'It's possible that Jonathan can fill that Pietersen role and take the attack to the bowlers,' he says.
This is symptomatic of a certain part of the English outlook: build 'em up unrealistically, then knock them when they fall short of euphoric expectation.
Trott made a terrific hundred on debut. He's not alone in that. Strauss, Cook and Prior did the same - Cook's, in Nagpur, was arguably as good. Bell made 70, Trescothick 66, Shah 88, Pietersen 57 and 64 not out. England do debuts quite well, but for Test-class players the debut is more a test of temperament than ability. Usually, opposition teams are on the treadmill and have had little time see them up close and to work them out. What comes next is more revealing.
Trott needs and deserves a longer examination of his technique before he becomes some kind of sticking plaster for all of England's batting ills. My view is that sides will dry him up quite quickly, and he will need some time to adjust and respond. That's natural, and we need to let it happen.
Posts
2 comments:
Given the success of batting debutants, do we need a radical re-think? Ditch the so-called 'consistency' policy and simply pick a brand new 11 every single game.
This would also effectively counteract the business of opponents analysing players months ahead of a series, 'working them out' and developing 'bowling plans'. Instead, they would have to play cricket against each other.
I think it would be madness moving Trott up to number 3 on the back of his good test debut. Why is it that we continue - as you referred too in your post - to over do things on the back of someone showing some promise and potential.
Instead of shoving him into England's problem position and then - if he fails - picking holes in his technique from the Sky Sports commentary box why don't England just leave him to find his feet at international level batting lower down the order.
Batting in a hostile enviroment like the upcoming tour of South Africa will be a different experience from the allbeit difficult circumstances he made his debut in, which is why he should be allowed the time to develop himself at Test level outside of the perennial problem of England's No.3.
It is not as if England don't already have players who could bat there anyway. Most sides have their best batsman playing in that spot, ie Ponting, Sangakkara etc, so why don't the England management move Kevin Pietersen up there?
Of the other candidates Alastair Cook hasn't had a great run of form lately, since he scored a hundred in Sri Lanka in December 2007 he has managed just 2 more centuries and both have come against West Indies county bowling attack, maybe he might benefit from a change in the batting order by moving him down to No.3 if for example Joe Denly was to prove a success if he recovers from his knock received at Wembley in time to play a part in the rest of the Australia series.
In short leave Trott to bat at No.5 or No.6.
Post a Comment