Recalling Ian Bell would be a backwards step for England Cricket, says Nasser

why wud it make no sense ::confused::

"I would personally like to look to the future, especially with the tour of Bangladesh. I don't see the mileage of taking Bell, albeit a fantastic player, so I would look to the future.
"But they have gone for a couple of players like Vince who haven't done much and might want that consistent solidity that Ian Bell would bring.
"I personally would look to, especially in Bangladesh, blood a youngster and give a youngster an opportunity.
"Whether that youngster be (Ben) Duckett, who has not just done it in one-day cricket, or other lads like (Tom) Westley, (Daniel) Bell-Drummond, (Scott) Borthwick... There are other lads who have done fine things this summer.
skysports.com

Bell is what..34-35. if you have nobody bettah and he is right by himself now and scoring again then he is the man.

what is wrong with Nasser ::confused::

by the time Bell is down again, 37-38 you might have youngsters ready to go.  you dont have now so its Bell

I'm with Nasser on this one. I think this would be a terrible move. Bell has been below average in an England shirt for a looonngg time (average of 25 over last 2 years) and he hasn't exactly gone back to County cricket and bashed the doors down either, averaging 37 with just the 1 century in 15 innings. In addition, his numbers in India are pretty wretched (an average of 27.07 with just 2 scores of 50+ in 16 innings).

I'd much rather see any one of Sam Robson, Daniel Bell-Drummond, Scott Borthwick, James Hildreth, Nick Gubbins or even Jos Buttler.

How bad has Ian Bell been in Test cricket over the last 2 years? So bad that Marlon Samuels would be an upgrade.

Ian Bell: 25.95 average in 24 innings with just 1 century.
Marlon Samuels: 28.25 in 29 innings with 2 centuries.

I think some of us play far to much importance on statistics and many of us, who have played at under county level and at county level, do not think much of what this thread is saying.

Dillmeister I think your analysis and analytical review is sometimes on point but I fell you have not played cricket to any meaningful level hence your reliance on statistics to enhance your views, which I am never far.

Bell did have  a great drop in form and deserved to be dropped but should have been recalled soon after. Cricketing instinct.

We are not in crisis.

Dilly if you have not researched Victor Trumper and Lord Learie Constantine, I suggest you do.

Statistics do not define these people and one has to have a balance of eras.-

[quote author=Mail link=topic=105872.msg710507#msg710507 date=1471992599]
I think some of us play far to much importance on statistics and many of us, who have played at under county level and at county level, do not think much of what this thread is saying.[/quote]
Three ex-England captains (Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton and Michael Vaughan) think otherwise. All three feel that going back to Bell would be a mistake.

As to your other points, I am not sure what you consider to be a meaningful level, but I was in and around the minor counties set up for a number of years as a youth and then progressing on to play and captain in the DCB first division. I have seen and played more than enough cricket to a standard that I am comfortable on relying on my eyes to form my own opinion. The numbers just help to back them up.

I know that Belly is your guy, but he has under performed for a great number of years now. You can't just live off past glories. At some point, you have to deliver. As the old saying goes, what have you done for me lately. In Bell's case, not much. It's hard to defend a guy that is averaging 25 over the last 2 years, 29 over the last 3 and 34 over the last 4. We should also not forget the number of dropped catches he was responsible for during his last year in an England shirt. Not only has his batting form dipped, but so has his fielding. To the point where he was actually removed from the slip cordon

While I understand your point that numbers aren't the be all and end all - Gary Ballance being a prime example - excellent Test numbers but some glaring flaws in his technique - by contrast, Ian Bell is one of the most pleasing batsman to watch at the crease. Although his performances in the UAE were very much in stark contrast - every innings was a real struggle that was at times painful to watch.

Much like baseball, cricket is still very much a numbers game. Steve James writing in The Telegraph had a great article delving deeper in this, and the weight they carry.

Quote:Cricketers, despite their games being defined by statistics, are like most other sportsmen in being a little coy about numbers. Ask a batsman his average, and he will generally play it cool. But he knows. And these days he will know much more than just that figure. Recently I chanced upon a county team's crib sheet for a Twenty20 match. The statistical detail was mind-boggling. There were figures for everything from the 'dot ball limit' at a certain ground to the overall number of boundaries usually required to win there, setting such targets as scoring a minimum of seven boundaries in the first six overs.

Much has been made since England became the No 1 Test side in the world about the work of analyst Nathan Leamon, nicknamed "Numbers" by the players. But it is little surprise that England are leading the statistical race in world cricket. Andy Flower has driven that. When interviewed for the job of team director in 2009, he stated that he wanted more use to be made of American sports science and particularly the analysis of statistics. He had been given the book Moneyball (Michael Lewis's tale of the statistics-driven success of the baseball team, the Oakland A's) to read by England's former coach, Peter Moores, and had been an instant convert to such a way of thinking.

When I interviewed him later that year, Flower said: "I think we are only scratching the surface with cricket statistics. They will play an increasing role in how you formulate strategy or pick people.'' They have done that, and so there is a department at the National Cricket Performance Centre at Loughborough solely concerned with statistics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket...-game.html

Bell's average over the last 2 years is right in line with Shane Watson, Michael Clarke and Marlon Samuels - two players that have since retired and a third in Samuels that has been the worst top order batsman over this period.

To put Bell's woes into further context, his average over the last 2 years is almost identical to the career averages of Eoin Morgan, Nick Compton, Sam Robson and Michael Carberry - all players that have been discarded. It's not as though Bell has gone back to County cricket and racked up the runs either. It's more of the same mediocrity.

While Bell has been an excellent player of spin throughout his career, lets not overlook the fact that he has a career average of 27 in India (across 16 innings) and didn't fare much better on those flat decks of the UAE last winter, averaging 31 with just the 1 fifty in 6 innings.

S Rajesh at ESPN sums up Ian Bell's career:

Quote:Apart from that 20-Test stretch in 2010-11, Bell has averaged 37.42 in 92 Tests over his career, which isn't exactly stellar. Among the 34 top-order batsmen (batsmen in the top six) who've played at least 75 innings since the beginning of 2005, Bell's average of 43.22 is 28th, with only Paul Collingwood, Brendon McCullum, Tamim Iqbal, Andrew Strauss, Mohammad Hafeez and Watson averaging worse than him.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/con...02675.html

As mentioned above, I would rather give one of the youngsters a chance.

Bell's series by series average since 2012:

2012
3 matches vs Pakistan - 8.50 average
2 matches vs Sri Lanka - 27.66 average
3 matches vs West Indies - 111.00 average
3 matches vs South Africa - 28.80 average
3 matches vs India - 43.00 average

2013
3 matches vs New Zealand - 38.36
2 matches vs New Zealand - 18.25
5 matches vs Australia - 62.44
5 matches vs Australia - 26.11

2014
2 matches vs Sri Lanka - 34.25
5 matches vs India - 42.42

2015
3 matches vs West Indies - 31.00
2 matches vs New Zealand - 10.75
5 matches vs Australia - 26.87
3 matches vs Pakistan - 31.53

In reality, Bell has put together just 2 great series since 2012; the 2012 series against West Indies where he scored 3 fifties in 4 innings and the 2013 home Ashes series where he scored 3 centuries and was the backbone of the England team. There is no denying or downplaying his contributions to that series.

He had a solid start to his Test career, averaging 39.79 in his first 49 Tests. He went on an absolute tear over his next 20 Tests, averaging 81.86 with 8 centuries, when he was in the form of his life, but since then, over his last 49 Tests, he has averaged just 34.17.

That average of 34.17 in 49 Test matches is a large sample size and not indicative of a temporary loss of form.

I only present these numbers so that everyone has access to the same information and to provide context. Sadly, you don't win matches through style points. As Michael Atherton said regarding Gary Ballance during the recent series with Pakistan - it's not about how pretty you look scoring runs, its about how many you score. If it was all about being aesthetically pleasing on the eye - Bell and Vince would absolutely be in my team. But, as you win matches with runs scored and wickets taken, neither would get in my squad for the winter.

Since 2013, top order batsman (1-4) have a collective average of 38.86. Bell's average over this period batting in the top 4 is 29.42 - a whopping 24% below average.

Averages by batsman (1-4) since 2013 (min 10 matches).




Bell is 39th of 46 batsman. It is very hard to discount, downplay or ignore those numbers.

you have done way more than enough to cause me to reconsider my opinion on Bell Dillinger. 

I did caveat anyway when I said 'if he has scoring again.'  he isnt by you stats.  so be it

Great stuff dillinger !

Your conclusions continue to be based on fact : quod erat demonstrandum !

Fellow posters should learn to keep up rather than getting personal

by questioning your on field CV : curriculum vitae !