• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Should Trott bat at number two for England?

theredbull

Cricket Spectator
Don't think England have sorted this out since Strauss...

Anyone agree, Pietersen at 3, Bell 4, then etc etc..

Thoughts?
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
yeah Root looks good, played well for 30 before getting a good bowl that was unexpected, then was unlucky to be strangled down the legside. Pieterson at 3 is probably the more worrying thing if Trott moves up
 

theredbull

Cricket Spectator
Yep, you got a point there.

Pietersen gives the side balance at 4, however I think England might be under pressure from an Australian side with nothing to loose in this series.

Bell would probably show up better at 4, extra responsibility. Maybe that would reign in Pietersen too @ 3 ??

I'm not suggesting Root is not good enough, or should even be out the side btw.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Think he opened once on tour. Maybe Bangladesh?

Trott at #3 is one of our strengths tho and I hate losing one of those to paper over a perceived weakness elsewhere. It's a matter of record Pietersen (for whatever unearthy reason) doesn't like going in at first drop and Bell at three is just packed full of faily goodness, so it's a no-brainer.
 

theredbull

Cricket Spectator
I would not imagine he would be good down the order either, therefore, he HAS to play at 2. This may be a weakness in the England side for this ashes series, if he doesn't deliver.
 

theredbull

Cricket Spectator
Trott is well suited to 3 but not sure Root has the experience in this situation. Time will tell in his next few innings.You are correct Boybrumby, it's a no brainer and that may be the issue....
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Although I think Trott should stay at number 3, this is part of a larger point about how players are bracketed at a certain number. Do we really want to think that George Headley, Rahul Dravid or Sachin Tendulkar would not have done phenomenally well at the opening position? Viv and Lara did their best at number 3, even though Lara preferred 5. Dravid was anyways a de-facto opener for India for a long time, just like Headley was for the Windies back in the day. What do you guys think?
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Although I think Trott should stay at number 3, this is part of a larger point about how players are bracketed at a certain number. Do we really want to think that George Headley, Rahul Dravid or Sachin Tendulkar would not have done phenomenally well at the opening position? Viv and Lara did their best at number 3, even though Lara preferred 5. Dravid was anyways a de-facto opener for India for a long time, just like Headley was for the Windies back in the day. What do you guys think?
First of all it almost seems like a culture thing, where in England the best batsmen open, while everywhere else the best batsmen seemed to gravitate to the middle order. That aside, there is no reason to belive that Dravid or Headley in particular wouldn't have been brilliant as openers and they often filled that role anyway and there is more pressure for the number three coming in early that the openers batting with no wicket lost.
 

theredbull

Cricket Spectator
I agree with the above kyear2, especially about Tendulka, he could have batted anywhere. England do have a weakness here. Without experience, Root will struggle against an under-rated Australian team who will get him cheaply. The middle order of England have always been prone to a nervous collapses. Pietersen is seen as the balance for the side but without opening runs both he and Trott will perform in prescribed heady manner. Pressure is more keenly felt when a side is favorite. Therefore, my opening point remains, it is not about the runs for England here but the wickets lost at the start of the innings, without superiority in batting being established. Trott could provide that by staying in for long periods, frustrating the Australian bowlers. Root probably won't. Under pressure the cracks are showing in the top order, especially in the second innings today.
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If Trott wanted to open I'm sure he would have been moved up when Strauss retired, and however attractive an idea it might seem to be if the bloke doesn't want the job there's no point asking him to do it - square pegs/round holes et al
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
If Trott wanted to open I'm sure he would have been moved up when Strauss retired, and however attractive an idea it might seem to be if the bloke doesn't want the job there's no point asking him to do it - square pegs/round holes et al
Fully agree. You shouldn't force someone to open. Then it hurts two positions.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Although I think Trott should stay at number 3, this is part of a larger point about how players are bracketed at a certain number. Do we really want to think that George Headley, Rahul Dravid or Sachin Tendulkar would not have done phenomenally well at the opening position? Viv and Lara did their best at number 3, even though Lara preferred 5. Dravid was anyways a de-facto opener for India for a long time, just like Headley was for the Windies back in the day. What do you guys think?
Lol.. Lara never preferred 5. He was either at 3 or 4 and he seemed to make that decision at random most of the time. But you are right. He was best at 3.
 

Top