But with few exceptions England never are more possitive - are they?.

Give a player a reputation, and England batsmen as a whole will bow before them.

Warne for years tormented England, McGrath had the all knowing Atherton as his bunny, England did not have a clue how to play Lillee and Thompson.

There needs to be more players selected like Robin Smith, Allan Lamb and Stewart, they would play like you wish - "positive".

__________________
Ern

Which player did you confuse with Bell in the recent Ashes tour? Was it the unfortunate Damien Martyn? Must have been someone though.. as those who actually knew which players they were looking at, including Boycott, ended up positively drooling over over some of Bell's exquisite play, and singling out 4 of Bell's innings as highlights of the tour.

An alternative theory: perhaps you only got to see the Melbourne Test. It's true that in the first innings at the MCC he batted for three quarters of an hour and then got caught in the crease by one that zipped back and hit him on the knee roll, and that his second innings was over even more quickly when he was adjudged LBW to a cutter from McGrath that hit him above the knee roll.

The trouble is... in the other four Tests he averaged over 40... being the ONLY player to stand up and be counted in the tone-setting first England innings of the tour... seeing England through from a troubled start to a great position with a 100+ partnership in the first innings at Adelaide... building a partnership of 170 with Cook at Perth... and then anchoring the 1st innings at Sydney (contributing 71 to partnerships totalling 120+) as those around him fell.

The time has come, Ern, to just accept what has long been recognised by others:

Well Rachael, this his the sum of Ian Bell's test record against Australia.

An average of 25.10 (as shown in the filtered stats) runs in 10 matches against Australia is just not good enough for a fron line - top oreder batsman against any team.

Look at his record in Australia.

The filtered stats show that he only averaged 33.10. combine that with the 5 match average in the 2005 ashes of 17 - he looks a very ordinary player indeed against the best team.

What's more important is the fact that the 10 matches against Australia, make up one third of his test career.

Look at Flintoff's (filtered stats) against Australia, who is supposed to be the inferier batsman.

I think this comparason is important - because Flintoff is only a bowling all-rounder, not a front line batsman.

Another interesting stat that flanflinger might be interested in is John Crawley's stats against Australia.

Not great by any means - but better than Bell's, which IMO goes to show that Bell should not be in the England squad to play Australia in 2009.

I admit that Ian Bell is better against the lesser bowling attacks that the other two players mentioned, but the fact is England play Australia every two years, and Bell has shown in ten matches (a third of his career) - he is not up to that job.

__________________
Ern

You said Swann would have been a better pick than Sidebottom, as Anderson is bowling with good control. With the benefit of hindsight, you're right. However, as hindsight doesn't really do the selectors a lot of good before they've chosen the team, my point is that Swann should generally replace Anderson, as Sidebottom has proven to be the more consistent bowler.

Fair enought I take your point - but I have been saying without hindsight that Sidebottom should not play in the same side as Hoggard and Broad.

I am not a great supporter of Anderson who I feel has not lived up to expectations, but I think he has the variation that is needed to stop the England attack being mono with Harmison and Flintoff injured.

__________________
Ern

Sidebottom's never been a McGrath-like or Statham-like line as a bowler... but he's better than Mahmood, Plunkett and co in that he does at least realise that it's better to try and get six balls in the right area than to strive for one unplayable ball and end up getting hardly any in the right area. He's currently got limitations... but let's get them in perspective - he already has strengths that Hoggard doesn't... and in terms of weaknesses... he's about where Hoggard was 2 years ago.. and appears to be learning pretty damn quickly.

Sidebottom's best might not match Harmison's best... but he matches Anderson's best and if England can stick with him for a bit he's got the potential to be a great foil for Hoggard: he gets more bounce than Hoggard OR Anderson, has similar mastery of swing, is getting there with the variations, is just as comfortable pitching the ball up and (above all) is able to exploit the differing angle of attack that comes with being left handed.

To cap it all... he's able to create some rought for Panesar to work with...

I'd have Hoggard and Sidebottom penned in alongside Panesar for the forseeable future on the understanding that Harmison becomes No 2 (if he returns to form) on tracks that might allow him to get decent reward from bending his back. On the next two Sri Lankan pitches I wouldn't see Harmison finding any encouragement... so even if he looked in passable form I'd relegate him to the scrap with Swann / Anderson... and would pick Swann.

This might all change if Anderson bowls exceptionally well in the second innings... as the kid has always had a bit of talent and might well press a strong case... but I can't help feeling that the guy will forever be dogged by technical problems that will mean he's unable to press a completely convincing case as a 1st choice bowler.

Sidebottom and Hoggard have been bowling a lot longer than Anderson and he doesn't have technical problems. That is the way he bowls.

They will probably only need 2 fast bowlers for the next two Tests and I guess that will be Sidebottom and Hoggard although Harmison said he and Broad are not there to carry the drinks.
Harmison: It was tough to miss out but I'll be back | the Daily Mail

Great display by England this morning,we have ended up getting a big lead which we weren't expecting to pick up at the start of play.Well batted Collingwood,Sidebottom and the rest of the tail to put us in this position.

Good to see Murali have to wait for the record,now i hope he doesn't have to wait too long till he bats.

Worrying news that KP has broken a bone in a finger but they say he will bat in the 2nd innings.

England doing well here but still struggling with injuries. KP will not field and now Hoggard is having back trouble. Lets hope this does not spoil what has so far been a good test match.

Are there any Sri Lankan supporters out here, I cannot understand why Mubarak is playing. IMO he is a very poor player. Surely Tharanga should have played this match as he has a very good record against England.

As far as Bell is concerned, Ern I dont care what he averages against Australia (they are the best in the world you know and most batsman will struggle against them), he is one of Englands best batsman and leaving him out would be stupid to say the least. He played a brilliant knock here and has put England in a strong position.

Anderson should never have been selected especially with Hoggard and Sidebottom playing. I would have gone with Swann or even Broad. Anderson cannot bowl tightly and if Hoggard cannot bowl in this innings then England will really struggle. Panesar will take wickets though.

LOL at Anderson. He has just bowled Jayasuriya back into form. He has basically given away the advantage that England had in that over. MAybe a bit unlucky with the drop by Bell but that was a tough chance. The other 5 were vintage Jayasuriya though.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Who got Ern onto the subject of Bell!!

All I am going to say is this... you judge the guy on one poor series (his first major one) against Australia and another that was not that outstanding, but you have failed to acknowledge that on the whole he has played well against every other Test nation!!

If we had the same criteria for Botham, you would also have to write him off because his record against the then World Champs (West Indies) was poor??

The fact is that he has an average of of 42 from 30 Tests and has made the most of the chances he has been given. There are nine Test teams, yes Australia are the best, but you cannot judge a guy based purely on his success or failure against one of them!!

If you did that then Murali is just an average spinner :-

(6 ball overs)       Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10
 

unfiltered           115 6346.2 15331 704  9/51  16/220  21.77  2.41  54.0 60 20

filtered              13  685.3  2128  59  6/59  11/212  36.06  3.10  69.7  5  1