Hot to Trott - A look at England's run machine

Although it's not uncommon for a newcomer to Test cricket to shine on debut, rarely does anyone sustain the kind of form that Jonathan Trott has shown since his debut in a pivotal Ashes match in 2009, and rarely does such a prolific run scorer seem to divide opinion. Some find him absorbing, viewing his idiosyncrasies as an intriguing window into the man with the ultimate poker-face, who turns into a run-scoring automaton every time he sets foot onto the crease. Others find his routines to be a source of annoyance and his style of play tedious, as he lacks the flair of a Pietersen or a Bell. Whichever view you take, it's hard not to be impressed by the apparent ease in which Trott has taken to the international circuit and on the day he is crowned as the ECB player of the year, we at 51allout aim to have a closer look at the stats behind what promises to be a prolific career.


How good is this start?

At the time of writing, Trott's record stands as:

19 tests, 31 innings, 1803 runs at an average of 66.77, with 6 centuries, 5 fifties and a high score of 226.

A record anyone (barring perhaps Don Bradman) would be proud of. So how does this compare with the start his team-mates made to their careers?

Kevin Pietersen: 19 tests, 36 innings, 1705 runs at an average of 48.71, with 5 centuries, 7 fifties and a high score of 158.
Andrew Strauss: 19 tests, 36 innings, 1716 runs at an average of 50.47, with 7 centuries, 5 fifties and a high score of 147.
Alastair Cook: 19 tests, 35 innings, 1488 runs at an average of 45.09, with 6 centuries, 5 fifties and a high score of 127.
Ian Bell MBE: 19 tests, 34 innings, 1337 runs at an average of 46.10, with 5 centuries, 8 fifties and a high score of 162*.


So what does this show us? Not only has Trott scored more runs than any of his contemporaries had at the same stage in their careers, he has done so in fewer innings. He is also the only batsman to score a double-hundred (a feat which he has managed twice so far) and his fifties/centuries conversion rate is bettered only by Andrew Strauss. This is a good indicator of how quickly Trott has adapted to the rigours placed on batsmen in the test arena and a testament to his concentration and willpower.

So how does Trott's start compare to those of a few modern greats?

Sachin Tendulkar: 19 tests, 29 innings, 1079 runs at an average of 39.96, with 4 centuries, 4 fifties and a high score of 148*.
Ricky Ponting: 19 tests, 31 innings, 1162 runs at an average of 40.06, with 2 centuries, 7 fifties and a high score of 127.
Jacques Kallis: 19 tests, 30 innings, 842 runs at an average of 29.03, with 2 centuries, 3 fifties and a high score of 132.

Does Jacques Kallis regret his relatively unimpressive start in test cricket?

Compared to these giants of the game, Trott's record is certainly favourable, but there are a few caveats, notably that Tendulkar made his debut aged only 16, Kallis 20 and Ponting 21. Trott was 28. The only batsman of recent times who springs to mind as having made an equally spectacular start to their Test career is Mike Hussey (another late starter), whose record after 19 tests read 31 innings, 1934 runs at an average of 80.58, with 7 centuries and 8 fifties and a high score of 182. Although Hussey's average has now dropped to just over 50, if Trott can replicate the success that Hussey has sustained over his career then surely both he and English cricket will be delighted.


How does he compare to other English number threes?

We have compared Trott's record with all other English number threes of the past 20 years who have played at least ten innings at that position. Trott's average of 62.60 is unsurprisingly top of the pile by some distance, Alastair Cook is second with an average of 52.54 (from only 12 innings at three) and Alec Stewart is a distant third with an average of 43.56. Trott is already fifth highest in terms of runs scored, despite occupying seventh position in innings played. Of the 13 batsmen analysed, Robert Key is the only batsman other than Trott to have scored a double hundred from the number three position and the list includes some very handy players (Michael Vaughan, Nasser Hussain & Mark Butcher). Despite criticisms of the pace of Trott's scoring, only Key, Vaughan & Hick have better strike-rates. In summary, Trott is comfortably the best number three that England have had for a long, long time.

For more detailed analysis on the number three position have a look at our piece posted on Monday.


How the hell do you get him out?

Of Trott's 27 test dismissals (he's been not out four times), 13 have been caught (48%), he's been bowled nine times (33%), trapped lbw three times (11%) and run out twice (7%). It might be easier to start with how not to get him out. The fact that he has only been out lbw a meagre three times shows his strength off his pads. As Ricky Ponting grew increasingly desperate for Trott's wicket during the Ashes, he had his right arm seamers consistently aim at Trott's pads over the wicket and he feasted on this, whipping everything through the leg-side. This ploy from Ponting did not work once during the series. Trott was out once to lbw, and that was from a rare inswinger that the left handed Mitchell Johnson managed to get on target during the hour at Perth where he remembered how to bowl, Trott tried to play through the offside and was pinned in front by the late movement. One of the other two times Trott has been out lbw was also to a left arm seamer, Mohammed Amir. Trott padded up to a ball angled across him and was given out, albeit somewhat dubiously. The final time he has been given out lbw was to Morne Morkel in the series in South Africa, the one time in an England shirt that he has looked uncomfortable. Whether it was the pressure of being back in SA or something else, we may never know, but it was an uncharacteristic wobble for someone usually so unflappable. This time Trott did play a loose shot across the line and was struck in front.

Trott has been out bowled in tests nine times

It's worth asking if Ponting and Australia's analyists had only seen Trott bat a few times and were trying to replicate this dismissal, but by and large in his career so far Trott has appeared completely untroubled by anything at his pads. Another way to generally not get him out is to bowl spin. He's only been out four times to spinners in his career, and his dismissal by Dilshan in the recent Sri Lanka test was the first time he'd ever been out to a right-arm spinner (not that he's played against many quality right arm spinners). Of these dismissals three have been bowled and one caught - and that was a very tame dismissal, dragging a long-hop to the square leg fielder off Shakib Al-Hasan's left arm spin. The other time Al-Hasan got Trott was also a total fluke, described on cricinfo commentary thusly "Remarkable moment, Trott propped forward, the ball bobbled off his pad, into his elbow, and spun inexorably towards the off stump!". He was also bowled by Paul Harris when he charged down the pitch (during his SA brain-fart) anticipating spin that never came, and was recently beaten by a faster, flatter ball by Dilshan, albeit one that came 203 runs too late.


So, really, how do you get him out?

Trott doesn't have any obvious weaknesses, so it's a hard question to answer, although he does have a high percentage of bowled dismissals. We've already looked at the spinners dismissals, so he has been bowled six times by seamers. Of these six dismissals, three have been inside edges onto the stumps from attempted off drives (off the bowling of Steyn, Johnson & Shafiul Islam) and a further two have been balls that have nipped back in and beaten that bat again when Trott has been trying to play the off drive (off Steyn & Watson). As is the case with so many batsmen it seems to be the fullish ball around or just outside off stump that can cause Trott problems (although only six of his 13 out caught dismissals have been edges to keeper or slip - not a massive ratio). However it's a can be a dangerous game bowling that line to Trott. Stray ever so slightly onto the leg side and he will milk you for runs all day long and bowl too wide and he has the discipline to leave you alone. The best way to get Trott out may be to get inside his head. South African seemingly managed to and he looked a shadow of the run scoring robot seen before and since, but it's much easier said than done.

England v Sri Lanka, First Test - Player Reviews

England

Andrew Strauss A quiet match with the bat for the skipper as he was undone by a rare threatening ball from Lakmal. Barring one sharp drop off Swann, his slip fielding was as exemplary as ever and his captaincy equally so; allowing Bell to make his century avoided any loss of morale and a sustained attack helped gain the most unlikely of victories.

Alastair Cook Gone is the player of twelve months ago who relentlessly fiddled outside off-stump. His century was as good as chanceless and the presence he now offers at the top of the order is more reassuring than the price of Stella Artois. Took the catch that sealed the match.

Jonathan Trott Quite simply a run-scoring machine. Attracted some ridiculous criticism for his scoring rate on day four but asking Trott to change his style is like asking Status Quo if they wouldn't mind adding in a couple of extra chords to their repertoire. His average is now approaching freakish proportions. Ran out Maharoof fortuitously off his own bowling.

Kevin Pietersen Well well. KP dismissed by unheralded left-arm spinner. It isn't all that simple; even with the benefit of technology, it took five full minutes for him to be given out and the ball did keep horribly low. However, his body position and approach to this most filthy style of bowling are well out of kilter. There's no question of him losing his place - yet - but it's an issue he has to deal with quickly. In 19 out of his last 61 Test innings, it's the cursed left arm tweakers who've removed him. We're being generous here and including Xavier Doherty in that.

Ian Bell The form of his career continues with another excellently compiled century, and how nice that he was allowed to complete the job before England's declaration. If we were saying he was wasted at six in Australia - is he wasted at five now? Also cemented his reputation as one of the world's best fielders at short leg.

Eoin Morgan We learned nothing about him. He isn't great in the field, he doesn't bowl and his innings of 14 off 19 tells us little. His time to shine, or otherwise, will come.

Matt Prior Tidy behind the stumps including a sharp catch off Swann in the second innings. Didn't bat.

Stuart Broad Looked as ring-rusty as you would expect of a man who has played precious little cricket over the last six months. Improved steadily and wrapped up the tail in convincing and hostile fashion. Question marks still remain over a man who takes his wickets at around 35 apiece, but they're really for another day.

Graeme Swann The world's best spinner showed once again that even on unresponsive tracks, he offers control and a genuine wicket taking threat. At one stage he had the incredible figures of 4-0-4-4. A world class performer who will be licking his lips at the further prospect of bowling at this brittle Sri Lankan line-up.

Chris Tremlett Beginning to secure his place as a bona fide England regular. Bowled well with little luck in the first innings, but was truly devastating when Sri Lanka came out to bat what they surely would have felt would be a routine net through 51 overs. They were wrong. Is also beginning to show that he isn't just a bang it in short merchant - his fuller length, as shown with Paranavitana's second innings dismissal, is equally dangerous.

James Anderson Bowled beautifully early on but was cruelly sidelined by a minor side strain. He'll miss Lord's and most likely the Rose Bowl, not necessarily a bad thing as the important thing is to have him fit and raring to go against the Indian top order.

Sri Lanka

Tharanga Paranavitana Played a methodical innings first up against some challenging bowling from Anderson and Tremlett which indicates that he has the right temperament for Test cricket. Like so many, looked ill at ease from the off on the final day and was out for a duck, which set the tone for the eventual collapse.

Tillekeratne Dilshan A poor game for the new skipper. Threw away his wicket in the first innings when well set, then his captaincy was a litany of confusion. Mendis was barely used, he brought himself on as first change, and wasted the second new ball by bowling Herath over the wicket to the right handers. Then wasted a referral by reviewing his own dismissal in the second innings when he'd manifestly hit the ball. Big improvements required all round.

Kumar Sangakkara A modern great had a very disappointing game. Possibly unfortunate to be ruled out under the UDRS in the first innings - he almost certainly *did* hit the ball, but the supporting evidence available was flimsy. His body language in the field wasn't the best and was comprehensively undone by Swann as all around him was falling. Sri Lanka need him to return to form, quickly.

Mahela Jayawardene Still an exceptional slip fielder, but was given a real working over by first Anderson, and secondly Tremlett to be dismissed cheaply both times. Both he and Sangakkara could well be suffering from difficulties in re-adjusting to the red ball format after a prolonged IPL spell.

Thilan Samaraweera Looked composed for his 58 before falling to Anderson's first over with the second new ball, wiping out his previous dismal record in England. Clearly has talent but his attempted cut to Swann, given the match situation, was faintly ludicrous.

Prassanna Jayawardene A very well made century against testing bowling helped partially dispel the theory that he has been promoted beyond his abilities at number six. With such a long tail, Sri Lanka will need big contributions from him with the bat if they are to salvage anything from this series. Looked competent behind the stumps although little was offered in the way of chances thanks to an anodyne attack. In the second innings, suffered a similar fate to Sangakkara in the first innings - a UDRS decision that was almost certainly correct, but not necessarily arrived upon satisfactorily.

Farveez Maharoof The cult-hero of Lancashire's early season looked every inch the journeyman county pro. Little more than medium pace, poor in the field (one "slide tackle" attempt to stop a boundary was laughable) and contributed little with the bat, though he was unfortunate to be run out backing up first time around. It seemed fairly clear just why he hasn't played Test cricket for nearly four years.

Thisara Parera Willing but wicketless, Parera is the epitome of this limited and unthreatening seam attack. Could be vulnerable to the returning Dilhara Fernando at Lord's. Did at least show some resistance with the bat in both innings, which may just save him.

Rangana Herath Failed to impress in a spell at Hampshire last season and again, it was clear why. His brand of left-arm spin is most easily comparable to the phalanx of twirlers that Bangladesh habitually field, though predictably enough, he did dismiss Kevin Pietersen. Played a truly horrible shot as the second innings came towards its close.

Ajantha Mendis The "mystery spinner" is only a mystery because it's hard to work out why he was selected in the first place. Short on form in a brief spell at Somerset, he picked up the solitary wicket of injured nightwatchman Anderson and rarely turned the ball, and was used for a mere three overs on day four.

Suranga Lakmal Just a solitary wicket for the young seamer who did little to convince that he is a viable option at this level.

England's Number One Number Three

As with all statistics, analysis of cricket trends and performances often needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Beyond the results, do the numbers really matter? Once the margin of victory has been printed in the record books and the trophies engraved with the special little tool by the man in the darkened room (are there female engravers? If so, please do get in touch), do the little numbers that contribute to the outcome actually mean anything? 


Sport at its best is a thing of beauty and passion; body and mind in perfect harmony. Won't calculating Michael Vaughan's average in overseas matches when batting in the middle order (1132 runs at 34.30, an average of six runs per innings fewer than John Crawley and only three more than Tim Ambrose) diminish the memory of his cover drive? With enough data, can't any argument be formed, if you manipulate the factors sufficiently? As Table 1 shows, Agit Agarkar is unequivocally a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar.

Table 1: Indian Batsmen at Lord's 1986-2011 (qualification: average more than 21.00)

Well, cricket has always been about the numbers, probably even when matches were organised in London parks and on Sussex downs solely for the purpose of wagering between aristocrats. People don't buy Wisden for photos of elegant attacking shots. Certain numbers are ingrained in the brains of cricket fans from Auckland to Antigua to Ahmedabad: 99.94, 501*, 19-90. Hell, even 51, although this generates worse memories for Englishmen than those sixteen weeks of summer 1991 when Bryan Adams was at number one in the charts.


Looking at the statistics that lie beneath the stories helps to provide the objectivity to the arguments that form any cricketing discussion. However they rarely conclude anything: they don't show that black is not white and they can't predict that England will be bowled out by Jerome Taylor. 


Furthermore, statistical analysis certainly won't prove that Bradman was better than Tendulkar (or vice-versa, if there are any Indians reading) or McGrath better than Holding. And nor should we want them to. The subjectivity of these issues relies on such qualitative matters as memory and the belief in what we see with our own eyes. A 70-year old straw hat-wearing Yorkshireman will always advocate Trueman in the same way that those who only know of Wasim and Waqar will state that they were the greatest.

Fred Trueman was pretty good apparently

But we here at 51allout enjoy our statistics. They can generate debate and highlight interesting aspects of the sport. We will leave Kevin Pietersen's performance against left-arm spinners for another day (warning: this will contain references to Ryan Hinds), but in tribute to Ian Jonathan Leonard Trott, herewith a quick look at England's problem position No.3 over the last twenty years. 

That's position No. 3 in the batting order, not problem No. 3, which is probably the back-up spinner, or if the ECB are concerned, the level of natural light before the umpires can consider discussing the possibility of having a debate about when to turn the floodlights on.

The most successful in this position, globally, have had various characteristics, whether obdurate (Dravid), fluid (Sangakarra) or just damn, frustratingly, great (Ponting). In the 1980s, Gower and Richards both batted at No. 3 regularly, but so did Boon and Gatting. Apart from scoring runs by the bucketload, the only common trait is the need to be flexible and ready.

Over the last twenty years 13 different players have batted at least 10 times at No. 3 for England. So we're discounting nightwatchmen (Fraser, Hoggard), temporary changes to the order (Gooch, Pietersen) and Jason Gallian.

The simple stats are shown in Table 2. Here it is clear that the position has been mostly held by seven different batsmen, including Trott.

Table 2: England's No.3 batsman, 1991-2011 (qualification: at least 10 innings)

Only Butcher, Vaughan and Hussain, with six apiece, have scored more 100s than Trott in this position, all of whom have played significantly more innings. The basic stats in Table 2 demonstrate Trott's success in the role. Unfortunately, this does take into account Trott's innings at Cardiff for example, which was actually scored from No.4 in the order. He also scored 69 at Centurion batting behind Anderson, with the score on 16-2 when he came to the wicket.

If the key to a good No. 3 is flexibility and adaptability, then this is evidenced by the situation in which he has scored his centuries:-

• Lord's v Bangladesh, 7-1 (followed by a partnership of 181 with Strauss);
• Lord's v Pakistan, 31-1 (soon England were 47-5, but a record-breaking partnership of 332 with Broad changed the match);
• Brisbane v Australia, 188-1 (unbeaten partnership of 329 with Cook);
• Melbourne v Australia, 159-1;
• Cardiff v Sri Lanka, 47-2 (partnership of 251 with Cook).

These would suggest that the success of the opening partnership- and indeed the batsmen following him down the order- have little bearing on his scores.

Critics could point to the series in South Africa, where he faced arguably the best pair of strike bowlers in the world in Steyn and Morkel, where his record was 190 runs at 27.14. However he did manage to score 404 runs at 67.33 against Amir and Asif, albeit at home. Perhaps he has not yet had to bat against a world-class spinner, so it will be interesting to watch him play Harbhajan later this summer.

Jonathan Trott celebrates his maiden test century in 2009

He has been involved in all three of England's 250+ partnerships in the last two years, in addition to a further 10 100-run stands. Only Hutton, Gower and Gooch have also featured in two 300+ partnerships for England. Oh, and just for the record, he averages 55.65 in ODIs, behind only ten Doeschate and Amla. 


Simply put, he's a run machine and anyone criticising the rate at which he accumulates them is welcome to have the lovely Ramprakash back in the side.