Is Jonathan Trott a great English batsman?

Well? How long does he have to maintain his excellence before we start to consider he might be a great? Probably too early to say so at the moment, but I think he's the most solid batsman technically we've had since Boycott.

No. Not yet.

you need a test career of at least 8-10 years as a bare minimum before you can really say

he's on his way, but lots could happen. his start is quite similar to hussey, or from another era, jimmy adams, who averaged over 70 after the first 3 years of his career

Given trev's track record this should put an end to Trott's purple patch

G.Wood wrote:Given trev's track record this should put an end to Trott's purple patch

Yep, he did for KP.

the other potentially great 'english' batsman?

at least he didn't call him a Great batsman

G.Wood wrote:at least he didn't call him a Great batsman

Or potentially English

The only flaw he seems to have is against quick bowling on fast, bouncy pitches. But then not many batsman in history have enjoyed that.

Yes, some people will talk about his scoring rate, but if you actually look at his career strike rate- 48, it's better than a lot of great players.

We'll see him face a lot of spin on the subcontinent over the next two winters - that'll be telling, one way or the other.

Hasn't had to confront much decent spin in his Test career to date, if any.

He really struggled in SA against Steyn and Morkel which would be one of the biggest tests atm. It's not just a case of grinding runs out against them but surviving very good bowling on challenging pitches. He was lucky that he first played against Australia when the attack had become more shyte than good.

He's obviously technically sound and mentally strong but longevity will be the decider.

The One wrote:you need a test career of at least 8-10 years as a bare minimum before you can really say

he's on his way, but lots could happen. his start is quite similar to hussey, or from another era, jimmy adams, who averaged over 70 after the first 3 years of his career

What he said. Spot on.

What about Luke Wright.

What ABOUT Luke Wright?

In the eyes of the average club cricketer, he is a great English batsman. Gives them all hope etc....

PeterCS wrote:What ABOUT Luke Wright?

His is scouring his ancestry to find an SA connection.

In terms of Trott's standing in the history of English batsmen, let's see what he averages after 5 years or so. I'm sure plenty of players have averaged what he does after around 20 Tests. Nobody has yet done so after 100... given his age at debut he probably won't play 100 but if he's averaging 50+ after 70 or 80 Tests then perhaps he will be among the greats (unless bowling standards continue to craptaculate and 50 becomes the new 40!)

Could just as easily have a slump in form and be out of the side within a couple of years though...

Michael Hussey had more runs (1934) and a better average (80.58) after 19 Tests. It got even better for him in the next Test as he added 186 runs for just once out to boost his tally to 2120 runs after 20 Tests at a Bradmanospheric average of 84.80.

I'm sure Trott is level headed enough to know that his average can only go one way...

Let's hope it doesn't drop as steeply as Hussey's...

mmnnn.....hodge

Have you just ejaculated, old timer? Do you need me to fetch the nurse for you? It is possible to phone such backwaters as Australasia in this day and age...

monkey]It is possible to phone such backwaters as Australasia in this day and age...[monkey

...but not the back wards of this nursing home

What if George Headley had a similar start to his career, but never played enough Tests for his average to fall back to normal?

Same with Barry Richards. People have no problem calling him a great batsman, despite the fact he only played something like 15 tests.