It appears to be a running joke among Twitter cricket fans that the parlous state of England's ODI side - and, essentially the world economy - is all down to Jonathan Trott.

Tweets range from the cricketing "I am 93 percent 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."

However, what becomes really unacceptable and almost breathtaking for those more rational observers among the press corps is the continual lazy and lasered criticism in respect of Trott's value.

As England cantered to their winning total of 270 against New Zealand, thanks to the steadying influence of the man himself, Test Match Special's Simon Mann was busy reminding us that Trott had secured 23 scores of 50-plus in 56 ODIs at an average of over 50. Hardly damning statistics in what is essentially a losing team.

Perversely, as Trott introduced the kind of calm authority that this inadequate side had missed in India during the recent one-dayers, Mann insinuated that England may have lost a game once in Sydney because he had scored 137 slowly rather than 160 quickly.

Are you following this? Was that particular defeat really due to Trott's 137 (the seventh highest individual score in England's ODI history) at a strike-rate of 108 - or the fact that Jimmy Anderson's one for 91 was the second worst ODI bowling analysis in England history? Selective use of information multiplied by perverse logic equals nonsense.

Warming to the theme, it is often mentioned that Trott's 98 in Mohali in 2011 prevented England getting more than 300. When is a good score not a good score? All the time when Trott only has an average snail-pace strike-rate of 75.

The convoluted nature of the argument only enhanced the absurdity of the point. In some people's blurry eyes, the Warwickshire batsman slows the whole operation in the same way that Kevin Pietersen's full repertoire tends to suppress the batsman at the other end.

One must remember it was Trott who kept England afloat in the last World Cup. How ludicrous England would have looked without his runs. Why score 80 off 110 balls in a losing cause, eh?

Perhaps England fans and journalists would rather the team hit sixes and fours and perish with multiple overs to spare as they often do in the 50-over format.

Trott's strike-rate may not compare with limited-overs entertainers, but then why do we suddenly want him to have a range of strokes and acceleration that he does not possess?

You know what you are going to get from him and all the pyrotechnics can come from Eoin Morgan, Jos Buttler and company further down the line. Now that Alastair Cook has found his limited-overs mojo, there is no need to throw up the Trott non-debate again.

Rationale does seem to go completely out of the window when Jonathan Trott steps on to an ODI cricket pitch. After all, if the sky is grey and the mood is black, it must be his fault.

Tim Ellis