It is a regrettable situation when an England batsman can start a one-day series with scores of 126* and 64 and still find some sections of the media calling for his head. That is the position Ian Bell found himself in earlier this week, before he silenced the doubters (for now) with a match-winning 79 in the 3rd ODI at Edgbaston. Bell, the argument goes, is too meek for one-day cricket, his inability to rotate the strike and dominate good attacks exerting interminable pressure on the other members of the top-order. Bell is 25, and boasts an average of nigh on 40 from his 50 one-dayers at a strike rate of 70.98, good enough figures to rank him currently 35th in the all-time ODI batting averages.
To bear comparison, India's monolithic captain Rahul Dravid sits just 11 places above him in the list, with a career average of 40.55 and a virtually indistinguishable strike rate difference of .57 runs per hundred balls. The difference is that Dravid has played 323 matches to Bell's 50, scored 12 hundreds to Bell's one, and 81 half-centuries to Bell's 13. In Dravid's first 50 ODI's he averaged 34, yet now stands as one of the most feared batsman in the world. The message is clear to England, stick with Bell, and one day he may well have emulated or even bettered these figures. Intriguingly Bell's strike-rate is only one run below that doyen of England one-day batsmen, Nick Knight, a man fondly remembered for his tendency to smear opposition attacks to all parts.
Yet, will this evidence be enough to save Bell from future attack? Unlikely, and such is the hectic nature of the international calendar that it may be only as soon as the end of this series that his place comes under scrutiny once more. A week truly is a long time in one-day cricket. The tolerance that the selectors show towards him in both forms of the game will determine whether he becomes an England institution, or cricket's answer to Glenn Hoddle and John Barnes, with future generations left to wonder how someone blessed with such an aesthetically pleasing technique could fail to prosper at international level.
Bell is something of a figurehead for this young England one-day team, if only in that he is one step further down the international career path than the young generation who promise so much for the future- namely Cook, Panesar, Tremlett, Prior, Bopara and Broad. As such, how he is treated from now will give a real insight into England's future chances of success. It is given that these young players will produce inconsistent performances as they settle into the international arena, yet this must be tolerated and handled with appropriate patience. After all, the Chris Tremlett who did much to win the match at Edgbaston by dismissing the well-set pair of Dravid and Ganguly had taken a pasting at Bristol and been withdrawn from the attack in Birmingham after going for 20 from his first two overs. England have performed fantastically in the first three matches of the series, yet there will undoubtedly be blips in the future.
Asking for the England selectors to show patience is one thing, as fortunately they show an increasing tendency towards loyalty, yet begging the same of the media is a different matter. Whether the English press will ever be able to break away from a culture that demands immediate success is open to debate. It is such an entrenched part of a society that lives too much of its life through other people that it seems inevitable that it is here to stay.
One only need look across to football to see the fruits of patience. The same Cristiano Ronaldo vilified for his selfishness and wasteful tendencies as United crashed out of the Champions League to Benfica in 2005 was feted just a year later as the best player in the world as he swept United to the Premier League title. For Ronaldo, this short period of time, which included an exceptional personal World Cup, was enough to give him the maturity to convert his unbelievable talents into a consistent end product. Fortunately Sir Alex Ferguson was wise enough to see this, and supported his young player as others criticised.
Sadly, this is an exception that proves the rule. Spurs' chairman Daniel Levy clearly feels that spending £40m gives his club an instant right to Champions League football, never mind the fact that the majority of that money was spent on three players under the age of 21 with absolutely no Premier League experience. Spurs, like the England one-day team, are a side rich in promise, but full of young players who will struggle to produce the consistency needed to produce an immediate challenge for honours. Levy's obsession with signing only players young enough to increase significantly in value, thus boosting the worth of the club to potential investors, is costing them the chance to maximise their potential in the immediate term. Whether any of these exceptional young players will still be with a club that muddies itself further with every passing day to witness long term success questionable. Levy must realise he cannot have it both ways.
The Arsenal side that will probably pip them to the final Champions League spot have started the season in a way that shows they are determined to prove wrong a media who have slammed them as too young, over elaborate and a soft touch over the last 12 months. It will be incredibly satisfying if Arsene Wenger is able to stick two fingers up to that same media in a year or two as his at times breathtaking team acquire the maturity to sweep beyond their competition and regain the title. It may not happen, but would prove conclusively the value in allowing potentially great players to mature at their own pace. And I say that as a Spurs fan.
