Bell Or Bopara

Bell is better. Just my opinion but who is easier on the eye?

They are arguably England's best players to watch but who would you rather watch get a ton?

Definitely Bell. Bopara also good though.

Stella wrote:Bell is better. Just my opinion but who is easier on the eye?

They are arguably England's best players to watch but who would you rather watch get a ton?

Bell actually gets tons, at least when they bat him sufficiently high up the order. Bopara doesn't, so zero comparison.

amanuensis wrote:

Stella wrote:Bell is better. Just my opinion but who is easier on the eye?

They are arguably England's best players to watch but who would you rather watch get a ton?

Bell actually gets tons, at least when they bat him sufficiently high up the order. Bopara doesn't, so zero comparison.

He has scored some before. I'm not debating who's better just who's more pleasing on the eye.

Morgan!

Bell's the best to watch if what you are looking for is technical correctness and elegant shot production - the best we've had at this since Vaughan retired.

Morgan is more exciting because he goes after the ball harder, in the same way as KP at his best.

Bopara is fairly good to watch, but does have holes in his game (as does Moggy) that mean he's less effective at Test level than as an ODI player - he's pretty good as an ODI batsman and occasional bowler, but I'm still to be convinced he's really got it at Test level (where he would be a batsman who at most would fill in with the ball).

I wouldn't say that Morgan is pleasing on the eye like a Bell, M Waugh but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Bell

Bell. In style the comparison with Mark Waugh is a decent one

Stella wrote:who is easier on the eye?

Bopara. Bell has a face that makes me what to punch him. Repeatedly. Oh, you were talking about cricket....

I don't like watching technically correct players! I see why people like watching Bell, but he doesn't excite me like Morgan does. Bell is probably nicer to watch, and easier on the eye but if I was spending my own money to see someone bat it would be Morgan (or James Taylor ).

Dizzle

Rather like Lara. Not elegant like Hooper but exciting.

Stella wrote:Dizzle

Rather like Lara. Not elegant like Hooper but exciting.

Lara though is far more orthodox (and better) than Morgan, while Bell is better than Hooper.

Bell by a country mile, a beautiful batsman to watch.

LondonTiger wrote:

Stella wrote:Dizzle

Rather like Lara. Not elegant like Hooper but exciting.

Lara though is far more orthodox (and better) than Morgan, while Bell is better than Hooper.

Yes, Bell is a better bat than Hooper but that's not the point. Hooper is more easy on the eye, for me than most players of his era.

The question wasn't who was better though, as there is no debate between Lara and Morgan, it was just who you prefer to watch. And for me, the excitement and unorthodoxicity of Morgan makes him better to watch than Bell or Bopara. All time favourite players to watch are Trescothick and Ponting though, and ABDV now.

JDizzle wrote:The question wasn't who was better though, as there is no debate between Lara and Morgan, it was just who you prefer to watch. And for me, the excitement and unorthodoxicity of Morgan makes him better to watch than Bell or Bopara. All time favourite players to watch are Trescothick and Ponting though, and ABDV now.

Yes, nothing to do with who is or was better.
Mark Waugh is the player I'd watch over anybody else. Bell comes close but Junior had a kind of laid back manner to his batting and fielding that set him apart.

Most of us have our hands over our faces when Bopara comes out to bat

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Most of us have our hands over our faces when Bopara comes out to bat

As I imagine did Alan Isaac when reading your recent article.

I just wish Bopara had a little more confidence.