Bell shows why Strauss is right
A recent interview with Ian Bell quotes him as saying regarding his recent axeing from the test side
Changes had to be made, it’s difficult, no one got any runs and we were beaten heavily so someone had to go and it was my turn…In the warm-up games the runs came, but obviously I just had that one opportunity in Jamaica and we didn’t play well as a side so changes had to be made.
Can anyone else see a problem here? I am not the only one to realise that Ian Bell seems to think that he was dropped because England were bowled out for 51 and lost the first test against West Indies.
Does he not realise that he was dropped because he has not been making enough runs for a prolonged period of time? That the only time he makes a test hundred is when one of his colleagues does likewise? That looking pretty for 30 or 40 might have been considered praiseworthy in the 1920s but that in this modern era volume of runs is about 10 times more important than how you get them?
At the time of the 51 all out shambles, Bell had the following to say:
Just one of those days
As if to say: “Yeah, that was rubbish, but never mind. What can you do?”. Staggering.
Now, Ian Bell is not a bad cricketer. A very good one, actually, at least techinically speaking. But it should be a long time before he is allowed to play for England again, for the simple reason that his temperament lets him down with alarming regularity. And if you don’t believe me, better judges than I think so too.
Andrew Strauss made a big play about players taking responsibility for themselves. It may have been with players such as Bell and Steve Harmison in mind that this policy was adopted. It is the right policy.
The captain and coach of the team are the strategic engine of the team, controlling the tactics, selection and training schedules. Mollycoddling and nursing senior yet feeble cricketers is not part of their remit.
Comments:
0