Ian Bell: a modern myth.

To the tune of ‘Deck The Halls’, junior school children of my age would mockingly sing:

Man United are short-sighted, never scored a goal in history.

My admiration for the rhyming of ‘Man United’ with ‘short-sighted’ outweighs the slightly bizarre doubts cast upon the team’s vision. Yet the idea that the reigning champions of England had ‘never scored a goal in history’ would prove difficult to substantiate. Oddly, the a-historical nature of the poem did not stop us from singing. Often in sports, the truth refuses to match the reputation we give it. Yet rarely does the truth prevent us from believing the things we choose to be convinced of.

In the months leading up to the first Ashes Test of 2013, Ian Bell had been struggling for runs. I am tempted to say that he struggled for form, yet he seldom looks short of form irrespective of how many runs he scores. He is the reverse of Paul Collingwood, who looked permanently short of form whilst scoring big runs. Following Bell’s first inning failure, the usual criticisms surfaced: Bell only scores easy runs; Bell plays nice shots then gets out; when has Bell ever played a match-winning innings? He never performs against big opponents. This is the reputation we have chosen to believe. This is the cliché-ridden caricature we love to sketch. And this is a sketch drawn in permanent marker, whilst the truth remains scribbled in the corner in invisible ink. This disregard for facts even led one combative cricket fan to contact BBC Sport with the claim ‘Bell has never scored a century against the top nations’. Really? That’s tantamount to claiming that Manchester United has never scored a goal in history. Even a quick glance at Ian Bell’s record would reveal centuries against every test playing nation. But why should we allow facts to get in the way of our outspoken bluster? Ian Bell’s reputation was developed (aged 23) in the lion’s den against Warne, McGrath and Brett Lee. And though Bell entered the 2005 Ashes with an inflated average of 297, his performance that summer quickly deflated the nation’s view of him (despite two consecutive 50s in that 2005 Ashes).

 

Bell’s recent match-changing 109 was hailed as a ‘coming of age’ innings. For those keeping count, this is approximately the fifth time Ian Bell has played a ‘coming of age’ innings. The truth has been so deeply buried beneath layers of public opinion that an excavation of the facts may prove to be a formidable task; but here we go.

Claim One: Ian Bell plays a few nice shots, but doesn’t score big runs. Bell averages 46.58, totalling 6242 test match runs with 36 fifties and 19 centuries. To put that in historical perspective, he is 14^th all-time amongst English run-scorers, tied for 9^th place for most centuries and tied 7^th for innings of 50+. In case you think that Bell is merely a product of increased scheduling, 10 of the 13 players who have out-scored him have taken more innings to achieve their totals. Only Hutton, Barrington and Hammond have out-scored Bell in fewer innings. David Gower, another elegant batsman and an England great, scored 18 centuries in 204 innings at 44.25. Bell has (already) scored one more century at a higher average whilst playing 50 fewer innings. I am not suggesting that Bell is better than Gower, but the evidence leads us to question the notion that Bell is a flop while Gower is a great.

Claim Two: Bell doesn’t perform against the top opponents. Ian Bell averages 44 in Australia, 45 in South Africa, 41 vs. India, 46 vs. Pakistan and 68 vs. Sri Lanka. We should expect that batsman do better against weaker opposition, and while this is true of Ian Bell, his statistics are surprisingly balanced given his reputation, or indeed any reputation. In 2011, which began with the back end of an Ashes tour and continued with England’s chase for the top test ranking against the might of India, Bell averaged 118.75 with five centuries. The claim that Bell scores pretty 30s and 40s against poor opponents just doesn’t stack up.

Claim Three: Ian Bell doesn’t play match-winning innings. He only scores easy runs. The truth is, batsman score more runs in friendlier conditions. Added to this, match-winning innings are rare. Runs are usually scored in the first innings, and usually set up a victory which is then won by the bowlers. For example, Sachin Tendulkar is the leading all-time century maker in test cricket. Yet only one of his 51 hundreds was a victorious fourth innings knock. Quite simply, they are rare. Bell however, famously rescued England in Johannesburg with a five hour innings of 78 to save the test with his job on the line. Add to this his three consecutive centuries batting with the tail against Pakistan to give England victory. Throw in his 199 against South Africa at Lord’s, his 159 and 235 against India to give England the number one test ranking, and now three consecutive centuries in Ashes battles and you have a batsman who defies his reputation. As for the claim that Bell shrinks on the ‘big stage’, his average of 60 at Lord’s with four centuries against Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and West Indies is quite baffling.

With every slump in form, from which every batter suffers, Bell’s public reputation sadly defaults to the lazy caricature of a flawed genius. In truth, this reflects the reality that it is easy to gain a reputation, but difficult to shed one. Yet as his critics pounce upon every failure, Bell is slowly climbing the rankings. If he continues at his career pace, Bell will equal Alec Stewart (currently England’s 2^nd highest run scorer) at only age 34 (while Stewart played until 40 years old). Yet I doubt he will ever be much more than one failure away from the sighs of the critics. It seems that we have chosen to be naturally suspicious of Bell, or indeed many players of his ilk. We much prefer our sportsmen to be hard-nosed, grafters with a flair for the mediocre, than elegant and stylish. It would seem that we simply cannot conceive of an athlete being both elegant and determined. He must either be gritty and limited, or stylish and erratic. We only allow for these two categories and woe to anyone who attempts to defy them.

I am not suggesting that Ian Bell is a Bradman or Tendulkar. Neither am I suggesting that Ian Bell should go down as a cricketing great. But I am suggesting that we should accept, however reluctantly, that Ian Bell is a very good player, and that the common caricature of him is little more than a modern myth.