Jonathan Trott: it’s really NOT his fault

Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What’s any of this to do with Jonathan Trott?

Well the first three questions were answered in Freakonomics, the 2005 book that became an instant worldwide phenomenon selling over 4 million copies in 35 languages. The book that postulates nothing in the modern world can’t be understood if the right questions are asked – all it takes is a new way of looking.

The book that those who watch England’s ODI cricket and constantly raise questions about Jonathan Trott without taking a close – even new – look at what’s really been going on clearly haven’t read.

#Trottsfault?

It’s a standing joke among cricket followers on Twitter that everything that goes wrong with England’s ODI side – as well as with everything else – is down to Jonathan Trott; there’s an #Trottsfault tagline as well as a regular tweeter of the same name. Tweets range from the cricketing “I’m 93% sure its Trott’s fault that England are bowling down the leg side” to the more general “Not sure why people say the “occupy” protest movement started in the US. It started with Trott ‘occupying’ the crease in Australia” (the fact that Trott was facing when Amir bowled “that” no ball was meat and drink to #Trottsfault devotees as well).

But the joke wears thin when the mainstream media continue to question Trott’s place in the side. For example, mid-way through the India series Derek Pringle wrote that Trott had “probably done enough to keep his place for the next game.” A few days later Pringle had the good grace to say “it is hard to be critical of a man with three hundreds and 16 fifties in his 38 ODIs,” before valiantly making the effort to be critical all the same. Then there was The Sun’s cricket correspondent tweeting that “Trott is invaluable on a 230 pitch but less so on a 300 pitch,” a refrain echoed last summer in the Daily Mail with “Trott is the right man to be number three when England are chasing 250 but in conditions where 300 is par…sorry Jonathan you may have to be the fall guy”.

The Mythical 300

Now everyone is entitled to an opinion but surely it’s best when opinions are backed up by a little reality? Leaving aside the dubious assumption that England – who seem unable to judge a pitch’s par score during an innings – would be able to judge pre-game whether conditions called for Trott (target 250) or the unnamed, possibly mythical, tyro replacement (target 300), why is 300 so readily banded about as the benchmark by which Trott’s selection is to be judged?

How does a score that England have managed to achieve only 27 times in their 572 game ODI history (only twice to win when batting second) become the standard for Trott’s inclusion?

Moving to specifics, if Trott’s not the man where 300 is involved, why is it that the only times this England side makes anything near 300 is largely down to him? In his 40 ODIs England have scored 298 or more only six times. In those six games, Trott scored 90 or more five times at an average of 111. By the by, when he does get out of the way early to let England’s fabulous stroke makers hammer their way to 300 plus, things don’t always go according to plan – in the 11 innings where he hasn’t reached 15, England have never reached 300. In fact they’ve only passed 250 twice and they’ve averaged 228.

Winners and Losers

Another criticism is that England don’t always win when Trott scores big. And it’s true that Trott has scored over 90 on six occasions and England have lost four times. The implication is that a long Trott innings consumes the strike, pressurises the other poor batsman and leads to sub optimal totals. The problem for his detractors is that those six innings have resulted in average totals of 305 so the casual links to defeat are tenuous.

For example, last February in Sydney, England lost despite scoring their highest ODI total against Australia. Was defeat due to Trott’s 137 at a SR of 108 (the seventh highest individual score in England’s ODI history)? Or was Jimmy Anderson’s 1-91, the second worst ODI bowling analysis in England history, more to blame?

Was it Trott’s run-a-ball 92 that helped England lose against Ireland in the World Cup? Or was it bowling that conceded the highest ever successful World Cup run chase and allowed Kevin O’Brien to score the fastest World Cup 100?

Possibly Trott’s most contentious innings was in England’s first defeat by Bangladesh in 2010 when his 94 off 130 balls was roundly condemned as too slow – even though it was just one boundary away from being a truly heroic innings. OK, he was dismissed with three balls left and six runs needed for victory. But does this really detract from the way he shepherded the tail to 65 runs off the last 62 balls in a low and slow scoring match? Surely the real problem was the paltry 166 off 235 balls managed by the time the seventh-wicket fell? Trott scored 94 off 130 balls; the other seven of England’s top eight in that match scored 94 off 135 balls between them. And the problem was Trott? Go figure.

Which brings us to his recent 98 not against India at Mohali. Never mind that this was the only score over 70 made by an England batsman in the series, never mind that this contributed to England’s highest total – 298 – since they played Ireland in the World Cup, never mind that in the other four matches when, for once, Trott didn’t score heavily, England were bowled out in less than 50 overs each time (for an average score of 202), some in the media – and on the message boards – still latched on to Trott’s perceived lack of acceleration towards the end of the innings as a problem.

Didn’t they notice that England scored 91 off the last 10 overs? That Trott scored 26 off 23 in that time, rotating the strike, in my opinion, perfectly to ensure Samit Patel who was 100% “in the zone” faced as many balls as possible? That the net result was England’s highest ever first innings total against India? On one message board I read it would have been better if Trott had got out at the start of the last 10 as “getting Bairstow in would have meant a total at least 30 runs higher.” Now, Bairstow is clearly a fine prospect, but given his average of 12.5 and SR of 60 in the series, it seems to be asking rather a lot to expect him to score those extra 30 runs.

In the real world the Mohali defeat was down to poor fielding – with the keeper leading the way – and wayward bowling that included a wide and a no ball in the penultimate over. But this didn’t stop a quality Sunday paper immediately finding a new way to find fault with Trott. Taking the arbitrary line of batsmen who scored 700 runs or more in ODIs over the last year – there were 17 – and then analyzing the percentage runs each of these scored in boundaries, the paper revealed Trott came 13th of the 17; ergo he’s not a power hitter and, guess what: it’s all his fault.

Leaving aside the fact that any stat that places an innings of 100 with 24 fours and two twos (98% in boundaries) behind an innings that lasts two balls, one a boundary (100% in boundaries) has its problems, it’s also totally misleading. For example, in the year in question Brad Haddin scored 55% of his runs in boundaries, which is out of this world compared to Trott’s 31%. But Trott scored over twice as many runs in the period at an average of 52.6 (Haddin’s was 28.81) and, more tellingly, at a strike rate of 80.3 compared to Haddin’s 75.8. Who would you rather have in your side?

Batting woes

So who is at fault, if someone has to be, for England’s ODI batting woes? To me it’s simple: it’s the batsmen Trott bats with. His average is spectacular and his strike-rate acceptable for an anchor man; at 78, it’s comparable to other great number 3s like Ponting, Sangakkara and Kallis, while, as Mike Atherton once said “if your anchor man gets a lot of runs at a SR of about 80 and the stroke-makers do their job, you are going to make good totals.”

And there’s the rub. Trott’s SR may not compare with limited-overs monsters like Sehwag and Afridi but then he’s not playing for India or Pakistan, is he? He’s playing and averaging 51 for England – an England which regularly includes Alastair Cook who has a similar strike rate (78) but averages 37, Ravi Bopara, who averages 29 at a SR of 75, and Ian Bell whose average is 34 at 73. Only Kevin Pietersen and Craig Kieswetter regularly score quicker than Trott – but Kieswetter averages just 30 and KP hasn’t scored a 100 in his last 34 innings. This collective mediocrity is why, in the 39 games since Trott became an ODI regular, this side has been bowled out for less than 250 16 times (resulting in 14 defeats) and why England haven’t scored 300 in their last 19 ODIs. This lack of runs – not Trott’s lot of runs – is the crux of their ODI problem.

A record of which to be proud

In 2011 Jonathan Trott scored twice as many ODI runs at a higher average than any other England player. In 28 innings he scored two 100s and ten 50s (in 247 innings the rest of the team managed just two 100s and 28 50s between them). Over his career he’s scored an ODI 50 in 46% of his innings; of England’s top 20 ODI  run makers Nick Knight is the next best with 30%. Trott has the sixth highest SR of any England specialist batsman who has faced more than 500 balls. His ODI average is the third highest ever among Test nations.

It really is time to appreciate all this.

He’s not perfect, but no batsman ever is. We either accept that a man who averages over 25% more than any England ODI player who has played 20 or more innings has ever done, is a phenomenal rock around which England can build an ODI team that can really compete. Or we can continue to fantasise that Trott is a problem – perhaps while secretly hoping he gets out early. And then, with him out of the way, as CricInfo memorably put it: “England’s volcanic middle order can Vesuvius it along at about 12 an over – just as they always do”.

Slogging Percentage

Freakonomics is all about a new way of looking at things. In SPIN last year, Matt Weir wrote an article stating we need a new way of evaluating limited-overs batsmen. He suggested multiplying a batsman’s average by his strike-rate to give a “slogging percentage” which summarises a batsman’s overall value. For example, Kevin Pietersen’s average of 40.89 and SR of 87.08 give a slogging percentage of 35.6. Eion Morgan’s equivalent of 40.45 and 90.5 gives 36.6 and so on.

Funnily enough, Trott’s slogging percentage of 40.3 is the highest of any England ODI batsman. Ever.

Yet he’s still seen as a problem, not a key part of the solution.

Now that is Freaky.