i have always been a believer. i have been waiting for this easter tuesday when he would rise and prove to all doubting thomases that he is the real one. i have bene laughed at for saying that he is the Rahul Dravid of England. This is the man who will rarely be out of form and long after the flash cars have broken down this dependable runner will be in business and who knows one day he might be the england captian

Firstly, lets not get carried away with one win, how many times have we seen that before. But with Bell, I think it is sad that he is constantly overlooked when playing well, an average of 42.39 in Tests is not to be sniffed at, but he is the first to be singled out, or maybe the second after Strauss, when he doesn't turn up. I think it is down to his resolve that we got the draw in the third test, although it is also down to him that the that few overs were more nervy than they should have been. Furthermore, centuries in one-dayers are not ten-a-penny. Well done Cookie and Belly.

Awesome stuff by England and kudos to the two young bucks, Bell and Cook but I feel really sorry for poor ol' Owais Shah! Poor Guy! How luckless can you be? England' best batsman during the Windies' series, now theres o way he'll be able to get a look in. That is if England decides to go by the old adage 'If it 'aint broken, don't fix it' If he was a little younger I'd advise he wait out the 4 years so he could qualify for Pakistan since he was born in my hometown, but thats not happening. All in all, Bell was pretty flippin' sweet. Great stuff!

His performance in the previous ashes series sealed it for me, he looked calm, unflappable..and convinced me that he is the numero uno amongst all the emerging test batsmen in the world, albeit the last ODI proves he is no more the best emerging player in tests but also in one dayers.

Comparing Cook to Bell, most people would prefer watching the latter. Bell has the greater array of shots, looks much the more stylish, but Cook has tremendous mental strength (and a degree of good fortune when he is batting). Whilst acknowledging the effectiveness of Cook, I hope Bell makes the most of his greater talent because I believe he would give the cricket lover more pleasure/entertainment than Cook.

He's a boy amongst boys....still a boy amongst men. He still hasn't done anything outstanding against the real attacks....he's come close, but still far from graduating.

I have always wanted this little red headed swot to come of age. His talent has always been there but to me he has always looked like he was scared to be good lest it make the bowlers "up the ante" on him and he would get found out that he wasnt that good. I admit that when i saw the team list last night before the game, i wondered what England was doing, playing him ahead of Shah. As the innings unfolded i could sense that this was finally going to be the day for Ian Bell (of course i wasnt totally sure he could get to a hundred until he, well, got to a hundred) it was extremely satisfying to watch him play like it was all up to him for a change. I hope it wasnt a flash in the pan and that there are many more fine innings to come from him like that. Australia needs more than just Pietersen to be able to challenge them in the England team and I for one love a good, strong ashes series...so go Belly boy you good thing

Bell struggles against good attacks. He's been fortunate to face a poor Windies and Pakistan attack over the last 2 years. Against Aus he struggles. Apart from Aus the bowling is not as good as a decade ago. I wonder how he would have faired against Ambrose/Walsh or Waquar/Wasim or Donald/Pollock. The truth is the international attacks (barring Australia) are much weaker these days. Now McGrath & Warne have gone too can you honestly say there is a bowling attack that would put the fear up you in the world. I think Bell has been a bit fortunate to be around in such an era. Saying that I think he is a good player, just don't think he's anymore the great hope than Hick or Crawley who did face the attacks mentioned

Ian Bell has shown an ability to get the job done on many occasions against some very good attacks but has lacked the responsible, mature side that many have had. I have seen him play on tough pitches that the rest of the side has struggled on, but he has looked comfortable on. Last nights pitch was a belter and he lifted. I wouldnt write him off as a false hope just yet David. Last night he showed that he has taken a big step towards becoming a permanent and potent batsman that oppositions will fear.

@ David

Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath, Warne... they are all one-offs, special bowlers. Just as Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid are all one-off batsmen. Not to mention there is the addage that you can only play against the team that turns up. If Bell and Cook score runs against the attacks they are presented (from test teams that have been around a while and are recognised as being good) then we shouldn't belittle their achievement.

Anyway, I've always been a believer in Bell, even if my belief did wane a little after the 2005 Ashes. He still has a good technique, he's still young and is one of the best close in fielders I've seen for a while, with brilliant co-ordination and lightening reflexes. With a little more time, a little more confidence (I think that's what he lacks) and a little more belief, he will be a stalwart of England's middle order for a long time to come. Indeed, against Pakistan last year and the Windies this year, we've already seen what he can do from number 6. I wish him all the best.

I'm please for Bell. Why he has flattered to deceive so much is beyond me. His technique and ability looks sound,beyond that enough faith has been shown in him to banish any confidence issues. I think he's a different case to Ramps and Hick, namely because he showed some sense and backbone against a rampant Aus in the ashes down under. hopefully now he will kick on but remember it is only one innings. one thing i will add is that when our middle order comes under question i would be scrutinising Paul Collingwood more. He is older, less versatile and nowhere near as talented as Bell. England now may struggle to drop him because of the one day captaincy which would be so so unfortunate on Bell

Bell has been trying to walk the walk for ages - consider how often he has been out hooking or cuttig. Forget this psychological rot. His problem is now technical. He is a short feller and plays from the crease against nippy bowling - neither forward not back - and on a lively track is a shoe-in for an off stump nibble. If the ball moves back he may get trapped in front or bowled. Yesterday he came in just as Zaheer was coming off. The ball was undeviating, the pitch was flat, the middle innings bowling was soggy. Yum. He played quite beautifully, but against Tendulkar and Yuvraj. He must show he can move those feet under more spicey conditions.

As a Warwicks fan I have followed Belly's career quite closely and I firmly believe he should go onto to play 100 Test and 200 ODIs.

He hs grown since that 2005 Ashes series,and I think it shows, especially in the World Cup Match against Australia when he made about 80 at a decent rate, and hit Glenn McGrath over cover twice.

The guy will grow and grow and he and KP will become entrenched in the top ten of the world rankings for years to come.

Give me a break guys. Talk about put the mocker on a good young batsman. Certainly Bell has potential but seriously, who is going to give 2 stuffs about this century and this victory this time next year. In 2 consecutive ashes series Bell has looked to a large extent like a boy among men. I hope he can be the next big thing. He is certainly a delight to watch when he is flowing but if anyone thinks this innings played in another meaningless one day match is some kind of "announcement" then you are doing the poor guy a diservice. Perhaps if it had been in the pressure of a world cup semifinal/final then I'd agree. Pressure does funny things to people but I hope you're all right in the long run.

After losing the test series England has bounced
back wining the 1st ODI against India comfortably.
Both Cook and bell has played valuable inings proving they are equali good in one day cricket. keep it up.

Bell has that classic english technique. he isnt as talented as many batsmen but his technique is good enough to build an innings and later be dangerous. Personally, i see him as more stout player against pace than say collingwood who is more talented yet has less technical prowess. Good to see some old fashioned cricket with a player who plays with his elbow out and in v.

I can't see Bell ever being a 'dominating' batsman, similar to Botham or Ricky Ponting. His strengths are occupation of the crease and accumulation of runs rather than pounding bowlers into oblivion. With batsmen like Vaughan, Pietersen and Flintoff in the lineup, England should be looking for Bell to be a solid, consistent performer and allow the others around him to be aggressive.

Bell is another Hick, who plays one good innings against a mediocre bowling and then struggles against a "real" attack. more than anything, what i find lacking in him is that extra guts to face the bowlers, who are mentally more dominating. And never does he play well under pressure. I really don't understand, why english selectors have been giving him more chances than others and also at the expense of more talented and gutsy performers. And you are bound to play a few good innings given so many chances. Just because he has better technique doesn't mean anything! i would prefer Richards types anyday over the likes of a technically perfect batsman.

Ian Bell has finally arrived. He has been promising too much too many times but strangely failing to deliver at crucial moments. With his awesome technique,brilliant footwork and patience to match, he definetly belongs to the next generation of superstars. ECB should never, in their right mind, think about dropping a batsmen of such class.Lets us sit back and enjoy the rise of SUPER BELL!!

Bell has good technique if he moves his feet. On quicker bouncier pitches with deviation off the pitch or in the air he struggles. Those feet again.

I've seen Bell since he was 12, he's always looked the same, calm, mature and very, very good. I feel he's unlucky to have been pushed down to 6 in the order as a lot of us feel he's a natural No.3 and should be allowed to grow into the role.

The fellow is pure class and way ahead of any other English player of his generation.

Most of the criticism of him is facile and misguided.

ive always seen Bell to be a player and a half, though he has always been unable to convert. but all the same i believe this is the beginning of a booming career, well done Bell and Cook

Bell's an important , if not the most important, part of England's fab four. His ability to keep the runs flowing thick and fast while sticking to "book cricket", is a mighty bonus and an apt foil to the flamboyance of Freddie and KP, not mention Collingwood's nicks and tucks.

He is an integral part of this young English team, I am baffled as to why he would be coming in at the number 6. He doesn't have the dominating power of a Flintoff or Pietersen but him along with Collingwood are what give the side backbone and stability. He plays pretty straight and down the ground which is great for a number 3 batsman and as his confidence grows, he will be able to switch gears and improvise at will. He is definitely growing as a one-day player and Im excited to see how far he goes.

@Mike: Ian's not your nephew, is he?! I agree people can be a little overcritical of Belly, but from what I've seen I would say the comments about confidence/dominance at ther crease, concentration and foot movement are all spot on. If Belly is half the player you think he is, he will be aware of all these things and will be working them out. I look forward to 7000 test runs at 43 and 4000 ODI runs at 40, plus a load of great sharp catches at short leg...

What complete garbage...again. Just explain to me how this chap gets to write a blog? It's one innings, repeat, ONE INNINGS! And it was a very fine innings, but it was only ONE INNINGS. Now if Bell had scored a bucketful of runs in the test series, or had been in great form during the Windies one dayers, I might be convinced by this argument. But he didn't, and he wasn't. So let's just stop this nonsense that is being esposed in this column. He's a decent and talented player, but he's not the second coming of Viv Richards. So let's get back to some kind of reality, and try to write something grounded in fact, not fantasy

Now I know you won't have the guts to publish my last comment, but I just thought I would come back and be a smug "I told you so". Because Bell single-handedly cost England that second ODI...scoring at 60 runs / 100 balls, failing to rotate the strike, and finding too many fielders when needing to score against the spinners. All the other batters were left with too much to do, and they got out trying to up the scoring rate when Bell was letting it drift. That total could have been overcome, and they only needed to be 20 runs closer going into the last 5 overs to have got there. Bell was pathetic, and he was responsible for England's failure tonight. His century was a blip in a generally mediocre one day career. Perhaps you might now find something of value to write about in your blog, although based on your previous tripe, that's unlikely

Good player but nowhere near a 'great' or the finished article, he takes up too many dot balls and slows down the scoring rate in his role at present. How often do you see him winning games for England in ODI's?, he too often he gets just enough of a score (at a slow rate) to stay in the side rather than be there at he end, be the match winner. Needs to be more aggressive later in his innings. Moreover not physically or mentally capable of dominating opposition, found out by bowlers with nagging accuracy and subtle variation. A player known for a classic english technique and disciplined, methodical approach, but unable to tough it out against the best when it matters and on difficult batting surfaces advantageous to bowlers. Indeed he much prefers to come in when the team is on top, able to relax and perform knowing he has less pressure on him individually to perform. He has shown in patches a capability to hit over the top but rarely delivers consistently and buckles easily under pressure. Can and should do better, but the potential is definitely there.

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Keep at it Belly.

Ian Bell is a great bat ...have seen some of his innings.
He is technically very sound and has great shot selection and temperament. This lad could compete with the likes of Ponting and Gibbs. He has looked better than most of his other Engllish counterparts . Needs some more time to groom.

Thanks

Jack

I wouldn't care if Bell had never hit a century. His regular contributions to the England cause are more important than spasmodic moments of brilliance which affect odd games.For England to become consistently better we need players to contribute regularly, not one headline grabbing hundred but lose a series anyway

I have always admired Bell's gracious technique, which is why I could not help but think before the game at the Rose Bowl why he had'nt yet gotten a hundred. That soon changed; but being a 17 yr old Indian living in australia (getting flack all the time for being an Indian supporter) I could feel the pain endured by all the Indian players as Bell took the game away from us.

Now reflecting back on why Bell had'nt scored a hundred in 45 innings, I came up with a solution. He has immaculate technique, which is what shapes his game and this technique requires a lot of concentration, more so than the concentration required by a Gillchrist or a Sehwag. Without his technique, Bell does'nt have the power to make the runs. Hence he takes up loads to time at the crease. Now to make a hundred, he would have to take up more time than the ordinary which requires a longer period of concentration. So because he requires concentration for so long, he has a greater chance of getting out before getting to the tonnes.

Average player, still has to achieve miles more to be considered anywhere near a great player. Should not class this player in the same league as Botham or Ponting or even KP.

I think he's a wonderful player, great timer of the ball, and with more experience, he would definitely be in the class of great players. No doubt about that. Remember Sachin took close to 100 matches to get a hundred. England do need players like him, I don't quite agree that he's slow and plays for himself, thats foolish.
Neither do I subscribe to the argument that he's not very good against good bowling attacks. Just give him some more time, invest in him and see what he returns to England. Am a great fan of Bella, he's classy and treat to watch. Just caresses the ball, runs hard between wickets, is a wonderful fielder and quite athletic. He sort of makes me feel that "Solidity" is his surname. I would call him, Ian "soldier" Bell :)

It's good, but not enough to warrant all that time and money England put into him.
Bell's batting at 3 in ODIs, that should be Pieterson's spot. Bell will have to average over 40 to genuinely keep it. Not this mid 30 stuff.

I'm a fan of Ian Bell, I think he's got the right stuff, but I want him performing a his best as often as possible, not occasionally.