Trott the dilemma - averaging 50 but a match loser

Trott's record for England has been excellent in terms of his career average. Yet I believe his slow scoring has AT TIMES been a serious hindrance to the overall team effort.
We saw this in both innings at Lord's in the latest NZ Test where his repeated failure to put the bad balls away coupled with his failure to make a really big score led to confidence remaining high with the bowlers and a subsequent collapse once he was out.
I saw the same thing at The Oval against Pakistan in 2010 when Trott batted for a long time but failed to press home the advantage of Cook's excellent century. Let off the hook, the Pakistanis induced a collapse and won the match.
I know this is harsh criticism but, really, a three-hour 39 in a Test match is a complete waste of time. If you're going to bat as slowly as that you HAVE to get a big score.
Incidentally, I thought England's batting in the first innings at Lord's was the worst I had seen from them for many a long year.

I've no problem with his average and strike rate. I do though think he bats for himself, which can be a problem, in certain situations.

Interesting question. I don't believe his slow scoring can ever lose a match, but it can be a hindrance to winning it as you say.

I think there is a lot to be said for somebody to be "Mr Dependable" which is what Trott has been. But you then need someone who can change the rythm of the game. England have Pietersen and Prior who can do that, and Bell for a while. The problem is that Bell has gone through a bit of a rough patch and his scoring rate dropped drastically; without Pietersen the middle-order then does look very one-paced. The difference I guess between Trott and the rest (Cook, Root, Bell) is the others do have an extra gear which they can use if they need it - Trott as we have seen countless times in ODIs doesn't. He does brilliantly within his limitations, but his limitations are real, and you're not going to change that at this stage of his career.

Having said that England have built this team around a world class bowling attack, and solid rather than flashy batting. Trott has been a big part of the success of this formula. To blame him for the (fairly rare) times it hasn't worked seems a bit unfair, particularly given other factors involved.

Whilst I agree that England's 1st innings show at Lords was at times puzzling, it's worth noting that Trott was nowhere near the slowest scorer there. It's also worth noting that for all its faults, the innings ended up the highest score of the match. Perhaps it wasn't as bad as all that?

The Test was also the third of three first-class matches at Lord's this season for which the first day has been a go slow. The smart talk seems to be that the relayed outfield combined with the fact that the pitches are starting slow are to blame.

Mike S. Absolutely accept your points. I was so disgusted with the way England batted on the first day that I rather hoped they would lose.
At one point Bell got two long hops from Williamson that he was still unable to put past the short cover who was so short he was practically silly mid off.
There was no attempt to loft the ball or to try to force it on the on side when NZ had packed the off side. When Taylor came in it was like a breath of fresh air and showed what was possible. Damn it, England couldn't even get any snicks through the slips when they batted.

Shelsey - yes, Godelman's innings in the Middx-Derbys match - a five-hour 50 - must have been excruciating.

I don't see Trott as a problem in the Test team (although the question has more validity when discussing his ODI contributions - personally, I think in English conditions he's fine, but in conditions where higher scores aer needed his lack of ability to hit over the top is a hinderance).

The slightly bigger problem is that the whole top order is struggling to accelerate the run rate - Strauss, while not a flamboyant batsman did generally do a good job of keeping the scoreboard ticking over, allowing Cook to play his natural steady game (i.e. leave everything alone until the bowler gets bored and bowls too straight onto his pads). So far, Compton looks like he's not as adept at keeping the run rate up.

Root and Bairstow are OK in terms of run rate (although questions remain about Bairstow's absolute quality), but Bell has been going through a bad patch for most of the last year, and seems to be either hitting out and getting out or getting thoroughly bogged down and struggling to even score at 3 an over.

Obviously KPs absence is a hinderance, as he on form is one of the best free-scoring batsmen in the world.

Oh, and trying to judge anything based on the Lords game is difficult - the outfield was slow and the pitch seemed quite tricky to score on. Possibly a bit two-paced, with the ball stopping on occasion making it hard to execute the big shots.

I don't have a problem with Trott at 3 in tests, oftentimes you'll need an innings builder in that position, and with KP behind him at 4 you have a guy who can press on the accelerator.

In ODIs, yeah England could do with putting an accelerator in the top 3.

sirfredperry wrote:
Shelsey - yes, Godelman's innings in the Middx-Derbys match - a five-hour 50 - must have been excruciating.

It was indeed. I sat through every ball of it!

Trott is far from the problem.....he is one of the pillars of English batting.....an inings builder who has performed consistently in all conditions.

Compton, 6th batsman, the patchi-ness of the 3rd seamer.....are far bigger problems that Eng face

Trott usually does the job in test matches and I don't really have a problem with him in test matches. Even in ODIs, I would rate Trott over Bell. Bell is a curious case. He at times is capable of giving a quick start up front. But if he is held in check in the early exchanges, he most often than not, is unable to move through the gears. Bell has attained greater consistency in ODIs over the last year or so, but Trott is better in this department as well, and overall, Trott's ODI strike rate is better than that of Bell. The problem is that both of them aren't flexible enough, and England could find themselves in some trouble in certain situations when they both are playing together.

msp83 wrote:Trott usually does the job in test matches and I don't really have a problem with him in test matches. Even in ODIs, I would rate Trott over Bell. Bell is a curious case. He at times is capable of giving a quick start up front. But if he is held in check in the early exchanges, he most often than not, is unable to move through the gears. Bell has attained greater consistency in ODIs over the last year or so, but Trott is better in this department as well, and overall, Trott's ODI strike rate is better than that of Bell. The problem is that both of them aren't flexible enough, and England could find themselves in some trouble in certain situations when they both are playing together.

KP_fan wrote:Trott is far from the problem.....he is one of the pillars of English batting.....an inings builder who has performed consistently in all conditions.

Compton, 6th batsman, the patchi-ness of the 3rd seamer.....are far bigger problems that Eng face

\
Surely Root has sorted that out now or are you talking about Bell?

ShankyCricket wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Trott is far from the problem.....he is one of the pillars of English batting.....an inings builder who has performed consistently in all conditions.

Compton, 6th batsman, the patchi-ness of the 3rd seamer.....are far bigger problems that Eng face

\
Surely Root has sorted that out now or are you talking about Bell?

Root will sort out the problem of Compton......as an opener replacement.

that leaves 6th batsman with Bairstow for now.....who looked better in T2 and since I wrote the above...and yet not sealed his spot by any means

I'd stick with Compton. Root is fine where he is.