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

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:26 pm**

as long as this isn't just panic at the prospect of life without the £250+k plus appearance money, plus win bonuses, plus sponsorship deals, plus everything else, that a central contract brings

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:34 pm**

Durhamfootman wrote:England surely have lots of places available for the ODI side, and if they don't, they blooming well should have. There is no other cricket other than ODI's for several months now and Trott was a stalwart of the side that topped the ODI rankings briefly, so it seems to me that there is plenty of scope for him to re-emerge, if he feels okay to do it, and if England feel they need the dependability that he once offered.

Whether he should play in a top order already boasting 6 'bat through/anchor' batsmen, is another matter, of course

I was thinking more about tests tbh

even in ODIs could you fit trott back into a top order with cook , bell and root all there ?

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:29 pm**

All other things being equal, Trott would be first name down out of those.

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:37 pm**

I think he will need to prove himself for a while longer before he'll be considered to international games. Taking him back to Australia for a WC would be quite something. A new start in a home series must surely be his best hope.

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:03 pm**

Arthur Crabtree wrote:All other things being equal, Trott would be first name down out of those.

in theory but we are talking about the England selectors

Posted: **Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:09 pm**

Given the grief they are getting over picking Cook, and how much flak they get for being conservative, it's hard to see them go back to Trott. But, he is in reality what Cook advertises himself as, a player who will reliably see you to the last ten.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:11 am**

There's no way I'd take Trott to the world cup, even if he is good enough. Easing him back in next summer sounds like the easy option, though he is 33 now, so, without being ageist, should they be looking to the future?

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:12 am**

Dr Robert wrote:There's no way I'd take Trott to the world cup, even if he is good enough. Easing him back in next summer sounds like the easy option, though he is 33 now, so, without being ageist, should they be looking to the future?

I agree, if Trott was 10 years younger, he'd be a risk worth taking, now, nothing to be gained by it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:08 am**

SaintPowelly wrote:
Dr Robert wrote:There's no way I'd take Trott to the world cup, even if he is good enough. Easing him back in next summer sounds like the easy option, though he is 33 now, so, without being ageist, should they be looking to the future?

I agree, if Trott was 10 years younger, he'd be a risk worth taking, now, nothing to be gained by it.

I couldn't disagree more with those sentiments, if Trott or anyone is better than other options the idea that at 33/34 years old you have no future the world has gone mad. If he were a pace bowler there might be some justification but with a batsman none at all.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:17 am**

hopeforthebest wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:
Dr Robert wrote:There's no way I'd take Trott to the world cup, even if he is good enough. Easing him back in next summer sounds like the easy option, though he is 33 now, so, without being ageist, should they be looking to the future?

I agree, if Trott was 10 years younger, he'd be a risk worth taking, now, nothing to be gained by it.

I couldn't disagree more with those sentiments, if Trott or anyone is better than other options the idea that at 33/34 years old you have no future the world has gone mad. If he were a pace bowler there might be some justification but with a batsman none at all.

Is Trott so much more better though? We have a reasonably settled middle order, and playing him as an opener instead of say the retiring Cook, would still leave him and Bell playing for the same place. I know 33 is hardly ancient, but his peak has probably passed.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:23 am**

England don't have a settled middle order, they have a failing middle order. If they can strengthen the team, then they should. Whether that means picking Trott is another issue. For a serially losing side, I don't think the status quo can be justified.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:28 am**

Arthur Crabtree wrote:England don't have a settled middle order, they have a failing middle order. If they can strengthen the team, then they should. Whether that means picking Trott is another issue. For a serially losing side, I don't think the status quo can be justified.

Morgan, Root, and Ballance, maybe Ali seems to be the future. Ok, say Trott plays next summer, as he won't this winter, then is he in the plans for the next world cup?

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:38 am**

They have been fairly poor for two years. They're by no means certainly the future in my view. OK, Ballance hasn't had much of a chance, which doesn't make him part of a settled middle order. Same with Moeen. I'm not really so much arguing for Trott, apart from to point out he has been one of England's best ODI players, and that his performances weren't declining. I'm more suggesting that what is in place has failed over a long period.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:48 am**

Arthur Crabtree wrote:They have been fairly poor for two years. They're by no means certainly the future in my view. OK, Ballance hasn't had much of a chance, which doesn't make him part of a settled middle order. Same with Moeen. I'm not really so much arguing for Trott, apart from to point out he has been one of England's best ODI players, and that his performances weren't declining. I'm more suggesting that what is in place has failed over a long period.

Settled may have been the wrong word, but those are the players being looked at. Root and Morgan have been a inconsistent, however Trott isn't in competition with them. I don't see the point in the risk myself.

Posted: **Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:01 pm**

Dr Robert wrote:
hopeforthebest wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:
Dr Robert wrote:There's no way I'd take Trott to the world cup, even if he is good enough. Easing him back in next summer sounds like the easy option, though he is 33 now, so, without being ageist, should they be looking to the future?

I agree, if Trott was 10 years younger, he'd be a risk worth taking, now, nothing to be gained by it.

I couldn't disagree more with those sentiments, if Trott or anyone is better than other options the idea that at 33/34 years old you have no future the world has gone mad. If he were a pace bowler there might be some justification but with a batsman none at all.

Is Trott so much more better though? We have a reasonably settled middle order, and playing him as an opener instead of say the retiring Cook, would still leave him and Bell playing for the same place. I know 33 is hardly ancient, but his peak has probably passed.

My point was not about Trott but about the idea that at 33/34 years of age all players have no future in international cricket.

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

Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness

Re: Jonathan Trott's stress illness