Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Inspection at 2pm, but outfield very wet (might dry quickly in tropical conditions I suppose). It'll be a sub-20 over game, if it happens.

During the practice a few days ago, apparently a python had to be removed from the outfield.

bigfluffylemon wrote:I think Trott is hugely unfairly bagged out for his strike rate. In the context of when he was playing the game, it really wasn't that bad, and I think in the ODI game at the time, a strike rate of 80 was only ever so slightly below the norm.

We forget just how much batting strike rates in ODIs have moved on in this decade. Prior to 2011, the average strike rate across all games was around 5 an over or less. From 2012 on, it's been steadily climbing. That means that until about 2011, 250 was (on average) a competitive score. And to get 250, your average batsman needs a strike rate of 83. Take into account that ODI innings are not paced evenly, and strike rates tend to accelerate in the last 10, especially with wickets in hand, and there was definitely a role for an anchor player who could reliably get you 50 in 65 balls for the rest of the team to build an innings around, and ensure that the team would have wickets in hand for the final push.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;view=year

I could name you 20 players easily who are considered very good ODI players, who have a strike rate about the same or worse than Trott. The issue is twofold, I think. Firstly, it wasn't so much Trott himself, if was the mindset that included Trott, Bell, Cook, Vaughan etc. in the team. There is room for one reliable anchor player. You don't need three. The second is that he was playing that kind of innings as ODI cricket was evolving and leaving England behind. Prior to Trott's career, only 3 England players had ever had a better career strike rate than Trott did in 2011 (qualifier - 1000 runs scored) - KP, Flintoff and Tresco. And none of them had a strike rate higher than 90. In four years since the last world cup, England now have 6 of their top 7 with a strike rate of near or over 100, and there's been hand-wringing about Joe Root with a strike rate of 90 and an average of over 50, and whether he's 'holding back' the side. The game has changed.

I took a look at Trott's top 10 innings for England. England won about half of them and lost the others. I think there's maybe two that you could make a legitimate case that if Trott had got on with it a bit more, England could have won. But in most cases where England lost, they were thumped, and Trott was the only man standing amid the rest of the batting order failing around him. Maybe there's a case that the later batters fell because they were trying to get on with it and he'd left them too much to do. But I think that's a pretty long bow to draw. In most cases, the entire England batting line up in 2011 simply didn't have the capability of scoring the runs they needed to win the game. Singling their highest averaging player, Trott, out for his strike rate as a reason is scapegoating, IMO.