The major issue I have with this discussion is that it was not Marcus Trescothwick's first 36 matches that were an issue in his demise.
It was later when he could not mentally handle the intense scrutiny that being in the spotlight leads to, and cracks were starting to develop towards the end expecialy after the England ashes series win and the English fans expectation of success lifted to a higher level.
Bell was also in the England side when it crossed that theshold of becoming a team that was being expected by its fans to have continued success against Australia, yet he has shown no signs of mentally cracking and his performances have not dropped off like Trescothwick's did after that time.
I think these stats show Bell is as good as another England batter who was considered good at the same point in his carreer.

I think it should also be pointed out that Trescothick was an opener as opposed to a no. 3, so he wouldn't really be expected to score as heavily as Bell would today.

No Ern - it shows that he had one poor series (his first) against Australia, and one average series. Your fixation with "top" sides is just Australia, he has scored runs against everyone else he has played against. There are more teams than just Australia!!

Bell is at the moment OK (I feel there is more to come - a lot more) but read what almost every decent commentator on the game says and they all rate Bell. The only person who I know that does not see his potential is you. Which leads me to think that you are either less knowledgeable about the game than you think, stupid, stubborn or blind - which one is it?

Hasn't every player been on the verge of losing their place at some point. Look at Hayden, Langer, Clarke, Martyn all greats of the last few years, all have been dropped and re-instated - it happens in high level sport.

PS....


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

Series average - 33.10 - which is still 2 runs higher than Key's Test Match Average and 5 runs higher than Ramps!!!

There are currently 14 players playing test cricket who average over 45. A further nine have retired in the last 5 years or so. This means that 24 players have averaged over 45 in the time that Ian Bell has played cricket. This represents one third of the group of test cricketers to average over 45 in the entire test history. If people want to believe statistics, believe the overwhelmingly strong evidence to suggest that batting is easier now that EVER (by quite some margin). In this context, Ian Bell's average (pretty much on a par with the rest of the batting line up bar Pietersen) is nothing better than acceptable. Trescothick was also no more than a good player. Would anyone like to put the case for him being better than Gooch (who shares a similar batting record and a career average that is dependent on a purple patch of two years). Bell may well play 100 tests, but this is surely only an indication of the level of competition (ask Boucher). He may also disappear of the scene, he would not be the first player expected to have a long and successful career (Kambli and Rowe)

The real question should be how a player can play 36 tests in 3 years. Dougie Walters played double this in 16 years (and the Don played only 16 more in 20 years). If Bell is as good a player as everyone bar Ernest (who wants Key in the side) keep saying, he will have played 100 tests by the time he is 31 and is more likely to play close to 200. A real sobering thought!!!!

Why Ern? This just seems daft to me. Look at Bells age, he's young! He has a future ahead of him, he has his whole career ahead of him, why are you demanding that he produces match winning performances against the best in thr world, before you'll even accept he has a place and a future in this England side?

In my opinion, you're simply expecting too much too soon from someone still relatively inexperienced at International Cricket.

His misfortune so far, in your eyes at least (which will in fact help him in the future) is that he's had to play so many games against Australia, who are a tough side to play against.

I think Rachael is merely pointing out that in comparison Bell's stats are better than Trescothicks at the same stage in their careers, and while many felt Trescothick had a future in the England side yet many do not feel the same about Bell. And that's why some of us find perlexing. The comparison is made even worse if you factor in the huge age differences!

Trescothick was typical of most flat footed players, who have excellent hand/eye coordination, but little footwork and that allowed them to hit through the line of the ball very effectively. Where they came unstuck and where Tresocthick frequently came unstuck is when the ball had lateral sideways movement. All players struggle with sideways movement, but those with footwork can defend it far more effectively than those without.

It's not silly at all Ern, I beleive it's very prophetic, for three reasons -

1) Bell is a more 'complete' and technically correct batsman than Trescothick;
2) He's much younger in his career than Trescothick therefore has far more experience to gain and a longer playing career;
3) He's simply a better player.

He didn't shine at 3? He hasn't shined at opening since he came back either! And if you look at the stats (which on here somewhere, because I posted them) his returns as an opener since taking over the captaincy are worse than when he was a Captain and opening and far worse than he produced at No3 since he became Captain, what does this tell you? You can't just wave all that aside as being irrelevent!

Moving down to 3 I beleive is the last throw of the dice for Vaughan. He knows scoring runs at 3 will be easier than opening and he also knows his place is under pressure. He also knows this pressure will increase as soon as FLintoff is ready to come back, because one of that top 6 has to drop out. It won't be Cook, Bell, Pietersen or Collingwood, so that simply leaves Vaughan and Strauss. And quite rightly, there's only room for one of those two.

Why should he be replaced like for like? Why do you want another aggressive opening batsman with no footwork? I see nothing inherently wrong with our batting lineup, it's the bowling side of things they need to get sorted out.

I think the point that everyone's missing is that at the same stage in their careers, Bell has the better stats and whilst most were happy for Trescothick to be in the side, many people are not happy that Bell is.

Those of us who regard Bell highly, find this somewhat vexing.

It's perfectly true that scoring runs as an opener is more difficult than in the middle order, but against that you have to say that the opportunity to construct larger scores is greater. And let's be honest, there's only a window of about 20 overs where batting as an opener is tricky, get through that and you can take on the second string bowlers and softer ball.

In any case, Bell is an opening batsman, always has been and he opens for Warwickshire. He only plays out of order in the middle order in the England side because he fits in where he's told to.

I'd be happy for Bell to open for England and I have no doubt that not only would he be happier playing in his natural position, he'd score just as many runs in that position as he has down the order.

No he's not the only inconsistent England player, there are others who, for some strange reason appear to escape your wrath -

Against Australia -

A Cook 5m 275runs @ 27.60
I Bell 10m 502runs @ 25.10

Do you truly beleive that 2.5 run difference means that Cook should stay and Bell should go? Neither of them have done very well against Australia and do you know why? Because as gifted and as talented as they both are, they're both young and inexperienced in International Cricket and Australia eat players like that for breakfast.

However, it's an excellent learning experience for BOTH of them and will cause them both to become better players because of it and consequently become extremely valuable players for England in the future.

England need players with this kind of experience and you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think players are going to be discarded because of poor returns against a strong side like Australia.

So why aren't you ragging on Cook Ern?

Well we seem to be having a bit of a Bell love in but interestingly no one has produced his stats for me when he is under pressure. No centuries against oz in 10 goes, and some want to drop Vaughan who has maybe 3 or 4?

The truth is his supporters are blinded by his excellent play when England are either dominating or have already lost and ignore his many, many failures when he is under the pump. In short he is the quintessential bottler. Fine when everythings are hunky dorey but folds like a cheap suit when it matters.

I honestly can't remember an English batsman who has had so much invested in him and has contributed to so few wins AND has capitulated in such an abject fashion (to repeat 2005 Oval and 2nd dig Notts the latter a real discrace for a top order player)

You guys who defend him are entitled to your opinion and please god he improves but at this moment in time you are just wrong. If you disagree post the stats with him under pressure which not surprisingly so far none of you have.

Hold on:

1. Bell was the ONLY top order batsman to stand up and be counted in the tone-setting first innings of the 2007 Ashes. In when Strauss fellin the 6th over... and still in after Cook, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones had fallen.

2. Bell was the partner that got Collingwood on the road to the mammoth first innings total at Adelaide - did all the hard work at the start of the innings.

3. Bell and Cook took England to 170/2 at Perth: a 4 hour stand that put England into a position from which the game should have been saved.

4. After a Test to forget at Melbourne, Bell contributed 71 as the dominant batsmen in partnerships with Cook, Pietersen and Collingwood.

The guy had one Test to forget out of four: in the rest he was impressively consistent and averaged over 40 despite the side being under immense pressure.

ps. Have you forgotten the 1st Test against Sri Lanka? Bell came in 4th ball, sped to 83 off 125 in just over 3 hours (100+ partnership for the second wicket) and put England in an innings in which Murali bagged 6 for 55 (and go at just 1.57 / over). Having already top scored in that innings he then anchored the side throughout the second innings: batted through 80 overs in a 5 hours epic that could have set up either an England victory or a draw had the rest followed Bell's lead.