Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Trott or Not

  1. #1
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473

    Trott or Not

    Trott or Not?

    Jonathan Trott is fast becoming English cricket’s Marmite man.

    To his supporters, he’s the team’s rock, their most dependable and consistent batsman, a player who does the dirty work while others steal the glory.

    To his detractors – and judging by the anti-Trott emails that come into our inbox during live text commentaries there are plenty of them - he represents everything that is wrong with England’s approach to one-day cricket.

    To them, his one-paced, risk-averse approach to batting is holding the team back and putting too much pressure on those around him to throw caution to wind.

    Thursday's third one-day international in Mohali offered plenty of ammunition to those on both sides of the divide.

    Although Trott top-scored with 98 not out off 116 balls, England lost the match by five wickets as India chased down a target of 299 to take an unassailable 3-0 lead in their five-match one-day series.

    To the naysayers, Trott’s inability to accelerate in the latter part of his innings – he didn’t score a single boundary in the last five overs – meant England weren’t able to pose a truly imposing total on a pitch where even Geoffrey Boycott’s mother and her well-worn stick of rhubarb would undoubtedly have thrived.

    But the flipside of the argument is to ask yourself where England would be without Trott?

    Despite missing out on a century, Trott was England’s top-scorer in Mohali, just as he has been in 14 of his 37 one-day international innings.

    His steady accumulation allowed first Kevin Pietersen, and then Samit Patel, to give it some humpty safe in the knowledge that there was someone at the other end that would be sticking around for the duration.

    Trott’s batting average of 53, with three hundreds and 15 fifties, is 13 runs better than any other England player to play more than 30 one-dayers, and places him fourth on the all-time list.

    “But what about his strike rate?” I hear you cry. “It is not the quantity of runs, it is the snail-like speed at which he scores them.”
    Trott averages 78.58 runs per 100 balls, placing him well off the pace of seasoned one-day destroyers like Virender Sehwag (104) and Shahid Afridi (113).

    But compared with his rivals for a place in the England side, Trott’s numbers stack up rather nicely.

    Alastair Cook has a similar strike rate of 78.59, but his average is only 37. Ravi Bopara, an infinitely more gifted strokeplayer than Trott, clocks in at 75, while Ian Bell - the player most likely to replace Trott in the England side - comes in at 73.37.

    Of England’s regular top five, only Kevin Pietersen and Craig Kieswetter score more quickly than Trott, but while the former has not scored a one-day century in his last 33 innings, the latter has just one ton in his 26 ODI knocks.

    Trott is never going to please the purists, his style of play will always have the capacity to frustrate, but he gives the England one-day side a dependability they have never really had, and in his ability to bat through an innings should be held up as an example to his under-performing team-mates.

    He is a genuine run machine in all forms of the game and could finish his career with a better Test and one-day average than any other England player in history.

    Perhaps, it’s Trott’s lot that he will not be fully appreciated until after he retires.

    As Joni Mitchell once sang, “you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.”

    Source: BBC - Sam Sheringham's blog: Trott or Not?

  2. #2
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473
    Can the mods please edit the title to include the question mark. I missed it

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,478
    Pretty sure it's just the world vs Bob Willis on this by now.

    Far more people pre-emptively defending him from potential detractors than there are detractors.
    'It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.'

  4. #4
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT, Leanyer
    Posts
    4,184
    Bit like the Watson debate. Some people will swear by numbers alone which will back Trott to keep on doing what he is, whilst others will be focused on how each man contributes to the goal of the team -> winning. His lack of ability to up the ante is costly to England as most decent players can score runs during dead-time, Overs 15-38, but to cash in then you really have to hit 50 of 35-40 balls at the end or get out.

    As such I would take a higher risk premium player in the middle overs with a slightly lower average, but higher sr, as in the long run it may be worth 10-15 rpg
    Last edited by Redbacks; 22-10-2011 at 08:25 AM.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbacks View Post
    Bit like the Watson debate. Some people will swear by numbers alone which will back Trott to keep on doing what he is, whilst others will be focused on how each man contributes to the goal of the team -> winning. His lack of ability to up the ante is costly to England as most decent players can score runs during dead-time, Overs 15-38, but to cash in then you really have to hit 50 of 35-40 balls at the end or get out.
    Except that's not the case with England. with the exception of Eoin Morgan, batting through those overs without losing wickets is the biggest problem facing the ODI batting. Bopara and Bell in particular have been guilty of this while still scoring slower than Trott does most of the time, while Pietersen scores a lot quicker but hasn't been converting starts enough.

    I take your point that a guy averaging 40 with an 85 strike rate would probably be more valuable, but the fact is we simply haven't got one. More to the point, there are at least two other players in the ODI side who would make way for him before Trott.
    Last edited by Howe_zat; 22-10-2011 at 08:30 AM.

  6. #6
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473
    England need an explosive opener along with Trott up the order.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbacks View Post
    Bit like the Watson debate. Some people will swear by numbers alone which will back Trott to keep on doing what he is, whilst others will be focused on how each man contributes to the goal of the team -> winning. His lack of ability to up the ante is costly to England as most decent players can score runs during dead-time, Overs 15-38, but to cash in then you really have to hit 50 of 35-40 balls at the end or get out.

    As such I would take a higher risk premium player in the middle overs with a slightly lower average, but higher sr, as in the long run it may be worth 10-15 rpg
    Losing random wickets at inopportune times is a far bigger problem for England tbh.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by ganeshran View Post
    England need an explosive opener along with Trott up the order.
    That's the idea behind Kieswetter. Unfortunately he doesn't score as quickly as people like to think, and really doesn't deserve to be keeping wicket for England. I'd open with KP.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,623
    I'd open with Bell, actually.

  10. #10
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT, Leanyer
    Posts
    4,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Losing random wickets at inopportune times is a far bigger problem for England tbh.
    We had similar debates of M Clarke in this role iirc. Marsh/Ferguson were much better options despite the chance they could get out at the wrong time. Security or runs, you can't have both and in the end most believed Clarke's style was costing us some games whilst winning others (It's a bit like Bevan v Symonds, Symonds was the complete upgrade).

    When you play an ODI you want to maximise resources. Thus if a batsman is not taking many risks, and you don't have a lower order of superstar death players behind them, Captains will allow a Trott like player to meander along. Even better, his temprement is such that if he gets bogged down it won't lead to a mini attack to try and change the momentum of the game.
    Last edited by Redbacks; 22-10-2011 at 08:53 AM.

  11. #11
    International Debutant ganeshran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    That's the idea behind Kieswetter. Unfortunately he doesn't score as quickly as people like to think, and really doesn't deserve to be keeping wicket for England. I'd open with KP.
    I agree. Though Kieswetter has the positive intent and goes for his shots, he is not a good enough keeper and not a good enough batsmen to be picked on the merits of batting alone.

  12. #12
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT, Leanyer
    Posts
    4,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Except that's not the case with England. with the exception of Eoin Morgan, batting through those overs without losing wickets is the biggest problem facing the ODI batting. Bopara and Bell in particular have been guilty of this while still scoring slower than Trott does most of the time, while Pietersen scores a lot quicker but hasn't been converting starts enough.
    Then perhaps Flower should probably be farming younger List A players through the side so that they get a picture of what is required to work on for when they eventually make..

    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    I take your point that a guy averaging 40 with an 85 strike rate would probably be more valuable, but the fact is we simply haven't got one. More to the point, there are at least two other players in the ODI side who would make way for him before Trott.
    It would have to be within the framework of demanding that the #3 has to learn a new skill to prosper at International level. Work on areas for scoring more runs and analyse where more risks with shot selection could be taken without giving away too much in terms of value placed on his wicket (all sounds a bit motherhood I know).

  13. #13
    It's a non-issue really. We've still got Kieswetter and Bopara in the lineup ffs. As well as other even less established but possibly non-****e players.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    It's a non-issue really. We've still got Kieswetter and Bopara in the lineup ffs. As well as other even less established but possibly non-****e players.
    Indeed no-one to replace him, so let's not get bogged down (like the man himself in this Issue), ATM only Morgan is better than him for us, if we had a plethora of players scoring runs at a big s-r, we could talk, but at the mo, no. We've actually probably got a better winning rate with Trott then we had before him, so I don't see as he's losing us games.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  15. #15
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,251
    For some reason the criticism of Trott is always at its loudest after a match where he's been pretty much the only player in the lineup to score any runs of substance. The knives were out for him after one of the Australia ODIs where he'd made 80 out of a score of 220.

    England failing to reach 300 isn't because Trott couldn't up the ante, it's because no-one batted around him until Samit came in and had a thrash.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Trott Injury Replacement
    By Gotham Cronie in forum Fantasy Cricket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 12:55 AM
  2. Jonathan Trott: The making of a legend?
    By fredfertang in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 28-06-2011, 12:43 AM
  3. Should we be patient with Jonathan Trott?
    By GIMH in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 12:05 PM
  4. Jonathan Trott
    By WarwickshireB in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 25-08-2009, 03:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •