BBC BLOGS - Sam Sheringham's blog
« Previous | Main | Next »

Trott or Not?

Post categories:

Sam Sheringham | 22:18 UK time, Thursday, 20 October 2011

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.


Jonathan Trott

Jonathan Trott scored 98 runs off 116 balls during England's defeat against India in Mohali. PHOTO Getty

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.”

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

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.”


Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    The fact that Trott is hailed as hero for England ODI side itself shows that something is not right with English team.
    Just to give you some comparison od strike rates with the current WC players:
    Sehwag -104, Gambhir - 86.7, Tendulkar- 86.32, Kohli -83.03, Yuvraj Singh - 87.58, Dhoni - 88.34, Raina - 91.05. Now even if we take take average score in England is 270 where as it is 290 in India, the numbers translate to: Almost all the players (except Kohli) would have SR of 80+ in English conditions.
    England is #1 in Tests and WC in T20I, but somehow they seem to be a confused bunch in ODIs - when to play as Tests and when to play as T20Is in a ODI as an ODI innings involves a bit of both. Trott for all wrong reasons seems to be the epitome of that confusion. This does not mean the players around him are less culpable. They need to look into their own games much more before they could pass the blame on someone else.
    Also somehow England went into false comfort zone after their summer triumph over India just as perhaps India went into their own after winning the WC. Well things have to be learned quickly and hard way by both these teams whenever they visit outside their comfort zone.

  • Comment number 2.

    P.S. "England batsman Jonathan Trott has been named International Cricket Council cricketer of the year." Truly i doubt very much whether Mr Trott will be losing much sleep over the moronic comments.

  • Comment number 3.

    Continue reading the main story
    2004 - Rahul Dravid
    2005 - Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kallis
    2006 - Ricky Ponting
    2007 - Ponting
    2008 - Shivnarine Chanderpaul
    2009 - Mitchell Johnson
    2010 - Sachin Tendulkar

  • Comment number 4.

    to moderator . I posted a comment previous to comment 2. but it doesn`t seem to have been upped??

  • Comment number 5.

    @juius..:"Cricketer of the Year" does not mean someone is a very good ODI player. The fact that Chanderpaul and to some extent Dravid got it very clearly shows that Test performance alone sometimes can get you that. Trott is good in that format, no one is denying that, are they? Also please learn to be civilized if you like to your comments to be posted :-)

  • Comment number 6.

    I think Trott is a class batsman and he has got all the qualities of becoming a top class batsman. Still all is too early now. He had great year and he should continue to have it few more like this.
    I can't understand he criticism of the innings he played against India.Hostorically coming at number 3 after a quick fall of first wicket and bating till the end is a great feat and he is on par with Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting in providing a anchor role for England batting. I think its time England have a meaningful Bating line up built aroud good players like Trott, Peitersen.
    I don't think it is fair to expect young English side to do really well overseas. Please compare both India and England at the moment.Sure India has got more than 3 players with 4000 runs in ODI and none in English side. Young guys come and learn from senior players but i can't see that smooth transition in ODI format in English cricket.

  • Comment number 7.

    All i would say is, only in England can we complain when someone makes a magnificent 98 N.O because he didn't score quickly. But if Tendulkar makes the same knock, it's a sensible innings. Every partnership needs someone who will stay and keep the score board ticking over, and then someone who can smack the boundaries. Maybe people should be questioning Cooke's position due to his awful batting performances this tour instead of trott, coz by my reckoning, how can someone who nearly score a century have his position under threat? No one ever questioned Dravid's position, and i don't think i have ever seen a slower scorer in the shorter formats of the game.

  • Comment number 8.

    re comment 5 Cook got test match player of the year

  • Comment number 9.

    Jonathon Trott is vital for the England team. He provides the anchor role for the top order. The likes of Pietersen, Bopara, Bell if he's selected and Biarstow can smash the boundaries and make the rapid scores together building the partnerships the hosts require to beat the Indians on their home turf. England's problems though lie not with its batsmen but with it's bowlers at the moment. Swann and Patel aren't using the conditions of the sub-continent wickets to their advantage while Bresnan, Dernbach and Finn are struggling to keep their cool and are losing focus forcing them to make silly mistakes. Mumbai's next and then Kolkata awaits them for the 5th and final ODI. A win in either of these matches will restore faith to the bruised and battered egos of the English!!

  • Comment number 10.

    2 poor innings from Cook and people are calling for his head. Its unbelievable and sums up everything that's wrong with certain supporters. You seem to be forgetting his good performances in the summer!

    As for Trott, I believe he plays a vital role in the squad. ODI's are not all about smashing the ball to the boundaries. The biggest fault with his batting is that he doesn't accelerate at the end of the innings. If the could develop that part of his game he would be a quality One Day player IMO.

  • Comment number 11.

    The sheer inability of a player to hit boundaries even to complete his ton shows that he is not fit to play in this format. He should not bat beyond 40 over mark as last ten overs require a run rate of nearly 10 which he is not capable of reaching. The whole point of having wickets in hand is having the freedom to slog in the later overs. England had six wickets in hand and could have easily reached 320 to win this game.

  • Comment number 12.

    Re comment 7: Please don't compare Trott with Tendulkar or better Watch Tendulakar 200 against SA on youtube before posting any further comments. Trott is not capable of clearing the boundary or finding the gaps when required. Either he is too selfish to play for his own average than what the team needs or he is not capable of slogging when required. He is a extremely good player, just not suited for this format.

  • Comment number 13.

    Trott is not selfish. He works the ball around like Graham Thorpe used to. The reason England failed to post 320+ had nothing to do with him. The blame should be totally with Bopara.....who does bat for himself. How many times did he hit the ball straight to a fielder during the batting powerplay? Certainly far more than Trott did.
    If Bell is going to come in for anybody it should be for Bopara who is the present day Mark Ramprakash i.e. not good enough to be an England player.

  • Comment number 14.

    Trott is good.
    The types of Trott are required as the pivots around which good ODI innings are built.
    Inning building is as much essential skill in ODIs as is blasting away quick runs. Dravid did that for India for a number of years for India and now they have Rahane and Gambhir earmarked for this role

  • Comment number 15.

    Trott hasn't hit a SINGLE SIX in any of the ODIs or Tests he has played. That to me is a stupendous achievement which proves conclusively that he is not suited for limited overs cricket. Enuff said.

  • Comment number 16.

    Short memories. This was the exactly the kind of complaint aimed at Geoffrey Boycott, whatever his mother was up to.
    It's also worth noting: Trott 98 off 116 balls, the mainstay of the England innings around which the rest was built. Rahane 91 off 104 balls, the mainstay around which the India innings was built. Not much real difference there (strike rate 84.5 vs 87.5), and Trott scored more 4s (8 vs. 6).
    Surely one of the reasons that people complain about Trott that his style makes it look as if he is scoring slowly, even when he is scoring quite fast, but that is hardly his fault, nor grounds for complaint, unless you want everyone to bat with the grace of a Gower, or with the short-lived hitting power of some of those batting lower down in the order.

  • Comment number 17.

    It is not the runs Trott scores it is the scoring rate, until England understand the importance of scoring speed, they will never make a successful one day side. It is totally beyond me why Trott is playing and Bell is left out. What happened to all the youngsters suddenly?
    I'm amazed the team management have got the courage to cross the road, the way they dither around and play safe.

  • Comment number 18.

    Trott can not be blamed for 5 dropped catches and a totally inept missed run out which would have won us the game!

  • Comment number 19.

    Every time we get a good or great player in England regardless of sport we then start to bitch and moan about them. The England cricket team have risen well, at least in the Test matches so now I guess the time has come to start criticizing and bringing them down... the English disease!!!!

    Leave Jonathan Trott alone he is perfectly fine. You NEED a guy who can hold an innings together, they scored nearly 300 for heavens sake!!!

    You want to look to other areas for losing this last game. The inane and inaccurate bowling, the poor line and length bowled. The sloppy fielding and field placing.

  • Comment number 20.

    I don't question Trott's ability - I question his adapt-ability. If you play in the final 10 overs of an ODI with just 3 or 4 wickets down; you have to score at atleast 2 runs per ball in that period, and hit many 4s and 6s. Dravid might be slower compared to Trott overall; but if he's batting in the last 10 overs, he'd accelerate much better than Trott.

    I clearly remember India reaching 380-odd against Sri Lanka; with Dravid contributing a lot of those runs. Trott is just incapable of playing in that style; he's suited only to Test cricket, like Geoffrey Boycott.

  • Comment number 21.

    Drop Jade 'Barbie' Dernbach and Keislogger, include Meaker and Bell, and see the difference

  • Comment number 22.

    We've come to the same conclusion as you Sam - Is it really Jonathan Trott's fault?

    Was it Trott's fault that Criag Kieswetter couldn't perform a simple run out? Or that Dernbach bowled a no-ball in the penultimate over?

    Thanks to Trott, England made a game of it for the first time in the series. How a man that averages 53 in ODI at a decent enough strike rate can receive so much criticism beggars belief.

    England may have lost yesterday, but it wasn't down to the marmite man.

  • Comment number 23.

    Personally I don't really care for him as a player as he made it pretty clear from the outset that he only decided to be 'English' because he knew he was highly unlikely to get into the South African test side - obviously he's a natural-born mercenary interested in himself first - which is fine if that's your thing. notice that thereversesweep mentions 2 other South Africans as culprits...

  • Comment number 24.

    Congratulations India for showing sportsmanship, character AND winning the series!

    England have not only lost the series but also shown what a bunch of sore losers they are... character comes out in tough times and most disappointingly the English players fell really short in showing temperament or spirit of the game. India were under pressure in England but did not let it hamper their attitude and maintained the spirit of the game - which looks like only India is expected to show!

    Andy Flower should forget batting/bowling skills and work more on attitude so that by the time they leave India things are handled better and leave on a friendly note.

  • Comment number 25.

    J.Trott is One of England's best batsmen by a long mile. He plays a similar role to Gautam Gambir for India. He anchors the team and tries to make sure they get to a strong score like they did yesterday even though Gambir can accelerate that bit better and have more ODI Experience. I am so glad India won this series with all the hype about England winning the world cup 2015 just because they beat a weakened Indian team in England. Well the Indian young blood have brought them back down to earth and i take it from here India will whitewash them 5-0 all they need to do is replace Yadav with Arvind or Varon. (no rain to help you out there England)

  • Comment number 26.

    England did not loose because of Trott failing to score a ton.

    We lost due to the fact that Dernbach bowled a load of old pony, and Keiswetter is not a good wicketkeeper.

  • Comment number 27.

    What about Keiswetter behind the stumps ? What a mess today.

    And Cook ? Isn't he completely out of his depth here ... it was the same when Flintoff was made captain of the Test team.

    Let's hope that Trott can learn to accelerate over time which would make him solid gold, rather than the silver he is today - and England need him today.

  • Comment number 28.

    The only criticism that can really be put towards Trott is that he doesn't score quite quickly enough in the last 10 overs. If there's wickets in hand then he perhaps doesn't have the power to clear the ropes on a regular basis (Swamy, he has hit a 6 for England, just not many!). But the main reason that England would be in the position to attack the last 10 overs would have been his batting over the previous 30 or so. I just checked Jacques Kallis's stats, he goes at 72.8 compared with Trott's 78.6. Every team needs someone capable of batting a long time, whilst scoring at a decent rate. A team cannot be made up of people with high scoring rates, but relatively low averages. I wouldn't change him, even if occasionally he seems to be holding the team back slightly in the last 10 overs.

  • Comment number 29.

    I find this absolutely ridiculous - take one look at the scorecard from the match and you will see where England's problems lie. Trott could only be considered to be 'stifling' runs for the side were the other batsmen actually scoring enough - Pietersen, Kieswetter and Bopara (our 'big-hitters') are woefully inconsistent and have regularly all fell through very poor shot selection. I genuinely cannot see why Bopara is still chosen ahead of other potential players, and hopefully Morgan will displace him when fit.

    The way I see it, we are incredibly fortunate to have Trott who at least saves us from complete embarrasment more often than not. I think the comments referring to Dravid and Ponting as points of comparison are astute - the difference being that in their pomp they had solid hitters around them who could actually contribute to the score (Sehwag/Hayden). If the three English players mentioned above could contribute alongside Trott you would have a perfect balance - the strike rate of most of the team is pretty woeful when compared with India, but Trott's is one of the bestn so how this is a basis for dropping him is beyond me.

    If you were placing question marks over individual style and suitability to play ODIs it would be, for me, on Cook. Great, great batsman. Never truly considered a ODI player. I'd go so far as to argue that the side doesn't need both a Cook and a Trott and that statistics and form would suggest Trott every time. I'd also prefer Bell to come in instead of Bopara every time - a player I'd argue has the most natural talent from the current crop.

    Patel is also a big question mark - I don't think either his bowling or batting is good enough, but giving him this rest of this series to prove otherwise seems to the be the prudent course of action.

    So, basically, Trott to me is the only guaranteed selection for me in the current OD side.

  • Comment number 30.

    In his final over Trott played the ball to mid off who was very deep. He did not run. He played the next ball to the same player but this time did run but the shake of his head when he completed the run, and of course realised he could not now get a century told us his true thoughts. Given who was next man in it would have been far better , bearing in mind how close we were to winning if Trott had either chased every run or got out. Those who criticise Bopara should reflect on his urgency from his first ball to his last. He was playing for his team. Trott was most certainly playing for a century. At the final stages of such a game you chase every run you can get and the moment that penultimate ball passed the bowler Trott should have been on his way. Bopara was certainly ready to back him up.

  • Comment number 31.

    Yes It would be nice if he scored a little faster in the last 10 overs, but the most important thing in 50 over cricket is to bat for 50 overs. With him in the team we have more chance of doing that. If he were dropped for e.g. Bell I think we'd get bowled out more often.

  • Comment number 32.

    Trott is our best player. If trott fails england tend to get less than 250 and therefore lose the game. We were 20 runs short yesterday because we wasted our powerplay by getting 30-1 in them 5 overs, and that wasnt trotts fault, it was bopara's.

    He is Mr Average and how he gets anywhere near the England team I will never know. Someone coming in the last 20 overs with 7 wickets in hand cant score 24 off 32 balls and waste our pwerplay. India get 60 off their last powerplay.

    As for kieswetter, he shouldnt play for England, we need to get away from our obsession of opening the batting with the keeper, and let Bell open and give him a sustained period of opening, and then we already have Bairstow to come in 6 or 7 to hit at the end, and he cant be a worse keeper than Kieswetter.

  • Comment number 33.

    The BBC is normally renowned for its neutrality in reporting, yet they feel it appropriate to write an article based on comments from the India cricket captain Dhoni without balancing the article out with an England viewpoint.

    Anyone who watched the one day game would agree that the behaviour of the Indian players towards Samit Patel were outrageous. The constant patting the batsmen on the back when they misplayed a shot, or cheering in the batsman's faces when they were out was not particularly sporting.

    Maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

  • Comment number 34.

    I can relate this to Dravid's situation few years back. Few people had problems with Dravid's scoring rate but then see where is Dravid today after he was allowed to play for a decade or so in Tests & 'ODI'. Its upto ECB now whether they want to create another Dravid in form of Trott or not. Bottomline, you need to give time and can't keep chopping heads after each failure.

  • Comment number 35.

    Having read Dhoni's comments about England getting narky with each other...surely Dernbach should be given the boot?! A complete nutter who flies off the handle at any tiny misfield. It's one thing to worry about the opposition applying pressure to your fielding, England shouldn't have to put up with his abuse too. More importantly though...he's not good enough.

  • Comment number 36.

    As wonderfully English as it is to single out someone to be the fall-guy, irrespective of performance, all this Trott-bashing seems to ignore where the real issues lie.

    1. Kieswetter - supposedly a flat-track power hitter ideally suited to the sub-continent, looks woefully out of his depth. Even in the recent champions league when he made runs he made them slowly. Additionally his woeful performance with the gloves yesterday surely calls for a proper keeper to be in the side.

    2. Dernabach and Bresnan bowled (and have bowled all series) very poorly, lack of control, lack of accuracy and in Dernbach's case, a lack of discipline. Bowling wides and no balls in the 49th over of a chase is unforgivable.

    3. England's fielding has been very poor. When playing India in their backyard, you won't be able to outhit them, but should be able to outfield them. In reality India have been streets ahead of England in the field.

    I hope that England use these final 'dead' games to try some alternative strategies. For what its worth here is my team for the 4th ODI.

    Cook (capt)
    Bairstow (wkt)

    Swann rested rather than dropped to see what Borthwick can do.

  • Comment number 37.

    "It is not the runs Trott scores it is the scoring rate, until England understand the importance of scoring speed, they will never make a successful one day side. It is totally beyond me why Trott is playing and Bell is left out."

    This is the attitude I really can't understand. To question his place in the team is madness, in my opinion. Yes it would be great if Trott could add some more acceleration to his game, and hopefully he'll learn to do that, without sacrificing his wicket needlessly. But those who champion Bell instead of Trott go against all logic and common sense. Bell scores slower. The statistics prove that. Even this year when Bell has been in such good Test form, his strike rate his lower.

    Trott in 2011 – 27 matches, 1271 runs, two 100s, ten 50s, ave 55.26, SR 80.18.
    Bell in 2011 – 24 matches, 610 runs, zero 100s, three 50s, ave 27.72, SR 78.20.

    You could accept Bell's average being lower (but not that much lower) as he usually comes in at 5/6, but coming in at that position his strike rate should be much higher. And yet there are always comments that Trott scores too slowly, and nothing is said when Bell comes out to bat. I blame the media, particularly Sky, for this nonsensical attitude.

    Bell's played over 100 ODI matches. It's time that people accepted that like Prior, for whatever reason, it just hasn't worked out and leave him to concentrate on Tests.

  • Comment number 38.

    I can see what people are saying about Bell and his stats. But he has been the most messed about player in both tests and odi's and i cant understand why. He has been in brilliant form and he had to bat lower than collingwood when he didnt know what end to hold the bat in the ashes, he scored a brilliant hundred in a warm up odi in australia opening the batting, and then didnt play there again, he gets moved around the order from 4-6 every other game and he's played non stop cricket for 2 years and instead of being given a rest hes sent to india to sit on the bench.

    Everyone knows bell has improved dramatically in the last 2 years so give him a chance in the top 3. he can easily score a run a ball or better opening, and i would bet he can improve his odi stats like his test stats.

  • Comment number 39.

    I would say Andy Flower is the best coach England have had in years, and therefore we should trust his judgement on the line up instead of trying to coach from the sofa like some.

  • Comment number 40.

    I'm sorry, but why is Trott suddenly the Marmite man? Surely the likes of the under-performing Bopara or Bairstow need to be looked at. Nick Knight said it perfectly about Kieswetter too yesterday, he got a start, but batted too much like an opener - he needs to go out and just pinch hit, which in turn if it fell on its head, Trott would come in and hold it together. Yes, we'd all like to see him accelerate, but with a different style to the game now, and having to take PP's earlier - it should be upto the 4/5/6 hitters to score quickly, and for Trott just to get down the other end, and play his game.

    Bell is Englands best player of spin, so, why oh why has he not been included in a team in India?....Bell may have a slower scoring rate - but surely his ability shown in the recent summers and T20's before show us that he's capable of adapting. Solution, Bopara out, Bell in, Dernbach (who has been very very poor) out, and Onions straight in. Bresnan needs to stop throwing his toys out the pram, and Bairstow needs to step up. Dont see why Chris Woakes wasnt included from the start?

  • Comment number 41.

    Trott is the very least of English worries. There's a popular saying doing the rounds "be careful what you wish for". For as long as I can remember England have been looking for the durability and dependability which Trott provides, and you can afford to have one of these in your team, if not two (Cook).

    The problem that the England team has in one day cricket is that the so called stella players such as Pieterson/Bell have been delivering major match changing innings all too infrequently and I don't buy the theory that they perish as a result of Trott's more measured approach. If you break down many of Trott's major contributions, he starts quite slowly (say 5 runs off 20 balls), but then scores at around a run a ball playing low risk cricket. This provides a stable base for the likes of Pieterson, Morgan, Bopara, Bairstow, Patel as he is also very good at manipulating singles getting the so called "destroyers" on strike. Problem is the destroyers don't deliver often enough.

    For me, I would like to see Bell given another opportunity to open especially since he has now proved what a world class player he is in test cricket, and I think now he can do it in the one day arena. In order to make way for Morgan at 5, I would reluctantly dispense with Cook and allow Bopara to open as his bowling is much underrated, and will get better with experience. My choice to skipper the side would be Swann and Bairstow would keep wicket.

    So lets end the debate about Trott in both test and one day cricket. Ink him in at number 3 for the next 3-4 years and concentrate on other areas of the team that need to improve.

  • Comment number 42.

    Funny that Trott scores 98 while Bopara scored 24 off around 34 balls. We just need Morgan back to gives us extra in the middle order. We have two steady players Cook and Trott so we do not need Bopara to play the same innnings later on.

    The reason we lost was the bowling, when India scored 300 in the first match it was a 'very defendable total', when England do it and lose its Trotts fault for scoring all the runs not bowlers bowling down the leg side and not taking wickets. Would be interesting to see what Broad and Anderson's effect would be on the series if they were playing.

  • Comment number 43.

    One reason why Bell's been 'the most messed about player' is that he never made a place his own in the way that Trott did, who very quickly made the number 3 position his own in both formats. Now some people want him in the side in the hope that he could turn around his form like he has done in the Test arena. He might, he might not.

    But you don't replace someone who is the fastest to 1,000 odi runs (alongside Richards and Botham, I think), the highest odi run scorer of this year, the 3rd highest run scorer in the world cup, an average of 55, with someone who might do well if only we give him one more chance.

    It would have been interesting to see Bell as captain instead of Cook, but that ship has sailed. He could possibly replace Kieswetter in the top 2, but I'd prefer we moved on and give others the same chances he's had.

  • Comment number 44.

    Hes the best coach in test cricket. But he keeps making the same mistakes in odis which we have done for years and years. And what I mean by that, is the keeper continually opening the batting and continually failing. Having part time spinners who bowl 10 overs who never pick up any wickets and go for 5/6+ an over and rarely contribute with the bat (yesterday was a 1st for patel with the bat). Also our obsession with bowling slower balls and short balls, what happened to line and length and creating pressure and forcing the batsman to do something. Also why dont we aim to bowl yorkers at the death, if we would have tried a few more of them yesterday we would have won.

    This should be drilled into the bowlers, and if he is then they should be dropped for not following his orders. Bresnan has been very poor for a while in odi's now, his economy is poor and i think his average is about 38 which isnt good enough. Dernbach is average at best

  • Comment number 45.

    "Surely the likes of the under-performing Bopara or Bairstow need to be looked at"

    Very harsh on Bairstow, a youngster who's only just got in the team!!

  • Comment number 46.

    As far as I could tell, one of the crucial differences between the sides on Thursday was India's running. They'd often get the first run done as quick as possible, and often what would have been a single for England, was 2 runs for India.

    A bit more pace between the wickets and Trott would have got that century, and his SR would have been 90+ and we wouldn't be having this debate.

  • Comment number 47.

    The fact of the matter is that England needs Trott just like India needed Dravid. Both are very similar batsmen in terms of style and temperament. However, in the initial phase of his career, Dravid had to bare every accusation now Trott is facing. For the first 3 years of his international career, Dravid cut a sorry figure in ODIs, struggling to rotate the strike or clear the boundaries. Dravid turned things around in Newzealand in 1999 with a run a ball 123. Shortly afterwards, in WC 1999, he made 145 of 129 balls at Taunton(mind you, these were all in the pre-T20 era). In 2003, coming into bat in the 44th over, he murdered the hapless kiwis with a 22 ball 50. Not many would have forgotten his assault on the English attack at Bristol, in 2007. He made a stroke filled 92 not out in just 63 balls. He had hit 60 sixes in international cricket with 42 of them being in the ODIs. The point is, Dravid learned to accelerate in the slog overs in his own way. That's the reason why he played 343 ODIs, scoring 10820 runs with 12 centuries and 82 half centuries. Trott has the all the virtues needed to have a long career in the ODIs. He just has to step up and add that 5th gear slog over batting skill to his repertoire.

  • Comment number 48.

    It goes without saying that Trott should be in the team. The real questions are around other selections. Why take Bell to India if you are not going to use him? He has had a heavy year and should have been given a break if he was not to be used. My preference would be to use Bairstow as keeper/bat and have Bell in place of Kieswetter but he should have been left at home if not. The other question is around all rounders. Woakes is a truly destructive bat when appropriate and a better bowler than Dernbach (6 for in Oz and look at their 1st class stats). Bopara is not an all rounder and should only be selected (if at all) as a pure bat. Woakes should have been selected instead of either Dernbach or Bopara - but too late now. The balance of the team in the first 3 ODIs was wrong and some selections can only be explained by the 'old boy network'.

  • Comment number 49.

    If England were winning ODIs, Trott would be hailed as providing the platform on which the wins were built. It is his misfortune that, as the batsman most consistently scoring runs, focus has been on his scoring rate. He is pretty much caught on the horns of a dilemma. If the team's rate is slow due to wickets falling should he try to compensate by upping his own rate, then he also risks losing his own wicket, which would be a worse disservice to the team.

    Having watched the last three ODIs, I identify the following as problems, in no particular order:

    1. English batters are finding the fielder too often, whereas the Indian batters found the gaps. Either the English batters need to improve their placement or Cook is posting his fielders badly. Or both.

    2. The England card has too many dot balls. The batters seemingly are unable to accumulate singles from defensive shots. The Indian batters were able to "tip and run" in similar circumstances.

    3. The English close fielders lolloped to field the ball and allowed the single. The Indian close fielders attacked the ball and discouraged the single being taken.

    4. The running between the wickets by the English batters is an angst-ridden affair. They do not seem to trust their partners calls, leading to lost opportunities and uncertainty.

    5. The team (rather than Trott) does not seem to possess higher gears or fully understand the rhythm of a ODI. The final batting powerplay is not being used to up the tempo of the innings or create momentum for the final 10 overs.

    6. The English bowlers do not seem to understand how to bowl in ODIs. Instead of bowling wicket to wicket on a good or slightly full length, and taking the pace off the ball, as the Indian bowlers do, it is as if the English bowlers are trying to take wickets with every ball, leading to long hops, short balls, leg-side balls, all of which are meat and drink to the Indian batters. Containment keeps the score in check and forces the batters to take risks. That is a better route for taking wickets. In yesterday's game, the bowling of Finn and Dernbach in the last three or four overs of the Indian innings lacked intelligence as well as skill. It was here that the game was won and lost and not in the pace of Trott's innings or the dropped catches by Keiswetter.

    7. Cook is a problem waiting to happen. By picking him as captain for reasons quite separate from his ability in the one-day game, the management have created a rod for their own back. It is hard to drop him now, regardless of form. I have to say that he looked a bit rabbit-eyed in the field yesterday. When captaining by numbers did not work, he seems unable to adapt to what is evolving in the game.

  • Comment number 50.

    My team with everyone fit would be: cook, bell, trott, pieterson, morgan, bairstow, woakes, broad, swann, finn, anderson/ panesar depending on the wicket. i think our tactics should be to aim for at least 150-2 off 30 overs and then double our score to get 300 (like the olden days) as dhoni and raina have proved still works, and we would be able to replicate that with hitters like Morgan, bairstow and woakes, and we would have 5 proper bowlers, instead of part time rubbish. These 'one day specialists' dont work as our odi results have proved over the last few years.

  • Comment number 51.

    I have no problem with England players resorting to sledging as long as they accept they are inferior at things like batting, bowling and fielding. Any amount of childish sledging cannot compensate for lack of talent and performance in the field; even the Aussies learnt it the hard way.

  • Comment number 52.

    I see the problem with Trott is that he does not give us balance unless Cook is the 1st one out. If Kieswetter is out early then it already puts us on the back foot as Cook will need to score quickly and although he is talented enough to do that it is not his natural game.

    Some may not get the refernce but I liken it to Tim Cahill in the Everton side at the start of last season. He probably needed to be dropped to attain a balance up front but he was scoring the goals. In Trott we probably need to drop him but if he is scoring runs how can you?

    All players fit I would maybe try Bell as an opener with Kieswetter and Cook at 3, at least then there is a natural quick run scorer still at the crease if we lose an early wicket and if we don't then they can use the powerplay to get ahead of the game.

  • Comment number 53.

    You must have been waiting for this moment with glee Swamy. India annihilated in the summer, but now after 3 odis England are inferior at batting, bowling and fielding :-)

    You using the word childish is an extreme case of pot calling kettle.

  • Comment number 54.

    The key aspect here is that no England ODI side should really include Cook and Trott - I think you can probably get away with one or the other, but both, especially in the top 3/4 just doesn't set the right tone to the innings. Problem is England have made a rod for their own back by chucking the armband to Cook in order to groom him for test captaincy - so they pretty much have to stick with the bloke. My choice would be trott - the guys figures stand up with the best of them. It also astounds me how Bell is that in the stands - and Bopara and Birstow have got a gig. THe bloke is one of our best players of spin - a class act, granted he needs to score more in the one day game but he is an adaptable player. Bopara is proven at Intnl level that he plain and simple is not good enough - why do England keep wasting their time with him.

  • Comment number 55.

    I wish people would stop banging on about 'strike rates'... strike rate is a dubious way of judging an innings at best. If a batsman hits his first ball for six and is out second ball, he ends up with a strike rate of 300, but if every batsman did that, the team would be all out for around 60. If a batsman scores 90 off 100 balls, he has a strike rate of 90, but allows other batsmen to bat round him. On balance, I know which I would prefer to have in my team...

  • Comment number 56.

    If England cannot defend 298 runs then its not Trott's fault. Any good team would have very very high chance of winning a game after scoring 298. India never looked in any problem while chasing and were always in control even when few quick wickets fell.

    England can do any changes they want but if India plays the same Indian team then this series is going to be 5-0.

  • Comment number 57.

    "All players fit I would maybe try Bell as an opener with Kieswetter and Cook at 3, at least then there is a natural quick run scorer still at the crease if we lose an early wicket"

    And yet Bell scores slower than Trott. Still don't get the logic on this one. Why drop someone who scores plenty of runs at a decent SR, for someone who might score runs, and might score them quicker, if only people showed more faith in him?! (like another 100 odis, maybe.)

  • Comment number 58.

    ^ may be harsh on young bairstow, but I dont feel that India, of all places is the best place to breed young talent though. Give them tours in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan - slightly lesser ranked sides to bleed them in and give them a bit more experience. Bairstow's in the side on the back of one good smash-and-grab innings, but yet Bell has just been overlooked. Bopara - is extremely overated, and I do not understand his inclusion at the expense of Bell or Woakes. His bowling may be decent, but then again, wasn't Luke Wrights? and was Wrights fielding better? couple of instances yesterday where Bopara really looked like he couldnt be bothered. A player however who's starting to change my perceptions of him is Patel. I despised him when he first came into the set up, I think that anyone that overweight surely cant be fit enough to play international cricket?....but then we look back at the likes of Tuffers with the beer and fags, and flintoff who wasnt the smallest of the bunch. But, his battings coming along and his fielding seems full of effort.

    People calling for Kieswetters head - back off, leave the lad alone. He's quality, and we all make mistakes. The main thing is he'll work on his game, and he'll come back stronger and wont make those mistakes again. Some of his takes yesteerday were amazing, the athleticism shown to get some of those wayward balls was incredible. We lack depth in bowling.... that our achilles heal at present....

  • Comment number 59.

    My problem with the way England played yesterday was not with Trott, it was the fact that Ravi Bopara came in at #5.

    Jonathan Trott's statistics are awesome for an Englishman. I saw a statistic that since he has been in the team we have passed 298 six times and in those six games his average is 111. You could say he's not fast enough, which he isn't, but if you have great stroke makers around him then they can compensate.

    The problem was Bopara, he effectively wasted 34 balls, having a strike rate of 75 (scored just 24). At the time we had a good platform (circa 150/3), what England should have done was send in either Bairstow or Patel who can clear the fence, giving them more chance to get in and have a greater influence in the game. Imagine how different the score would have been if Patel had had 34 extra deliveries - I would wager it would have been 20 runs or so higher and a more competitive total.

  • Comment number 60.

    Totally agree about Bopara, he only gets into the team because of the 'Essex Connection' : Flower - Gooch - Cook (not to mention Hussain in the background) My advice to Ian Bell's agent is to get him to sign for Essex, then he might get a game for England!!!

  • Comment number 61.

    Sorry it was 32 balls for Ravi.

  • Comment number 62.

    The main problem with England's batting is that Kieswetter is not fulfilling his role as a fast scoring opener, but playing too cautiously. Bell should be playing but if we need a player to attack during the field restrictions, then Bairstow would be better than Kieswetter (and better wicket keeper) - that would enable Bell to be included. Also Dernbach in particular "lost the plot" by trying to many fancy variations instead of bowling mostly quick, full and straight - the Indian quickies showed how to do it. Although Patel scored some quick runs at the end, his bowling is unimpressive and he is liability in the field. Now we have lost the series, young Borthwick should be tried instead of Patel and Onions should replace Dernbach.

  • Comment number 63.

    "My advice to Ian Bell's agent is to get him to sign for Essex, then he might get a game for England!!!"

    Oh please. If there was some kind of Southern/Essex bias, how come Bell has played 107 matches? He possibly should be in the team instead of Bopara, but then again there is nothing much in his previous ODI performances to say he definitely should be.

  • Comment number 64.

    Trott is the most selfish, self-important cricketer I have ever seen in my life. I have supported England for 45 years but I will not support them again until they get rid of him.

  • Comment number 65.

    let's face it, Trott's no Tavere and his scoring rate-even in ODI's, stands up to all but the harshest scrutiny. Given our propensity to collapse in all forms of cricket, from a batting persective, so many times in the last 20+ years, we need a rock like Trott, from whom we can build an innings; otherwise it could be gung-ho, all out for 150! I'd like to add too, that if the accusations of on-field scullduggery are true, then those resonsible should be ashamed and something done about it. This is CRICKET, for God's sake-not rugby union, or football. The greatest respect to the Indians for keeping their dignity and that of the game itself, even during, what was, a very difficult summer for them. No-one LIKES to lose, but no-one likes a bad loser, either!

  • Comment number 66.

    "I have supported England for 45 years but I will not support them again until they get rid of him."

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  • Comment number 67.

    Sack Kieswetter !
    His antics behind the stumps are ridiculous. If an Indian (or Pakistani) keeper made as many appeals for anything that hits the pads or comes within an inch of the bat we would be calling for his head on a platter.
    He's like a 13 year old schoolboy playing his 1st game and he's watched the big lads appealing, so he's doing the same.
    What an annoying idiot.........

  • Comment number 68.

    " OneHandClapping wrote:

    Trott is the most selfish, self-important cricketer I have ever seen in my life. I have supported England for 45 years but I will not support them again until they get rid of him."

    Well, I'm a neutral, and I really, really hate to see England pick a player like Trott in their ODI team; so I can lend a hand to your clapping.

  • Comment number 69.

    Bell has played 107 games because he is class, most former england cricketers over the years like alec stewart, botham, hussain have said he is the best batsman in the nets, but has mental issues out in the middle, but he has definetely got the most potential. Now he is over his mental problems and fulfilling his potential, but yet still doesnt get a chance.

    I agree that if you play for essex or surrey you seem to get picked for england. dernbach and meaker have been called up to the squad bopara still plays when there are far better players out there. woakes is better, harris of glamorgan is better, onions, and there's a few young batsman out there getting good reviews yet still dont get a chance, like taylor from leicestershire.

  • Comment number 70.

    Sam! Really? Was this worth the electrons? In summary: "Some people say Trott is great and some people don't like him; maybe he'll only be appreciated when he's gone, eh?" And press "send". Right, off to lunch. Wonder what's on the menu today?"

    Didn't fancy giving any actual opinions today?

  • Comment number 71.

    Re Comment No.58. Its a good point about Patel. When he was first discarded I felt it was a bit unfair to dump someone based on their natural physique. However it was clearly an attitude issue as Patel mkII seems a much more committed cricketer, flinging himself around in the field, sprinting between the wickets and getting through a good work load with bat and ball. This is a good example of the selectors getting this right.

    Not sure I really agree on Keiswetter being quality though. Its right that new players need a chance to bed in before being judged, but Keiswetter has now played 26 ODIs, the majority of these against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and an India side without Zaheer and Ishant. As an opener he has the best chance to make a big contribution, but against these weaker attacks, only averages 28.68. For comparison, Steve Davies in his 8 ODIs (mainly against Australia and Pakistan) managed an average above 30.00 and a strike rate above a 100. He is also a better glove man.

    As a Sussex fan, even I agree that the answer is not Matt Prior in ODIs, but I'm increasing feeling it isn't Keiswetter either. Maybe England need to accept that Gilchrist was a one-off and that they don't have to open with a wicket-keeper. India don't and their keeper does just fine at 7!

  • Comment number 72.

    "Now he is over his mental problems and fulfilling his potential, but yet still doesnt get a chance."

    He doesn't get a chance? What do you call the 24 matches he's already been in this year? He's only been left out of the last 3 odis, and based on his record that's hardly a surprise.

  • Comment number 73.

    I honestly don't understand the criticism of Trott. As others have said his role is the accumulator of runs around whom others can play more aggressively. Greater scrutiny should fall on the likes of Kieswetter (quickfire 30 and out too often) and Bopara, who again has wasted deliveries that others would have used better. Fact - Trott scores big runs more frequently than anyone else in the team. Big runs, not 20s and 30s, lead to big scores which win games. One final note - RT Ponting - avg 42.83, S/R 80.6. Trott - avg 53.15, S/R 78.58. If Ponting was an Englishman would we even be having this discussion!

  • Comment number 74.

    #63, i was attempting to be faintly humorous... however I dont understand why Bell isnt in the team....

    ...and I agree with #67 about Kieswetter's appealing, it is really childish, he should stop it and concentrate on his job, which he signally failed to do yesterday. It's likely to make an umpire think twice if there is a GENUINE appeal at some stage.

  • Comment number 75.

    Pedro1972 @73 wrote "... If Ponting was an Englishman would we even be having this discussion!"

    Sadly, the answer is probably yes.

  • Comment number 76.

    #63; I think you are right in the case of Bell. Even the selectors could not overlook his talents. The problem lies with the London centric thinking and, I suspect, a lingering issue with Warwickshire unless the player is a shoo-in (like Bell and Trott). I cannot explain the selections of Dernbach (a decent Surrey Championship player) or Bopara in any other way. And my comments re Warwickshire relate to a pattern over 20 years starting with Twose (who was forced to emigrate and go straight into the NZ side when he could not even get an A tour for England), followed by the indulgences to Butcher whilst ignoring Knight, and finally the bizarre sight of selectors preferring Bopara and Dernbach to Woakes, possibly the best England all-rounder to emerge since Botham (and I do remember the -very- brief flowering of Freddie). It may be that I have not seen enough of Bopara live to form a good judgement but I have seen Dernbach since he first came into the Guildford side - and he has proved no problem to many club bats. I have seen Woakes take Hampshire apart twice at the Rose Bowl (including in 2009 when he batted with Trott and looked the better bat). I would love to see Surrey players with the talent to justify selection but most important is that selection is on merit rather than biased by who you play for.

  • Comment number 77.

    everyone knows bell is not a number 6, thats why his 'stats' havent been great. he gets moved up and down the order like a yo yo. I agree bell shouldnt play if he is to bat at 5 or 6, he should open or number 3. He is class and wouldnt need to 'slog' in the first 10 power play overs, he could bat normally and score a run or ball, and has the ability to carry on as he is a very good player of spin. A far better option than kieswetter who if he doesnt fail still only gets 20 or 30 and still only gets them off 30 35 balls.

  • Comment number 78.

    Well said Pedro1972. Gooch is constantly banging on about 'Daddy Hundreds' in tests. Well in ODIs 80s, 90s, 100s are what win you games. The second ODI is a case in point. Most of Englands order scored quickly, but then got out. Result, no half centuries and a below par total with balls unused.

    Two facts are indisputable from yesterday's game.

    1. Had Trott made a brisk 30 and out, England would not have posted more than 250

    2. 298 should have been enough to win the game.

    Not withstanding Englan's shoddy bowling and fielding performace. A bit of luck in Finn's final over and anything other than Dernbach's horror show and Bresnan's buffet start to the final over and England still might have got home.

  • Comment number 79.

    alb1on: I agree that some of the selections are baffling and after his perfomances in Oz I was looking forward to seeing more of Woakes. However, you have to ask if there is not a massive conflict of interests with Giles as selector and Warwickshire coach.

    Woakes impresses in the winter, yet isn't selected for a single squad all summer (while Warks are challenging for title) and is then instantly selected the moment the County champsionship season is over.

    Seems fishy to me.

  • Comment number 80.

    "however I dont understand why Bell isnt in the team...."

    Because he has a relatively poor record, even this year?

  • Comment number 81.

    I think Trott should be made to tour Via Agra (where the Taj Mahal is located) to boost his chances and strike rate. He strike rate needs to stay up until the end, instead of sagging off ;-)

  • Comment number 82.

    #79; Woakes was out for a month in the early season with shin splints which set him back but my understanding was that Giles was championing his selection and has been for 2 years. Perhaps the real problem is that the other selectors have a problem with Giles stating the blindingly obvious.

  • Comment number 83.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 84.

    "everyone knows bell is not a number 6, thats why his 'stats' havent been great. he gets moved up and down the order like a yo yo. I agree bell shouldnt play if he is to bat at 5 or 6, he should open or number 3."

    He's already played 47 innings at number 3 (which is more than Trott has had)- average 37.47, sr of 73.68. Not great.

    At numbers 1 and 2 he's played 27 innings, an sr of 69.55 at 1, and 72 at 2. Even worse.

    I repeat, he has never made a position his own and that's why he gets moved up and down. He has made very few significant contributions and yet the expectation seems to be that next time he will come good, if only he is given a chance. Well maybe he will, but I don't have high hopes. There certainly shouldn't be any controversy over his absence from the series thus far.

  • Comment number 85.

    82 If that is the case with Woakes then it is more grist to the mill of 'selection consistency'. If Woakes was part of the winter squad and performed, he shouldn't then slip down the pecking order becasue he was injured. I'd accept the argument from the selectors if Dernbach, Bresnan were setting the world alight, however.....

  • Comment number 86.

    To those who compare the greats with the not-so-great-yet but has the talent to! -
    Tendulkar scored 80 odd (after 4 + chances ) vs pakistan in the same venue and India were able to defend the total. Trott scored 98 and England weren't able to. Trott has been brilliant in test version, and he is learning the tricks of trade in all formats and all places. He is a youngster - give him a chance. He is much better than the rest of his team in scoring in India and also elsewhere. Cook should have used spinners better and seamers too. All young cricketers should have adequate backing and that is what helps. Ganguly's backing of his players followed by Dhoni's saw India becoming a very good side in all formats (world no 1 in tests for a time and world cup champions in T20 and ODIs). Same applies to England - they have lots of talent but not so much experience - which they need despite their poor showing. Australia also has got lots of young guns going which might be tricky ie they are not back to No1 but they will be in few years to come. Same applies to south africa.

  • Comment number 87.

    #80 Bell's ODI batting average = 34.38, Bopara's ODI batting average =30.06.... next argument?

  • Comment number 88.

    The management made an error in appointing Cook as captain (Bell should have got it and opened with Cook waiting in the wings for Strauss to finish) and have probably been 'hoping' Trott slips up ever since. He, however, has not given them the opportunity by continuing to score on a regular basis. Unfortunately having both of them in the side is a problem. They are not slow scorers, but they both have too many dot balls and are rather 1 paced.

    Balance has been a problem for a number of years. Whilst we all like the idea of having more bowling option in the teams. However, I am yet to be convinced by either Bopara or Patel. Perhaps Woakes would be an option here?

    I also think we need to take a step back and realise we are playing India in India and just like they struggled in English conditions we have sturggled with Indian conditions.

  • Comment number 89.

    #84; you make good points with your stats but this still fails to answer the question 'why take Bell to India if you are not going to use him?'. He has been heavily worked this year and whilst others are given a rest he is carted off for no purpose when he could be recharging for the next test series when he is an automatic selection.

  • Comment number 90.

    As ive said before, Bell has dramatically improved. He was in the press this week saying my best position is in the top 3. Hes proved hes the real deal in tests, so let him prove it in odi's. if in a years time he hasnt proved himself, then yes its time for someone else to have a go. But that average of 37 was when he was a poorer player and yet it is still way better than kieswetter's average of 29!!

  • Comment number 91.

    I assume he is there as a multi-purpose backup, but more specifically a backup to Cook and Trott.

  • Comment number 92.

    fallenfaith; you do not knacker your best test batsman by taking him as a multi-purpose backup. If that was really the thinking then the selectors should not just be sacked but should be ceremonially flogged around the Lords outfield.

  • Comment number 93.

    The simple fact is that Kieswetter single-handedly lost us this crucial third ODI by putting down three catches and missing a simple stumping opportunity. To add insult to injury he conceded 17 extras, by stark contrast to the immaculate Dhoni who ony conceded 3 extras !!

    Terence Harvey

  • Comment number 94.

    First of all, I will have to preface any comments that I did not watch today’s game.
    However in reference to earlier posts my views are as follows.
    Andy Flower is one of the most impressive individuals as a man that has been involved in English cricket. Comments suggesting that it is some Essex connection that keeps Bopara in the team or some southern bias that promotes some other players reflects a complete lack of knowledge of the man. It should be remembered that Bopara was not selected for the England team earlier in the year even though he had made the considerable commitment by eschewing the IPL and then made some pretty decent scores at the start of the season. As for some anti-Warwickshire conspiracy, Ashley Giles is a selector for goodness sake.
    I have not seen enough of Woakes to make a fair judgement. On the few occasions I have seen him his bowling appears a little lightweight and he is not a top 6 batsmen. but continue to view his progress with interest.
    One of the problems England have in one dayers (and to a certain extent Test Level) is that none of our batmen really bowl. Almost all successful one day teams have a useful bowler within the batsmen (eg Yuvraj for India, Symonds for Australia etc). This helps balance the side.
    Secondly all our batsmen bat in the top 4 domestically. The role of the #5 or #6 is often very different and none of the current squad appears to naturally suit those requirements. This is not then helped by having to fill 2 of the top 4 berths with Cook & Trott which further unbalances the team.
    I have to say though, for all my comments supporting Flower, I have seen Dernbach play many times now and I’m still not convinced.

  • Comment number 95.

    I can not believe we are even having this debate. Trott is vital to this England team he averages over 50 and at a strike rate of nearly 80 WHATS THE MATTER WITH THAT? Good batsman play against good bowlers and Trott is a good batsman...We can keep persuing with sloggers who may get you a quickish 30-40(Kieswetter) but that will not win you a game. You need your best bowlers and your best batsman. Bell should come in for Bopara, Anderson for Dernbech and In my eyes a wicket keeper should be picked to keep wicket and that should be Prior, surely he's no worse than Kieswetter with a bat anyway!! Anyway back to the point England scored 298 yesterday that should be enough and if they can't defend that score the problems are in the field (dropped catches/poor bowling) not a batsman who is 98no

  • Comment number 96.

    The question is Trott or Not? Well frankly anyone even suggesting that Trott is not good enough for International One day Cricket (SwammyCricket!!!!!) really does not understand Trott's record, role in the team and why he is ranked as one of the best players in the world.

    Yes accelerating is important but Trott's (Cook's)place in the team is to give stability so that hitters at 2,4,5 down to Swan can score more quickly. It is a testament to how good a player Trott is that he can score a 80 runs per 100 balls and look predestrian.

    So in conclusion Trott is the first name on the team sheet especially as this year alone he averages over 50 in the one dayers which I think is more than anyone else in World Cricket.

  • Comment number 97.

    I dont understand the criticism that is being levelled at Trott. Without Trott, none of the other batsman in the English team could have played with the flamboyance that they did. I think he should have thrown caution to the wind and attempt to up the scoring rate in the last five-six overs with big hitters waiting in the ranks. But apart from that, he played really well- he is a bit similar to Dravid although I wouldnt take that comparison too far. England lost the game because of their fielding and poor bowling. Give Trott a break and learn to appreciate consistency that is so lacking in the English batting department.

  • Comment number 98.

    Over the past 15 years there has been a huge list of essex and more notably surrey players who have been picked when they didnt deserve the chance. Its not necessarily Andy Flower, its more the london media hyping up london based players, a bit like tottenham in football. Andy Flower played for my club in Birmingham League and he has a great reputation!!

    Look at Tremlett he was a very good player at hampshire, but had to move to surrey to get a game for England.

  • Comment number 99.

    SteakandAlePie; I am well aware Giles is a selector and would not be concerned about the Warwickshire issue if the evidence did not suggest a problem - but I could be wrong, previous selectors may just have been incompetent. Regarding Woakes, he is batted at 7/8 for Warwickshire partially to manage his workload as a youngster. He would certainly bat above Clarke on merit and would be a fine county no 6. I suspect his obvious place in an England team would be 7 in in the medium term. As for his bowling being lightweight he is now timed consistently in the mid 80s with a faster ball up around 88/89. Certainly sharp enough even without his ability to move the ball both ways. He is also still bulking up and may have another 1-2 mph to find next year (just as he added 1-2 mph this year). I suspect the view of his bowling in many eyes (not yours perhaps) is skewed by the description of him as RM on cricinfo and RMF on BBC. I always thought those terms applied to bowlers up to 80mph.

  • Comment number 100.

    @comment 25

    I've read this 'no rain to help you here' comment from a number of Indian posters.

    Doesn't it embarrass you to be seen to be clutching at straws so badly?

    Your boys didn't win a single game over here against England. Nothing. If England win just one of our ODIs there then we've done better than you did. Oh, and when it rains, there's an internationally agreed system for finding a result. Unless India decide to begin opting out of that as well, of course...


Page 1 of 3

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.