Out for 199

To everyone's great relief, we miraculously aren't 2-1 down in the cricket in South Africa, though we probably should be, to be twice saved by the heroics of our No 11 is astonishingly fortunate(interestingly, Mr Onions has yet to be dismissed in South Africa). In our recent escape, much of the credit has been heaped on Ian Bell, for 'saving the test' and ensuring we're still in the series. Allied to his commanding century a week before, he begins to look instrumental in the series.

By most accounts, his faults are now forgiven and he is now considered to have cemented his place in the team. Yet, though a positive development, I see no reason to revise my longstanding view of his enduring frailties. Former fellow travellers are hailing his new dawn and the turning point of his career, but the evidence is mixed.



Let's look at his performance by innings:

1. 48. A classic Bell score - just threatening to do something, and falling short (See also his famous 199, also against South Africa)


2. 78. The score here is irrelevant (213 balls faced is more important), but clearly the best performance by any England batsman in this innings -

And it is the significance of this last point that is crucial. I am glad that he seems to improving; I am glad that he did well in this situation, but I don't think it's decisive evidence that he has sorted out the mental issues.

• Firstly, These are not world beating scores. He scored more in one innings (and faced more balls than his defining second innings here) in the previous test - let's not too excited. And, as far as feats of defiance go, it clearly doesn't rank close to Atherton's glorious 185*, also in South Africa. In fact, Jack Russell in that match faced more balls, and he's not a great batsman.
• Nor was the attack impregnable. SA were one bowler down on a slow pitch and with an ineffective spinner.
• As a whole, the series gives me no reason to point to a renaissance. Shit in the first test, one great innings in the second test, when Cook had done the work, and some goodish, but not stunning, scores in the third. If he'd really sorted it out, his first innings not his second would been decisive.
• Overall, averages do matter, and he's currently got a worse test average than Prior, which is astonishing. Nor should we be deceived by the occasional string of anomalous scores: for example, Mark Ramprakash has an average of 42 against Australia (Bell's, for the record, is just shy of 26), yet we know he suffers from similar problems.

I think the decisive piece of evidence is his conduct at the end. Damningly, having got England within touching distance of the draw, he bottled it. Suddenly we were 8 down; and he panicked. A genuinely tough performer would have got them through.

Now, this shouldn't be read as suggesting Ian Bell isn't a good cricketer. Clearly, he's very good; equally clearly, he's always has been technically excellent. He has done well this time and he may go on to great things. But he hasn't done enough to dispel my doubts. I hope I am wrong, I fear I am not.