Recent Comments

  • King Cricket: We might as well close down the website. Trevor’s pretty much covered everything there - in...
  • Trevor Neale: I wrote this a few weeks ago, but it’s very apt I think… Ah, summer days remembering the...
  • Apoorv Singhal: I hope the English are not banking on troubling him with, for all practical purposes, dibbly-dobbly...
  • royzan: “Golden Graham”? Apart from that you’re gonna be struggling a bit
  • Sam Collins: I think, ‘Wingers’, you will find that people are referring to the fact that Bopara is the...
September 2008
« Aug   Oct »

Rob Smyth: Selectors must tighten Bell’s role to set him free

September 3rd, 2008 by Rob Smyth in England, One-day cricket, South Africa in England and tagged , ,

Any amateur psychologist will tell you that you shouldn’t necessarily take gestures or comments at face value. The boy and girl at school who were ostentatiously arguing in the playground were invariably also making up and kissing behind the bikesheds. The man who is not openly ridiculed by his friends often has most cause to worry about his popularity.

The same rules apply to Ian Bell, who is probably criticised more than any of the current England team – but behind most of the criticism lies respect for, and frustration with, an abundant natural talent. Not since David Gower has an Englishman so gifted proved so exasperating. Bell will never elicit quite the same level of trust as more mundane, blue-collar batsmen like Paul Collingwood, because the nature of his talent is so unusual to us and more difficult to comprehend, but that does not mean his underachievement is relished. Quite the opposite. It is simply that many feel he does not have the will to go with his grace.

Two contrasting innings on consecutive Fridays in this one-day series summed up the Bell problem. In the first, at Headingley, he played execrably for a boundaryless 69-ball 35. In the second, at the Oval, he played exquisitely for 73 from 77 balls, with 11 fours and a six.

That innings was the only time to date, in 22 innings, that Bell had scored in excess of 90 runs per 100 balls while opening in an ODI – an appalling ratio and much more relevant than his oft-cited problem of converting one-day fifties (15) into hundreds (one). The issue seems not whether he has the requisite talent to do so, but whether he has the correct role. Paradoxically, Bell’s role needs to be both tightened and freed up: the former in terms of exactly what he is trying to achieve and the latter in terms of the liberties he is allowed to take.

There has been much talk in this series of Bell being asked to anchor the innings, to bat through for 120 not out as Dessie Haynes once did; that perception was supported by the way he played at Headingley – and even more so by the way in which he went back into his shell at the Oval: having reached 58 from 43 balls, he then scored 15 from the final 34.

Yet the notion of the one-day anchorman is hideously antiquated. As average scores have got higher and batting line-ups longer, the desire to have somebody bat through the innings has not only been removed but also exposed as illogical. With eight batsmen and only 50 overs, it is logical to have punisher after punisher after punisher, each man looking to score at a minimum of 90 runs per 100 balls. Besides, why would you want Ian Bell batting in the last 10 overs when you could have Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen?

Similarly, why would you want somebody playing cagily at a time when there are significant field restrictions? It’s akin to pecking someone on the cheek at an orgy. The Powerplay overs are Bell’s time, when his class allows him to pierce or clear the field through orthodox cricket shots. In that thrilling innings at the Oval, he did not play a single stroke that would have looked out of place in five-day cricket.

Bell should not strive to be England’s Dessie Haynes but their Mark Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar: a quality player given license to just go out and play. If he does that, the brickbats will disappear, and there will be only bouquets.

Rob Smyth is a freelance journalist

Posted in England, One-day cricket, South Africa in England |

8 Responses to “Rob Smyth: Selectors must tighten Bell’s role to set him free”

  1.   sahilvaughan says:

    Bell is to the England batting what Harmison is to their bowling - gifted and infuriating. There is no reason why he can’t be our one-day Mark Waugh (he already is the Mark Waugh of the test side). Perhaps lack of belief and understanding is the problem. Is it a case of a “breakthrough” innings, where he holds England together with a run-a-ball hundred?

  2.   Paddy Briggs says:

    “The “Selectors” should tighten Bell’s role.”

    Ha ha!!!

    Come on Rob wake up to the new paradigm. Bell’s role won’t be determined by the Selectors or by the coach. KP is in charge and he will get the best out of Belly and be sensitive to his strengths and weaknesses. Did the selectors or the ineffable Moores lure Harmy back to the ODI side? Of course not - it was an SMS from the new skipper that did that. As we speak my guess is that KP and Belly are working things our together. And Dusty and the rest can gather dust…

  3.   King Cricket says:

    He should stay in the role and start to delight in playing over the top of the infield.

    ‘Once bounce four from Bell’ should be a staple of the OBO.

  4. says:

    Rob Smyth: Selectors (Or is it KP who) must tighten Bell’s role to set him free…

    Rob Smyth writing for the Wisden Cricketer says the Selectors must clearly define Ian Bell’s role. Considered as talented as David Gower, Bell has had wildly fluctuating innings possibly stemming from contradictory demands. But one commenter astutely …

  5.   Gary Naylor says:

    Belly Boy infuriated me for the same reason last year. This is a suicidal 64 off 96 balls chasing 330 in the Second ODI Leaving the rest to get 266 off 204 balls is ridiculous.

    Yet he followed that up with Man of the Series numbers. Bell has to risk a 25 off 25 balls in pursuit of 100 off 90. If he makes 25 off 40 balls, he’ll never make 75 more off 50 balls.

  6.   Sajid Patel says:

    When will people just get over Ian Bell.

    He’s not that gifted, he just plays well coached straigt bat shots so everyone drolls and goes ‘oohhhhhh’.

    He’s simply a solid stick-in-the-mud who will always bat at his own natural tempo and doesn’t have the mind nor the ability to smack it around.

    I would have him opening in the ODI side as I think he balances well with Prior. But I’d drop him from the Test side and send him back to Warwicks for the next 18 months.

    He will never, I repeat, never, get good runs agaisnt Australia, he’s simply not mentally up to it. So let’s bring him back after the Ashes at no6, the only position he’s good enough to fill.

  7.   Shankar says:

    Bell is no Mark Waugh - all these English followers are going nuts over his batting when all he has done is make some runs in easy tests and a few tight tests - er, isn’t that what he is in the side for? To compare him to Gower and Waugh is sad. England have one great batsman (Pietersen) and nudgers around him. That’s not so bad if you accept it. Stop making him what he is not!!

  8.   Gr8ron says:

    Ian bell will come good because kp has given him two important roles,1 down test,opener can see some of the stats already 100 test 8500 runs,250 odi’s 8000 runs.

Leave a Reply

Site by Anson Robson Marketing © 2009 The Wisden Cricketer All Rights Reserved