New Zealand in England 2013

Trott is quite something, just plays his way, no matter what.
 
What is the benefit of this innings?

Knocking it around when you need 12 an over.
 
People criticisning Trott need to have a word. He has his job he's done it well, not his fault the supposed hitters got out cheaply again.
 
If you'd said that when Trott was on 50 off 55, I'd have agreed. But soon after, all the recognized batsmen were out and the onus fell on Trott to be the backbone of the chase. He's been knocking it around since then. Surely he recognizes there's no need for an anchor once all the other recognized batsmen are gone?

What's he anchoring for? Jimmy Anderson or Steven Finn to get a quickfire 80?
 
Till Trott hit about 50 odd, it doesn't matter if he was being selfish or not as he was doing a fine job as an anchor, but once the last recognized pair were at the crease, Trott should've changed his approach -- and if he couldn't, get out trying.

Because every run he got anchoring the chase after that was pointless.

When Buttler got out, Trott was on 52 off 65. After that, he got to 100 off 98. 33 ball 48 while 188 runs were required off 120 balls.

Selfish prat.
 
If you'd said that when Trott was on 50 off 55, I'd have agreed. But soon after, all the recognized batsmen were out and the onus fell on Trott to be the backbone of the chase. He's been knocking it around since then. Surely he recognizes there's no need for an anchor once all the other recognized batsmen are gone?

What's he anchoring for? Jimmy Anderson or Steven Finn to get a quickfire 80?

I kind of agree here, at that stage you got to sat to a Woakes/Bresnan you try and bat through, I'll try and score at a strike rate 200%.
 
If you'd said that when Trott was on 50 off 55, I'd have agreed. But soon after, all the recognized batsmen were out and the onus fell on Trott to be the backbone of the chase. He's been knocking it around since then. Surely he recognizes there's no need for an anchor once all the other recognized batsmen are gone?

What's he anchoring for? Jimmy Anderson or Steven Finn to get a quickfire 80?

So what's he supposed to do? Start slogging get himself out for 60 and England get bowled out in 30 overs?

England lost today because they bowled shit (again) and no one batted with Trott.

Blaming a guy who scored a run a ball century is bizarre.
 
So what's he supposed to do? Start slogging get himself out for 60 and England get bowled out in 30 overs?

England lost today because they bowled shit (again) and no one batted with Trott.

Blaming a guy who scored a run a ball century is bizarre.

Try to score faster and go for the win?

What's the point of throwing in the towel and knocking it around to get a century?
 
Try to score faster and go for the win?

What's the point of throwing in the towel and knocking it around to get a century?

Because that's not his game and he'd get out early.

Like it or lump it a run a ball century put England in a better position than Trott getting out quickly, I am 90% certain that the brigade who will criticise Trott for everything he does would have slammed him for not batting through as well if he'd tried to slog.

Once again, he can't be blamed for the fact that Cook, Bell, Root, Morgan and Buttler all failed.

Criticise those that need to be criticised. Jonathan Trott did more than anyone today to make that game something approaching a contest.

More serious questions need to be asked about virtually every single batsman before they need to be asked about Trott.

For comparisons sake, Trott scored his century quicker than Guptill. Guptill was supported by his team and it gave them a platform for him and his captain to go bezerk at the end, Trott wasn't. It's that simple.
 
So what's he supposed to do? Start slogging get himself out for 60 and England get bowled out in 30 overs?

England lost today because they bowled shit (again) and no one batted with Trott.

Blaming a guy who scored a run a ball century is bizarre.

No it's clearly not when the other team has scored more than 350.

Obviously other batsmen are to be blamed, but this is hardly the first time that Trott has been accused of scoring runs slowly.

As Zing says, he didn't took the initiative when England were in their lower half of batting.
 
Trott isn't good enough to start slogging 50 balls and scoring 80+ runs. He did as well as he could.
 
No it's clearly not when the other team has scored more than 350.

Obviously other batsmen are to be blamed, but this is hardly the first time that Trott has been accused of scoring runs slowly.

As Zing says, he didn't took the initiative when England were in their lower half of batting.

So Trott should have scored a 25 ball 30 and everything would have been fine then?

He has his job and he did it well, he scored a quicker century than the man of the match and was let down by players not going with him.

Serious questions need to be asked of Morgan (as a finisher he's fine, its when he's needed to rebuild), Buttler (is he honestly a better option than Prior, is he needed in the ODI team when Morgan is already the finisher), Bell (will he keep his place when KP comes back) and the bowling.

And we can also just accept that the NZ side are a very accomplished ODI unit who will give anyone a game, especially when you give them Jade Dernbach to tonk around all game.