Skip to main content

The curious case of Jonathan Trott

Jonathan Trott must sometimes wonder what else he needs to do in order to gain universal approval in the country he plays in. As Barney Ronay rightly points out (though in a slightly different context to what I'm writing here), Trott has more often than not been the most reliable player England have had in years, even more so than Anderson or Cook and is the fulcrum of the current batting line-up.

Sample his stats alone. He is the first England batsmen to average over 50 in Test matches (min of 25 matches played) since 1968 (the fact that he is 7th on the overall list closely followed by Cook and Pietersen is one of the main reasons for England's success in the last few years). An Ashes century on debut, an overall average of 80+ against Australia, and an average of 60+ in matches won underline his value to the team tellingly. Add to that the fact that he also averages over 50 in ODIs and is the only English batsmen to ever do so (Pietersen who's next on the list is more than 10 runs behind him). In any other country he would easily be MVP but in England, he only gets a few pieces of grudging admiration and mostly comments on how slow his batting his, and how boring he is to watch. Reminds me of another famous #3 who also divided opinions for a long time for similar reasons.

England need to appreciate what they have. If in doubt, a look at their current opposition's struggles with the one-down spot will remind them why.

p.s.: As I write this, Trott has got out for 48 in the first innings of the 2013 Ashes (bringing his average temporarily down below the 50 mark) and with it England have gone from 124/3 to 185/6.........

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?