The case against Ian Bell

Once again, we're back debating Ian Bell's spot in the England team. And that sums up one of my (and many others') enormous frustrations - he can never quite cement his place in the side, despite the fact that his batting can ooze class. His 199 last summer against South Africa was hailed as a break through for him, after so many other false dawns, but he went on to score 133 runs in his other six innings in that series.

I've tried desperately not to blame Bell for the fact that he was picked ahead of Graham Thorpe for the 2005 Ashes - I watched him score his 70 on debut against the West Indies and, quality innings though it was, there was the definite whiff of easy runs to be had. He then went on to score a huge amount of runs in two Tests against Bangladesh and on that basis was selected for The Ashes ahead of Thorpe, seemingly on the basis that he was young and could hit second rate bowling about a bit. Warne in particular soon showed that it was too early for him, leaving him with an average of 17. You can see Bell's series averages here.

England's management have a problem with number 3 and it would seem like Bell should be the answer. That is, until you look at his results there. He averages 31 in the critical number 3 position and that means, for me, that he shouldn't be considered there again for the forseeable future. It's not like he's been bereft of chances - England need to consider him as a number 5 and select him if he is good enough to see off the others competing for that position.

Bell supporters will no doubt point to Bell's start to the season - 172 on a batting paradise at Taunton, but as Vic Marks pointed out in The Oberver, that score started to look less valuable as James Hildreth racked up a triple century. Next Bell scored another hundred against the same opposition, but this time at Edgbaston. But even in success, more questions were asked - once again Bell's big innings hadn't helped win the match - in fact Somerset won easily by 8 wickets. It's of course not Bell's fault that his colleagues didn't bat better around him, but the suspicion remains that he doesn't win games for his team, or dig in when the going gets tough.

So what to make of Bell's prospects in the future? I think he's England's Damien Martyn - he'll come back to play for England for years and ultimately be successful. But right now he needs to play a season of County Cricket and average 70 or 80 over a season, making scores when his team really need him to and helping them to win matches. I fear that the England management still see him as a number 3, but on the assumption that they decide he's better placed in the middle order, his best bet is to wait until Collingwood gets injured or retires - he's only 32, but his gritty style is such that as soon as his batting goes, it will really go quickly. And that's if he gets through injury-free - he's likely to play for England in all 3 forms of cricket so his body could buckle.

In The Wisden Cricketer, they talk about the Bell predicament using Collingwood as a parallel who digs in when required. But I think Collingwood is too good to be compared with Bell at the moment - he averages more than 3 runs an innings more than Bell and has scored four hundreds in his last 8 Tests, not to mention an additional 96. Come to think of it, should I be concerned that Thorpe scored four hundreds during calendar year 2004, before being dropped? Please England management - don't repeat the wrongs of 2005 again this year. Leave the England 1,2, 4 and 5 as they are, and consider Shah, Key, Bopara and Vaughan (who averages 40 there) for the number 3 slot. You can even consider Bell, as long...as you don't pick him!