322 runs at 40.25, including scores of 50, 60, 87 and 71 - consistent heavy scoring under pressure), that remains one of his weaker series.

Had I wanted to cherry pick I'd have gone for the Pakistan in England Test Series, 2006: 375 runs at 93.75 with 3 centuries. I'd add the England in Pakistan Test Series, 2005/06 where he racked up a century and two fifties in six innings, emerging with 313 runs at 52.16.

In fact, I could pick any series he's played against the WI, NZ, SL, Pak or Ban: he's averaged at least 40 in every series against these opponents, as he did throughout 4 of 5 Tests in Australia - and all this from a kid who's still got his best 10-12 years to come!

Trescothick

Cmon Rach, surely heavy scoring has to be defined by 100s and big ones at that not 50s?

Alternatively give me a list of Enland cricketers who have received an MBE for so little.

Seriously this guy dissappoints for a past time. To repeat I sincerely hope he gets 1000 runs next time against oz but the fact is against the best opposition he fails and under pressure he fails yet more. Its a big 18 months for him with SA and oz coming up. Lets hope he justifies your faith and no one would be happier than me if he does but I wouldn't put your house on it.

Tresco gained a reputation for consistent heavy scoring despite rarely converting 50s to 100s: critics grimaced at his lack of footwork and limitations as a player... but respected the fact that consistently scoring 50+ scores is far, far more valuable to a side than racaking up 200 in one innings and then doing diddly-squat elsewhere.

I'd love to see Bell average 40-50 against all opposition for a period of 12 years without hitting any more centuries EVER: that would mean he's reliable... and that's something ANY side needs.

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.

Basically Scott thats all I was trying to say but obviously I didn't explain myself very well.

I'll look forward to seeing that.

You nailed it Rachael

At the start of the series when the heat and pressure was on and both sides were equal (0-0)

Bell performed

Not many others did but Bell did.

It's a lot easier to be brave after you have written off all hope of winning the series and the other sides pressure has dropped off.

LETS hope he is handled right and keeps his head up. If He is he will average 45+ by the end of his career