Originally posted by Ian68
Well I can't be bothered trawling through old scorecards, but I'm sure you'll find that most of our best totals in recent games have come when Bell has played a long innings. Attacking batsmen need a platform to work from or they're under too much pressure to be able to play naturally.
I had a quick look myself.
E.g. the recent CB series. England scores:
242 (Bell 15, Pietersen 82, Collingwood 43, Flintoff 47)
206 (Bell 45, Flintoff 72*)
155 (Bell 10)
120 (Bell 2)
110 (Bell 35)
260 (Bell 31, Joyce 66, Nixon 49)
292 (Bell 51, Joyce 107)
270 (Bell 12, Collingwood 106, Strauss 55)
253 (Bell 65, Collingwood 120*)
246 (Bell 26, Loye 26, Collingwood 70, Flintoff 42)
So not a big correlation between his big scores and team big scores. No more than other key batsmen.
Most runs:
Collingwood 379 at 47
Bell 292 at 29
Joyce 288 at 32
Flintoff 281 at 35
I agree about the need of a platform, but I don't think the stats support your assertion. And I don't think a team can be said to be reliant on one batsman when at least two others are more important.