From my memory Steve Waugh who started at a similar age to Bell (about 21yo) had a similar average to Bell's at a similar stage in his career.

He also was in an Australian side still stuggling to be an elite force in test cricket.

And he finished with an average around 50.

But I think the defining feature of Steve Waugh's game was a lot of determination and killer instinct. Bell's game is more a matter of natural ability (more like Mark Waugh), and if he doesn't develop that same killer instinct, then I think an average of 50 is a long shot- but I'm sure that he can improve on his current average.

Andrew Miller would not agree:See Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Ian Bell

Really? I would. Bell seems to me to be the sort of player who's more likely to score a quick 60 or 70 than a ground-out 150 over 7 hours, a la Steve Waugh. Look at the last Ashes series- 4 scores of 50+, but a highest of 87. So far, he's scored 7 centuries, but 18 fifties, whereas Steve Waugh scored 32 and 51 respectively- a far better conversion rate that speaks to the mental aspect of his game.

Not that this is really a major criticism of Bell- my favourite player of all time is Mark Waugh, and he wasn't known for (and rarely had to demonstrate) his killer instinct. But killer instinct is IMO what it takes in order to average 50, even today.

What coaches and commentators have always said of Bell is that he's compact, correct and disciplined. Sure, we now hear more about how late he plays the swing / seaming ball... and Boycott is just one of many to be hugely impressed by the way he works the ball against the spin after dancing down the track to the slow bowlers - but it's still the solidity that stands out most.

Bell's surely not a Gower-Mark Waugh-Laxman type: he may have some of the same deft touch... but I always thought of that trio as far more open in their play - almost "loose" in their strokeplay, and more reliant on their eye.

Bell's always struck me as being most convincing and authoritative when biding his time. Rather like Langer, he's looked at his best when forced to just play each ball on merit and wait for the bad one. Like Langer, he's also come under pressure from his own team to play strokes to balls which should really command more respect - and as I thought with Langer a few years ago, I think this pressure to become a more "modern" player is completely misplaced.

With all of that said... I do think he has the capacity to develop into an English Slater: to my mind the best Aussie opener (and arguably best opener of any nation) of the modern era.

They may not be similar in their techniques, but surely in their approaches to batting. Looking at the stats of all four (averages, conversions, even strike rates), they're almost identical- which suggests to me that they're all the more "breezy" type of batsman than grafters. Saying that, Waugh and Laxman have been known to graft brillinatly when necessary, and I guess that Gower and Bell have too.

I agree completely there. No one should mess around with their natural style- some of the most effective batsmen of the last 10 years have been very old-fashioned, and I doubt whether they'd have been that good had they adopted a more "modern" approach.

Ian Chappell once said that he'd take Slater and Taylor ahead of Hayden and Langer as a pair due to the higher quality of opposition they faced, and I think he has a point. I'm sure that Slater would be the best opener in the world today if he was still at his peak. Saying that, Taylor was very consistent, going on the 50-to-innings ratio alone. I'd say that they're both very under-rated in general.

Firstly, It's not logical or even reasonable to be comparing Steve Waugh at the end of his career to Ian Bell right in the middle/early stages of it. Secondly, Ian Bell is infinitely more talented than Steve Waugh ever was. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not criticising Steve Waugh, I'm merely stating what I beleive to be the truth - Waugh was not particularly gifted as a batsman - but he made up for that with sheer grit, determination and tenacity, something many of the great Australian batsmen of that era displayed - and something Ian Bell would do well to emulate.

Waugh after 36 matches -

36m 1912runs @ 41.56. 177 High Score, 49.73 s/r, 3 x 100's, 13 x 50's

Bell after 36 matches -

36m 2546 @ 43.15. 162* High Score, 50.33 s/r, 7 x 100's, 18 x 50's

Now who has the better 50 to 100 conversion rate? Other than that, it's remarkable at how similar their careers are at the same stages. Unfortunately this does rather disprove your theory on Waugh having a better 'mental' attitude at that time. He may well have had by the end of his career, but he certainly did not at the early stages of it.

Is it a coincidence that the very same 'criticism' you accuse Bell of having (poor conversion rate between 50's and 100's) is exactly the same criticism that can be levelled at Waugh at the same stage in his career? It isn't in my mind, because mental strength comes with experience and that's precisely what I've been saying in this thread - Bell needs more experience and time to develop into the Cricketer we know he can be.

I'm not saying Bell will end up as great as Steve Waugh, either in reputation or finishing average, that's down to Bell himself, but what I am saying is, he has the skill, ability and importantly, the opportunity to become a a great batsman in world cricket, but he needs to improve his mental strength, which will come in time, as it did with Steve Waugh.

Like Rachael, I don't see them as being similar either. Gower was a middle order stroke maker, Waugh a gritty middle order grafter similar in many ways to our own Collingwood and I realy don't know enough about Laxman, but he doesn't strike me as being too similar to Bell. Bell's hard to categorise as he can graft and defend and attack when he needs to as well, but he's more grafter than flamboyant stroke-maker in my mind.

I agree with Rachael on this one and Bell should be playing in his natural position - as opener as that's where his talents are best used. Bell is a natural opener and as has been mentioned - he watches the ball very carefully, defending or leaving the good balls and putting away the bad - exactly what an opener needs to do.

I'd have Englands opening partnership as Cook and Bell, two young players with some experience, that can now build on that and form a strong partnership for the future. Their styles compliment each other and in my mind would give England the ideal start to their innings.

This is a direct result of Bell having to play out of his natural batting position in the middle order. Opening batsmen are not expected to score at 4+ runs an over, which is the job (if it's anyones job) of the middle order strokemakers. Opening batsmen are expected to blunt the new ball attack, survive if conditions are hostile, take the shine off the ball and generally show defiance and frustration to the new ball bowlers. If they survive that, then they should also have the ability to score against the softer ball and second change bowlers, but that's NOT their primary responsibility. As can be seen from this, Bells natural watchfulness and ability to play each ball on its merits is ideally suited to the role of an opening batsman and NOT really a middle order strokemaker.

No surprise then that people complain he scores too slowly in the middle order when his mental mindset is that of the caution of an opening batsman. Put Cook in the middle order and you'd get the same result, probably even worse as Cook has far fewer scoring strokes than Bell.

The only England batter that remotely resembles Mark Waugh is Kevin Pietersen and that resemblance is extremely remote.

Players like Mark Waugh, Brian Lara, David Gower, Greg Chappell and Sachin Tendulkar are some of the rarest birds in cricket, batsmen who's power is generated mainly by how well they continually find the middle of the bat rather than their muscle.

I will stick with my assessment that as a batter Bell is at a similar stage and age as to where Steve Waugh was prior to Waugh taking his game up to the elite level. Bells style and shot range is also similar to Steve Waugh's

But your right about averaging 50 being a tough ask, and trying to keep his career tracking along the same line as Steve Waugh's is an extremely formidable challenge.

But he's better off aiming high and shooting for the stars, and Steve Waugh is a great tangible point for Bell to look at and try to measure his performance against. Rather than setting a lower goal and end result like Tresco has.

That time I was referring to Mark Waugh, not Steve who I agree is much more like Collingwood than Bell. I do take your point about the comparison, but all I'm saying is that I, personally, don't associate Bell with that kind of Tugga-Collingwood-like tenacity yet. In my opinion, he's more like someone like Mark Waugh or Laxman, even if (and I want to make this clear to everyone) even if Bell's batting style is different from Junior's or Laxman's. All three, to my mind, are more likely to make an attractive 60 or 70 than make a hundred and keep on going. Will this change with Bell? Maybe, but I don't think he's that sort of player now. If there is a player in the English team who does fit that description, it's Collingwood, and I think Collingwood and Bell are two very different types of batsmen.

Finally, I just want to repeat word-for-word what I said originally:

"If he doesn't develop that same killer instinct (as Steve Waugh) then I think an average of 50 is a long shot- but I'm sure he can improve on his current average."