In August of 2003, Marcus Trescothick played his 36th Test match. By the end of it he'd racked up 2451 career runs at 39.53 with 3 centuries and 17 fifties. His career strike rate was 51.16. He was well and truly established in the England side and had established a platform from which he was to go on to serve his side even better. Oh, and by that time he'd played 10 innings against Australia, returning 582 runs at 29.10 with 4 fifties.

Ian Bell has now played his 36th Test match. He's got 2546 career runs (5 fewer) at 43.15 (4 more) with 7 centuries (4 more) and 18 fifties (1 more). His career strike rate is 50.33. He is well established in the England side and has been described recently in the Wisden magazine as being "on the cusp of greatness". Oh, and he has played 10 innings against Australia, returning 502 runs (80 fewer) at 25.1 (4 fewer) with 6 fifties (2 more).

The stats are scarily similar at this stage in their careers... though it has to be said that Bell, with his far more complete game, seems destined to leave Tresco rather trailing in his wake over the coming years.

Yes the stat's are right - Bell is short of 100's.
Not againt the best side he hasn't.
No he is not, his place has been under threat to often to say that, from as far back as Pakistan in 2005, until not long before the New Zealan series - he is lucky to still be an England player.
Right - so you write for Wisden Rachael.
Bell a great.
Yes the stat's are right - pretty poor.(and Trescothick played against STRONGER Aussie attacks than Bell).

Really, he won't be playing that much longer for England, after he fails again in 2009, he will be history along with Moores.

__________________
Ern

Keep banging that lone drum, Ern. Bell is there for the long run. Bell will play 100 Tests for England whether you like it or not.

Too right... Ern is on a one man mission to nothing!!

His arguments are lame at best, nobody else who has seen to guy play holds the same opinion. If you really wants England to do well, then the case for Bell is obvious to only the blind.

If you look at the comparison - Trescothick has three hundreds and was criticized for failing to convert at this stage. Bell is getting the same comments, but he has 7!! Can you imagine what he will be like if he realises the obvious talent.

Well its a 2 man mission now

Bell has to deliver with the pressure on; perhaps the stats boys can show me his average when he bats with the team in trouble. Nothing would please me more than to see him turn it on but under the pump his failures are legion (Oval 2005 the best case in point)

He is still a young man so time to improve and I sincerely hope he does and I cannot recall a batsman who has had so much time invested in him but as a wise man once said "lies, damn lies and statistics"

Erns blinkered hatred of Bell is as constant as Rachaels love of Ramps and both are totally wrong.

Bell will probably play 100 times + for England and he along with Cook and KP will be what our batting lineup will be built around for many years to come.I think Ern better accept this or he is going to be miserable for most of the next 10 years.

Well maybe not greg.

England v Australia - 2005.

Lords: Bell 1st Innings 6 --- 2nd innings 8
Edgbaston: Bell 1st Innings 6 --- 2nd innings 21
Old Trafford: Bell 1st innings 59 --- 2nd innings 65
Trent Bridge: Bell 1st innings 3 --- 2nd innings 3
Oval: Bell 1st innings 0 --- 2nd innings 0

Australia v England - 2006.

Brisbane: Bell 1st innings 50 --- 2nd innings 0
Adelaide: Bell 1st innings 60 --- 2nd innings 26
Perth: Bell 1st innings 0 --- 2nd innings 87
Melbourne: Bell 1st innings 7 --- 2nd innings 2
Sydney: Bell 1st innings 71 --- 2nd innings 28

This shows the real Bell against top sides, he is inconsistent and his average is boosted by a few decent scores.
This is not just against Australia - he collapsed with the rest in Multan 2005 to let Pakistan take a victory from defeat.

Also his average must be inflated by the huge average he accumalated against Bangladesh.
Bell is OK - but no better than that, and certainly not a great.
He has been on the verge of losing his England place at least twice.
He by the way is not the only inconsistent England player.
Yep this is bourne out by the poor show he made under pressure (like) in Multan 2005 - when it mattered, and against the good bowling of the Aussie's.

__________________
Ern

For once I'm in total agreement with Rachael, I knew it had to happen sooner or later.

Not that I was ever a great fan of Trescothick, his lack of foot movement in my mind would always be his limitation and Bell does not suffer from that problem.

Neither do I understand Ern's dislike of Bell, as far as I can see he's probably the most complete and technically correct batsmen of this current England side.

When we think of how youg Bell still is and how much experience he has and how much better he'll get, how can anyone claim he does not deserve his place?

I'd rather have Bell in there than Vaughan at the moment and its interesting to see him (Vaughan) talking about dropping down to No3, as I suggested he should on these boards very recently, to allow Strauss to move back to opening. Personally I'd rather see Bell opening with Cook, as I beleive that's where Bell will play best. He is a natural opening batsman and has the defensive technique to deal with the new ball.

Bell has a bright future with England and as Rachael rightly points out, he will go on to play a lot of games whether people on here like it or not.

Agreed.

ps. Tresco's first 10 games against Australia produced the following: 0, 76, 15, 3, 69, 32, 37, 10, 55, 24, 72, 1, 35, 0, 34, 4, 37, 37, 19, 22 - note just 4 scores of over 50.... where Bell has produced 6!

pps. Ramps averaged 42.40 against Australia - which is better than he did against anyone else!

It's not that I dislike Bell Scott - I wish him well against sides like Australia and South Africa, but if I am being honest I will have my doubts until he plays a major role in an Ashes series.
He thus far has played 20 innings against the Aussie's, without making a single 100.

I think it unfair when Rachael posts a thread comparing him with Trescothick, and making out that Bell was the much better player.

Trescothick I agree was not as technically correct as Bell, but then again Tresco was not as technically correct as Ramrakash, but no one can deny except maybe Rachael that Trescothick was probably the most effective of that trio.
Scott - With respect to Rachael - this is plain silly.
I agree: I would rather have Bell in the side at the moment than Vaughan, but IMO Vaughan dropping down to three will not help. He has done this before and I urged on these boards for his to open again - as he did not shine at 3.

He has opened again without much success, I wonder if Vaughan who has class has still got the hunger for the game after his Ashes success in 2005.

As for Bell if he stays or not, England need IMO some new blood. Contrary to what Rachael thinks, Tresco has never really been replaced by a like for like.
Yes but Rachael when Trescothick played his first 10 matches against Australia, it was against a far superior bowling attack than Australia sent to England in 2005 - no comparason.

__________________
Ern