Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

England Trott Towards Disaster

Sunday, 16th August 2009

So, the selectors have spoken. And what a dreary story they have to tell. The selection of Jonathan Trott (and the retention of Ian Bell) for the final test of the summer is depressingly timid. Worse than that, it is recklessly timid, since it presumes that England have been more competitive in this series than is actually the case and that modest tinkering with the side is all that is required to produce a final victory.

This is not an analysis that is endorsed by the facts: England were comprehensively outplayed at Cardiff and Leeds, while their victory at Lords rested upon: a) a sloppy Australian batting performance, b) an unusually incisive spell from Flintoff and c) at least three dubious umpiring decisions that went England's way. At Edgbaston, it is true, England established a proper beachhead, but they were unable to capitalise on this and, in the end, Australia escaped comfortably. Yes, the series is tied 1-1, but Australia have been the better side for most of the summer. If England think otherwise they are kidding themselves.

Alas, this selection demonstrates that they remain in denial. There is a place for continuity but there are also times when selectors need to use their imagination. This was one of those times. Which is why I favoured replacing Bell and Bopara with Key and Ramprakash. Instead the selectors have decided to stick with the time-honoured principle of Buggin's Turn.

Because that's what Trott's selection means. Does anyone really think he's a better batsman than Mark Ramprakash? Yes, he has been in good nick this summer. But, at 28 and with a record of making a century just every 12 innings, it is unlikely (not impossible but unlikely) that he will have a successful test career. True, neither Michael Vaughan or Marcus Trescothick scored frequently or heavily in county cricket before they were chosen for England. But they were identified aged 24, not when they were nearing 30.

Trott has not been chosen because the selectors consider him the long-term answer, rather because they had decided that he was in good enough form to be considered next in line. But his record is pretty much the same as Stephen Moore's (career average a bit above 40, a century every 11.8 innings) or even Michael Carberry (career average of 41 and a century every 9.9 innings). You wouldn't think Carberry or Moore long-term test cricketers, so why would you think Trott could be the answer? And if you're not interested in Trott as a long-term option once Pietersen comes back, then why are you choosing him ahead of Ramprakash for a one-off test when you know and I know and everyone knows that Ramps is the better batsman?

I bang on about the rate at which players make centuries because, with, as always, some exceptions, it tends to be a pretty useful predictor of future performance. That is, it is unusual for someone to score centuries more frequently at test level than in county cricket. Trott may prove an exception to this, but the odds are against this being the case.

Equally, despite my admiration for Ian Bell, he is exceedingly fortunate to remain in the side, not least since England seem determined to bat him at number three - a position where he has enjoyed very little success. Will the Australians fear a 3,4,5 of Bell, Trott and Collingwood? Would you? Like Trott, Bell can consider himself fortunate that Ashley Giles is one of the selectors. Talk about a conflict of interest! Would either Trott or Bell be playing if their county's Director of Cricket weren't a selector? I doubt it. (And why is Giles a selector anyway? Since he has to be with Warwickshire all the time, he only sees half the counties.)

Paralysed by the idea that there's no point in having people yo-yoing in and out of the side, England prefer to hand out new caps in the hope that, this time, they'll get lucky and the player will stick. But sometimes a player benefits from being left out for a while. Simon Katich, for instance, made his debut as far back as 2001, but he only became a real regular last year and played no test cricket at all between 2005 and 2008. That spell in the wilderness did him no harm.

Similarly, is Rob Key a better batsman armed with a better temperament now than when he was in the England side? I think most people would say yes on both fronts. There's no doubt - none at all since everyone recognises it - that Ramprakash is tougher mentally and better technically than he was when he last played test cricket seven whole years ago. But, no, the selectors play it safe and take the next cab available since, as Atherton says, showing a little imagination would have embarrassed them if Key and Ramps actually made some runs.

True, Key and Ramprakash might have failed, but there is, as best I can see, absolutely no reason to suppose that they'd be less likely to score runs than Bell and Trott and plenty of grounds for supposing that they might make more. So, by playing safe the selectors have actually increased the risk that, far from winning the match, England will actually lose it. In other words, this is a selection that achieves the exact opposite of what it is intended to. That's woeful, even by England's standards.

The selection is also oddly inconsistent: form was considered key to Trott being selected, yet Mony Panesar is also in the squad despite taking just 10 wickets this summer at 71 each. You can select the best players or you can select the guys in the best nick, but it's very odd to mix and match like this.

This is a one-off test that demanded bold thinking from the selectors. Instead they have been drearily, predictably timid. This is, as I say, reckless.

Still, it don't matter how many runs you score if you can't take 20 wickets. But that's a matter for another day.

Filed under: Cricket (157 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

David Blackburn

August 16th, 2009 6:37pm Report this comment

Alex,

I couldn’t agree more. The pusillanimity of the selectors’ decision is striking. They make sweeping changes after the freak debacle in Jamaica, but ignore the consistent failure of the middle order in this series, and all in the name of ‘continuity’ – this is a one-off, winner takes all Ashes Test match, not Revisionist history. A return of one hundred in four games is lean to say the least and this is not the first time this charge has been levelled against this particular batting line-up.

Perhaps Andy Burnham will describe me as ‘unpatriotic’, but I hope England lose. If the rumours that this decision was made because there is mutual animosity between Rob Key and the England selectors, and Mark Ramprakash is nearing 40, are true it is an indictment of the way English cricket operates on the basis that those deemed ‘yes men’ by the management are selected. The only criterion for selection is which players will collectively form the best eleven. The team that will take to the field next week is not the best available eleven in the country.

That said, Jonathon Trott is a good player in fine form and deserves his place, but he should be coming in at third wicket down after Key and Ramprakash have taken guard. A middle order of Bopara, Bell and Collingwood, replaced by Bell, Trott and Collingwood reminds one of the cliché about frying pans and fires.

Fergus Pickering

August 16th, 2009 7:28pm Report this comment

How odd that picking a 39 year old man who had a long try-out before and didn't come up with the goods is called bold and imaginative. It would have been bold and imaginative to have picked Joe Denly, not right, but certainly bold and imaginative. What is boring and run-of-the-mill about Trott. He is 28, that's eleven years younger than Ramps, with a filthy temper. But you say the selectors pick only yes men. He'll probably bite Geoff Miller's head off if he gets a dodgy decision if Miller is in the firing line. I'd like to see Rob Key, but then I'm a man of Kent. Anywy, the only result that's dramatically right is a win for England and ten wickets and a century for Freddie on his last outing before he hobbles off into the sunset. Any other result is a travesty, sir, a travesty. And don't pick Harmison. He's a big girl's blouse.

Rob Marrs

August 16th, 2009 7:33pm Report this comment

I agree with much of this analysis. I don't agree with Ramps, as it happens, but I'd probably pick him ahead of Trott.

Key should have got the call...

Incidentally, what do you think re: opening batsmen? Is Shane Watson an opening bat OR does his success show that the idea of a specialist is redundant?

http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com

Pat

August 16th, 2009 7:40pm Report this comment

Unless you're completely malleable to the selectors' will, you're not getting into that Test side. It's little wonder Treco barely paused to think before turning us down.

Austin Barry

August 16th, 2009 8:17pm Report this comment

Timid and tedious - and that's just Ashley Giles' bowling. He seems to have brought the same dull ethos to his selector's sinecure. We all know Ramps should be playing rather than Trott, but then we're just the great unwashed ticket-buyers in our dress-up-day, drink-befuddled ignorance.

Leo McKinstry

August 16th, 2009 11:48pm Report this comment

Alex, I could not agree more. As a passionate England follower (albeit one born and raised in Belfast), I have never gone in for selector-bashing, even in the dark days over 1989. But in all my years of devotion to English test cricket, I have never felt such a mixture of animosity and despair about the selectors. What does Ian Bell have to do to get dropped? He has never scored runs when it really mattered. It was bad enough when he kept being picked in 2005 despite a succession of timid failures (especially as he took the place of the much tougher Graham Thorpe) but the perversity of his call-up to the national side this summer has been a scandal. Similarly, if Bopara had been Australian, he would have been dropped after the Second Test (as indeed Phil Hughes was.) In a desperate attempt to appear bold the selectors then picked five bowlers for Headlingey, who promptly bowled short and wide for most of the Aussie innings. The one man who consistently bowls a decent length, Sidebottom, was of course left out. I completely agree with you about Ramps and Key - they were the two obvious selections for the middle order at the Oval. But it seems that, for reasons of vanity and some twisted, meaningless attachment to "consistency", they were never considered. There's a terrible flabbiness and cowardly conventionality in their thinking, and I fear that England are going to pay a high price this week. The absurdity of the situation is that if Trott on his debut scores, say, 15 and 24, he will be considered a success, whereas if Ramprakesh or Key got anything less than 50 they would be branded failures.

YouCannotBeSerious!

August 17th, 2009 10:27am Report this comment

Alex, agreed - 100%

Grumpy Old Man

August 17th, 2009 11:42am Report this comment

Ramps is that very English phenomenon, an aesthetically delightful batsman who consistently fails at the top level. Rob Key is a battling bloody-minded player who refuses to leave his form on the gym floor, thereby incurring the wrath of the blinkered jock-strapping boneheads in the management team. That Shane has prospered as an opening bat merely shows that the English opening attack is shite with or without St. Frederick, and that is compounded by bone-headed captaincy and match analysis.

Ian C

August 17th, 2009 12:17pm Report this comment

I don't go for Ramps. He was tried before and failed. He is able to paaly as well as he is for the same reason that Tresco can. They both have talent and experience and the pressure on him is lifted. Imagine the pressure Ramps would have been under once agian - the one thing he has been known to be unable to take.

Key and Trott (I know nothing about the latter) seemed the obvious choice. Bell ousted Key at his start of test cricket and Key has done much in both Test and County cricket since to warrant the call, while Bell has gone backwards.

I really was at Headinly in '81

August 17th, 2009 1:53pm Report this comment

I agree with Ian C about Ramps (and that's nothing to do with him leaving Middlesex under a cloud, honest) and think Key should have been given the no 3 spot.

However, I didn't think Bell should have been in consideration at all for the Ashes, given how inept he was against them last time (and isn't Lee likely to be back?). For the Oval, I think he definitely should have been dropped instead of Bopara, but I'd have moved Ravi down the order below Collingwood to no 5 - a much more sensible position for a stroke-player like him to play in test matches. If we get a good start he can play freely, if we collapse, at least the ball is a bit older when he comes out, so he stands a better chance of getting his eye in.

Bowlers - difficult. I love Freddie and really do hope he justifies his selection and can go out on a high. I'd keep Harmison (Aussie pundits almost all say he's the bowler they're most scared of), Onions, Anderson, Swann. Broad bats well, and his bowling has improved a bit, but I wonder whether he needs time at county level to work on that (didn't the same happen to Anderson after he was called up pretty young), so I think I'd opt for Sidebottom, as someone a bit different and with a point to prove.

Martin Adamson

August 22nd, 2009 4:43pm Report this comment

Just want to be the first one to point out that Trott has made a century. Your judgement of cricket is every bit as good as your judgement of politics

Post comment