***Official***Match #36 - Australia vs England - November 4th - Ahmedabad

[Molehill]

Important part of building a partnership in ODI cricket is rotating the strike. No just for the scoreboard but to disrupt bowling plans, fielding placings etc.

I don't think it would be a ridiculous claim to say that if Stokes had turned 25 of those dots into singles, England would've won. I'm convinced Buttler doesn't play the daft shot to Zampa if Stokes had not blocked out the Cummins over before it.

 

[GIMH]

What's interesting looking back at Trott is that his average is barely any different whether England were winning games or losing. Turns out his 77 ball 50's really weren't having any real impact on deciding matches.....but deep down we all knew that.

Averaged 65 in successful chases. He's not Kohli and nobody said he was, but I just couldn't let this dishonest line pass. That's 19 chases with Trott in the team where we won btw.

Given the whole point I made was that he wasn't much cop when we needed to set the tempo, but was when we had a chase, I think it makes my point reasonably enough.

 

[Molehill]

Averaged 65 in successful chases. He's not Kohli and nobody said he was, but I just couldn't let this dishonest line pass. That's 19 chases with Trott in the team where we won btw.

Given the whole point I made was that he wasn't much cop when we needed to set the tempo, but was when we had a chase, I think it makes my point reasonably enough.

Just looked at those 19 chases, he got MOTM in precisely none of them (and worth pointing out he didn't even bat in 2 of them). Bowlers often the award having restricted opposition to small totals, whilst other batsmen were generally more important in the chase than him.

He was a stat padder but generally of little use in actually winning games. And we became good at ODI's when we ditched players of his style.

 

[GIMH]

Feels like you're shifting the goalposts but probably at the agree to disagree stage anyway. 65 in 17 chases (given the fair point about the 2 he didn't bat in) is a good record. You listen to any decent cricket voice and they'll say the same as I did, Trott could be relied on in a chase but had shortcomings when we needed to set the tempo. Nothing you've said disputes that. & as I said, we actually got to number one when Trott was 'stat-padding'. They then changed the powerplay rules, and we were exposed.

I mean everyone would agree about the change in England's ODI team. It's indisputable. But that also included players who had been in the team before being asked to play differently. Trott played how he was asked to by the team management in his era. That's not stat padding, it's doing your job.

 

[Ashes81]

Trott's ODI record is pretty good.

Yes by today's standards, his strike rate is on the low side but when he played it was acceptable.

I think if he was playing now, he'd have to up that strike rate and take a few more risks, which I'm sure he would do.

 

[DriveClub]

Trott's ODI record is pretty good.

Yes by today's standards, his strike rate is on the low side but when he played it was acceptable.

I think if he was playing now, he'd have to up that strike rate and take a few more risks, which I'm sure he would do.

Even back then his SR was considered low but England were having a good run in ODIs during that period after god knows how long so people looked past it as long as it brought results.