Is Ian Bell a better fit at No. 5?

This Test is possibly the fulcrum of the series and so momentum will no doubt be the buzz word around the England dressing-room at present. Come Thursday as two patched up teams move to Edgbaston, both sides will be looking to try to exploit weaknesses apparent within each camp.

For Australia, concerns about Phillip Hughes and Mitchell Johnson will need to be addressed, while the loss of Kevin Pietersen has posed the English team noticeable issues in the middle order. If Australia are to seize the initiative in this series, a win is pivotal at a ground where of the 43 Tests staged, England have won 22.

England have handed a Test lifeline to Ian Bell, brought in to replace Pietersen. Bell is a batsman of undisputed talent; a classical stroke-maker with a honed technique, solid enough to slot in at No. 3, possibly the most difficult of Test batting positions. Many expect Bell to be inserted at first-wicket down to allow a visibly less-than-comfortable Ravi Bopara to drop down a place or two to repair his fractured confidence by way of facing the older ball.

Bopara has looked unsettled in the first two Tests; batting at an irregular tempo without his usual verve and swagger at the crease. Bell, with his tighter technique and impressive county form, appears a sound choice to replace a player who is showing signs of mental and technical fatigue at first drop. While such an order change seems to be the consensus, England must resist the temptation to do so as this would be to the detriment of both men.

Bopara possesses the character to recover his form and succeed at No. 3 where an ability to exert one’s personality on an innings is crucial. Bopara has the potential to dictate the pace and rhythm of an innings, in a manner that no other English batsman currently does. The selectors strive for continuity and so must persevere with Bopara at three.

Bell is a batsman who tends to bat successfully in the slipstream of more dominant batsmen. Add to that, a moderate Test record at No. 3 (averaging 31) and a tendency to compound an innings in the middle order show why Bell will fit better at No. 5 (where he has unfinished business, averaging 54.4).

A steely Paul Collingwood, having scored a double-century against the Australians batting at No. 4 in 2006, should not have too many qualms about being asked to bat one position higher.

So is Bell the correct choice? He has responded to the request from the England hierarchy to show “more hunger” this season, scoring runs at an average of 64.70 across 13 innings, but have the selectors shown a lack of trust in the county game, or is there simply a dearth of talent to choose from?

Bell, with the experience of two Ashes series behind him is pragmatically perhaps the best option, but poor records in both of these series (502 runs at 25.10) have prompted a number of different names to be put forward for consideration, if only to provide batting cover for the Edgbaston Test.

Bell’s Warwickshire team-mate Jonathan Trott has lodged a firm case for selection, having scored 101 more runs than Bell over the same number of innings this season, and what with batting at No. 4, would have represented a straight swap for Pietersen.

The Kent pair Rob Key and Joe Denly are names often bandied about but both, alongside Worcestershire’s Stephen Moore, would be forced to bat out of position if selected. As with Trott and Moore, the selectors would be loathe to hand out a Test debut in the middle of an Ashes series, and Denly’s time should come. Key’s time may have passed in the longer format of the game, as may the oft-overlooked Owais Shah and the popular choice of Mark Ramprakash. If the selectors want to look towards the future, then James Hildreth and Eoin Morgan are two emerging names who could produce a big impact in the middle order and who would benefit from being part of an Ashes squad as spare batting options.

All of these opinions are heresy due to Bell’s inclusion, but Adil Rashid is a final name worth a mention. To include Rashid would require Andrew Flintoff to be shunted up the order to No. 6, and so would result in an even loftier weight of responsibility on the Lancastrian’s broad shoulders. England’s bowling attack would be strengthened, but the batting unit would suffer and the attack regained a ruthlessness at Lord’s that was absent in Cardiff.

Of the unit, Flintoff, Graeme Swann and James Anderson are certainties for the third Test but one of Graham Onions and Stuart Broad could yet make way for an apparently rejuvenated Steve Harmison. England may try to replicate the performance from Harmison and Onions when they bowled Durham to victory at Edgbaston earlier in the season. The plan to forge home the advantage may leave Broad on the sidelines as he is yet to find his true character as a bowler, sometimes appearing indecisive about how to bowl in certain situations.

Having said that, England are unlikely to tamper with an attack that produced 20 wickets at Lord’s, and with a traditionally partisan Edgbaston crowd acting as a 12th man, England remain in a strong position despite the loss of Pietersen.