Bell hasn't always batted at five or lower. Exactly half of his career he's been named at numbers 2, 3 or 4. In these test matches he's converted only two of his fifties to centuries making him much worse than even Cook.

In his 36 test innings when he's batted at five or lower he has only had about 20 partnerships (out of possibly around 100 given there are maybe three tailenders in each team) with people I'd describe as tailenders (discounting the likes of Broad, Giles, Read, Prior, G Jones and everyone else who can be trusted with a bat and also discounting the midleading partnerships with nightwatchmen Hoggard, Sidebottom etc.). Of those 20 there have been only four partnerships of 20 or above.

As far as I can tell (other than his magnificent patch against Pakistan and his very good 54*) he's rarely contributed with the tail and has only made, say, a 30+ and been 8th, 9th or 10th out on about two or three occasions. You are quite welcome to list innings where he has contributed with the tail. Essentially his figures are bolstered by the runs added during partnerships with other batsmen.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

I've got a lot of sympathy for what you're saying about 'shot selection' but I'm not sure I agree with the above statement.

There seems to be a 'mindset' change within the England camp about how they want to play their cricket. They've looked at the most successful sides around at the moment (Australia and South Africa) and seen how they approach the game which is generally aggressive and attacking and decided that Pietersen is the best person to develop and progress this different approach. They want to play more attacking and aggressive cricket.

That's fine within itself, but English conditions are not conducive to playing in that way, due to the amount of lateral ball movement we get in this country. Ironically, the South Africans, held up as a good example of an attacking side, have played the 'more 'attritional cricket' than England in this series. No wonder then that they're the side 'on top', they've learnt and understood how to bat in our conditions.

Take Smith and Hayden, both big strong units, both opening batsmen and both have similar stats, yet Hayden is a 'flat track bully' and Smith someone who knows and understands how to play the 'moving ball'. That's why Smiths stats in England are far better than Haydens and I don't even have to look that up to know it.

Hayden is very very good at hitting through the line of the ball extremely hard and he really punishes average to poor bowling attacks on flatish surfaces, yet Smith is overall a far better batsman, due to his ability to 'leave' and 'play late' in seaming and swinging English conditions.

So yes, by all means be aggressive in the 'right conditions' but that isn't going to work all the time or a lot of the time in typically English conditions. That's what Vaughan I beleive was trying to say, play your natural game and 'express yourselves' ie play your shots.

With Cricket strips around the world flattening out to provide 5 days entertainment and more matches potentially ending in draws, the ability to score runs quickly becomes more important than before and this requires a fairly 'aggressive and attacking' mindset.

Where it's predominantly not going to work is in typically English conditions, which is where England play most of their games. So Pietersens tenure as Captain is going to be an extremely interesting one I think.

Let's not forget another highly publicised Strauss losing his wicket indescrection, in front of a huge crowd and on a huge occasion

When he became Warnes 700th Test victim........clean bowled !

Hardly the test of character I would want my national captain to have shamefully tucked away in his C.V

Your analysis here seems pretty sound to me, but what it really highlights is that it's very diffcult to be able to draw any firm conclusions about Bell's batting from his statistics. This is due mostly to him having batted in many different positions over a fairly longish period of time, so that starts to bring in his development as a Test Cricketer as well ie his skills should increase as he becomes more experienced.

What's really odd, is that his best averages come from his lowest batting positions and his worst average is at No 3! What's also evident is that he's scored more 50's than anyone else bar Flintoff, yet has converted fewer of those 50's into 100's.

Going back to the original comment, I don't see in his stats an inability to play on sporty pitches, I see someone batting out of his natural position over a number of years which is presumably producing his odd stats.

Now that he has a secure birth at No 3, we can perhaps assess his contributions a little more accurately.

I was a solid Bell man, but when I stood myself up and gave myself a serious interegation as to why Kevin Pieterson was short of Bell as a captain, I ran out of reasons.

KP is the most comfortable man in his skin in the England cricket team, and surprisingly I think the next extremely distant challenger on the outer horizon for the England captaincy might be the SS Monty Panesar, lurking like a Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow controlled vessel.

Mike Atherton and Nassar Hussian

The captaincy has not yet affected "KP's" batting.

Obviously another media invented pressure point ...popped

On'ya fella's I suppose you have to justify your excistance to BSky B somehow, otherwise "Britains Best Dish" and channell 9 Australia's commentator "Mark Nicholas ex Hampshire captain" will invade your patch of grass..

"They've cooked their heart's out"

Rachael for some reason loves Michael Slater, but he was one opening batsmen that played his aggressive game whatever the circumstances. He did absolutely nothing to save games in India when Waugh's team lost, but you will never hear any criticism from his one defender.

Having watched the entire test series, to me it is clear that Pietersen is the best batsman on view from both sides - and that includes Kallis. After three years of test career (including 14 tons) he is stacking up much better than Ponting, Kallis, Sangakara, Yousuf (all the players whose career figures have been bolstered by purple patches over five years into their careers). Given that all the batsmen averaging high 50s a year ago have ALL fallen off their form, there is an argument to say that KP is the best batsman in the world at this moment.

Just thought i would address a few points on what is a pretty heated debate here.

Yes, Pietersons dismissal for 13 was a bit daft. But my favourite player ever, David Gower, was prone to similar dismissals. With precocious talents you have to take the rough with the smooth. I dont think we should forget that Pieterson has been englands best, most consistent batsman for 3 years now.

The idea of Alec Stewart and Geoffrey Boycott castigating someone for putting themselves before the team is laughable. Boycott is an excellent commentator, but one of the most selfish players ever to pull on an england shirt. Matched only by Alec "red ink" Stewart, a man obsessed with his average, and, when he was captain, was behind the exclusion of talented (but admittedly difficult) players like Tufnel and Caddick. Why? because the england captain couldnt be trusted to focus on encouraging his players, and was preferring to be seen pitch invading when england got a draw. Or saying that the infamous Sabina park test had to count, so he could keep his nine not out. Pathetic.

When did alec stewart last hit an ashes winning hundred?

I think rare talents like Pieterson who is, statistically, and in bare fact the BEST english batsman presently should be given a certain amount of leeway. God knows, if management had shown similar patience with Gower (who scored 450 runs in a tour of aussie, and was dropped because managment were upset he got caught at leg slip before lunch in the last match) he would have had an extra two years on his international career.

Why not lay the blame at the other (supposed) top six batters in the land who have consistently failed?

(regarding Bell - an average boosting 162* against the mighty bangladesh. Hundreds in an easy home series against pakistan, when other players had already broken the back of the bowling atack. Easy pickings hundred against NZ. No century in ten matches against the aussies. Wilts under pressure as far as i am concerned. But the most technically proficent mid 20s scores you could ever hope to see)

Hahahahahahaahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
Freddie Flintoff=God

Have to agree with all this, not with Nasser though - thought he dragged England through to the modern era with some aggressive streetwise captaincy of his own, though his own personal batting was never anymore than stodgy. Pietersen is a breath of fresh air and his supposed "playing for himself" is only a good thing for English cricket - has anyone actually stopped to think of that? It's always about KP, always about him. When he was just a batsman in the side, he only cared about his own scores. Now that he's captain, the team "IS" Kevin Pietersen. The performance of the team, is actually his performance. Which can only make him a more dedicated, upbeat captain. Give KP the right attacking bowlers and watch him flourish. It'll certainly be interesting.

__________________
Freddie Flintoff=God