The Ashes 2009
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
I mean they're not 'shot' makers or if they are they keep it well hidden (yes Bopara has failed to score and is a bad example). Traditionally a number 3 and 4 has been the best player, ready to take the game away from the opposition. I don't see that in Bell and Collingwood.
As a cricket lover, of current test players I'd rather watch Mohammed Yousuf, Kumar Sangakarra, Ricky Ponting, Hashim Amla, Chris Gayle, KP.. just an aside. Of course I want to see Bell do well, I just wish he would!
As a cricket lover, of current test players I'd rather watch Mohammed Yousuf, Kumar Sangakarra, Ricky Ponting, Hashim Amla, Chris Gayle, KP.. just an aside. Of course I want to see Bell do well, I just wish he would!
Well there is the question of what England were doing for the other 130-odd of Symonds's knock. Shit happens, but people still don't win test matches without making runs and taking 20 wickets, however they do it. It's like Marx said (in a different context): 'men make their own history, but they do not do it just as they please.'
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Kabbes- why would we want bell to fail? Aslong as he does his job as he should and helps the team into a good match winning position(which is his job at number 3), then were fine with that, problem is, he doesn't most of the time.
Because if there is one thing people love more than a victory, it's righteous anger against a scapegoat? And to be proved right in their negative opinion of someone?
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Yes, but to him there will be something magical... If he gets out now, people will rightly or wrongly say 'he blew it' whereas with another player, they wouldn't.
If he scores 120+ he can say, "I played in a massive game under huge pressure and fronted up and did it" - saying "oh, but I scored an 80 once in the ashes" is somewhat pathetic in the fullness of time really for a player of his ability.
I can't imagine Waugh or someone saying, "y'know, 80 isn't a bad score when you think about it"
I agree with you, Bell is under pressure, but the pressure he is under is a result of repeated faliure when it matters. He justified his selection already to an extent, but to really justify it, to make it seem like he deserves the spot for a while etc, well, he's still got some work to do, which I would imagine, he and anyone else can see.
This is his third Ashes series and he hasn't got a hundred yet irc. Aussie first timers Marcus North has about THREE! Brad Haddin has got one etc etc... (2 or 3 can't remember) - So y'know. He needs a big score. Simple.
And I hope he gets it and more.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Carl Hooper retired ages ago. And if you think Bell's wasting his talent, what did Hooper do?
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
No, not really.
No. He just has to make enough to prove that he can step up to the plate when the team need him and doesn't make 'enough' runs and get out.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point completely, and obviously aren't going to listen to anyone explaining what we really think. Continue overreacting though, nevermind.
No, I do get it. But surely when a guy scores (checks...) 71 not out, you can put such things behind you and say "Good on yer, mate"? And accept that he has at least justified himself enough to deserve another chance? Even if it is only one more chance?
It was against India, please get a clue. It's quite famous, you know. And pretty much everyone except Australia thinks they were robbed.
(in the other 130 they got him out twice more, and neither were given, FYI. Another fun one was Dravid getting a shocker to spark a batting collapse on the last day).
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
We've already explained a thousand times and you come back with the same answer.
Okay then, replace 'England' with 'India' and the point still stands.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
Sorry mental typo, I meant Chris Gayle, not Hooper (obv. going mad) - and the qualification was either 'dominant' runs or consistent scoring against all comers.
I'm only disappointed with Bell to date.. for this innings a big score would be 150 plus..?
Er, yes. Because I don't think your explanation stands up of course.
Jesus, it gets higher and higher. What other player would be judged a success only if they scored 150?
Probably in the end. As with a lot of stats (which Kabbes should appreciate), the better he does, the higher the bar gets raised.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Even though everyone else is saying it? Ok, but you're right ofcourse.
It's not that so much, it's just that it's almost universal that people feel when players get out 'oh, if only he'd managed a few more runs.' After all, if he got out for 120, say, I suspect even he would feel that he'd missed a chance at a few more.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
So Bell has consistently performed well for England in pressure situations and been a regular match winner in crucial games has he?
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Fackin hell, last 11 overs: 11 runs 1 wicket, ugh. Didn't realize it was that bad.
It's test cricket. It's like that sometimes. And no one's going to want to be out just before tea.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is the first day of a test match. 11 runs 1 wicket is better than 50 runs 2 wickets. Have some patience.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Aye i know.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
It's not just a target for Bell though, although it is him discussed here? Throughout test cricket for any batsman, there is a call to make big scores (leveled at Cook for not making more than 130? in his first 8 centuries?, KP for not making more than 158 for a while..) and in test cricket that means 150 plus.. that's one fairly standard measure of a test batsman?
I would question Cook, Bopara, Bell, Collingwood for any number of reasons, in Bell's case though it has always been that he has not made a big score against the Aussies and failure not to 'go on'.. I'm pleased he's doing well here, but the answer to your question about Bell, is that a score that would brook no arguments from people would be 150 plus.. even if he makes a ton, people will say 'why didn't he capitalise on a pitch when it's at his best, when he was well set etc.'
