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
Arthur Crabtree wrote:All other things being equal, Trott would be first name down out of those.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests