Nelson's column... England get Twenty20 tactics wrong

England's inconsistent Twenty20 campaign merely reinforced the need to re-visit their approach to shorter versions of the game.

A quick check of all the other major nations highlights one key fact; the best players are the best no matter what the format is. Look at the following top fives: South Africa - Smith, Kallis, Gibbs, Duminy, De Villiers; Sri Lanka - Jayasuriya, Dilshan, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Silva; Pakistan - Butt, Akmal, Younus, Misbah, Malik. West Indies: Gayle, Fletcher, Simmons, Chanderpaul, Sarwan. Now look at England's: Bopara, Wright, Pietersen, Shah, Collingwood - then Morgan/Key/Mascarenhas.

If, by now, you are still not grasping the nettle, the key point here is that virtually all those men named above are proven Test and/or ODI players, many world class at that. The only two teams to mess about with unproven international players were India and England; neither reached the semis.

Wright will succeed one in four or five. He's not good enough to whack high-quality bowling out of the ground. At the last Twenty20 World Cup, specialists Darren Maddy, Jeremy Snape et al didn't either. Far better to play Ian Bell. He's not everyone's cup of tea, but I would back him to get more runs than Wright.

England should open with Bopara and Pietersen, then send in Bell, Collingwood at four and keep Flintoff back at five. Shah is a nervous wreck, terrible between the wickets and equally poor in the field. The modern game has no time for him. This may leave England short of power-hitters, but there's no point playing sub-standard power hitters. We must just accept that we don't have those players at present and work out another way to win.

As if to emphasise the point, England bowled well. Why is that? Because their attack was pretty much their Test attack. The best are the best.

Comments

[guodan]

http://www.aj-pt.com/jordan_shoes_5.html jordan shoes 5

[guodan]

jordan shoes 5

[blobby]

here is my view. it is lengthy but is very good. England's inconsistent Twenty20 campaign merely reinforced the need to re-visit their approach to shorter versions of the game.

A quick check of all the other major nations highlights one key fact; the best players are the best no matter what the format is. Look at the following top fives: South Africa - Smith, Kallis, Gibbs, Duminy, De Villiers; Sri Lanka - Jayasuriya, Dilshan, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Silva; Pakistan - Butt, Akmal, Younus, Misbah, Malik. West Indies: Gayle, Fletcher, Simmons, Chanderpaul, Sarwan. Now look at England's: Bopara, Wright, Pietersen, Shah, Collingwood - then Morgan/Key/Mascarenhas.

If, by now, you are still not grasping the nettle, the key point here is that virtually all those men named above are proven Test and/or ODI players, many world class at that. The only two teams to mess about with unproven international players were India and England; neither reached the semis.

Wright will succeed one in four or five. He's not good enough to whack high-quality bowling out of the ground. At the last Twenty20 World Cup, specialists Darren Maddy, Jeremy Snape et al didn't either. Far better to play Ian Bell. He's not everyone's cup of tea, but I would back him to get more runs than Wright.

England should open with Bopara and Pietersen, then send in Bell, Collingwood at four and keep Flintoff back at five. Shah is a nervous wreck, terrible between the wickets and equally poor in the field. The modern game has no time for him. This may leave England short of power-hitters, but there's no point playing sub-standard power hitters. We must just accept that we don't have those players at present and work out another way to win.

As if to emphasise the point, England bowled well. Why is that? Because their attack was pretty much their Test attack. The best are the best.

[blobby]

personally i think that u r all very smelly. the smarter of u will have realised this has no reference to cricket. this is because i have no interest in the game, and have decided to waste your time because you have read this silly comment.why are u still reading.this is pointless. shut up.goaway. stop reading and u will still have some dignity! fine i will stop typing.

[terry]

the fielding positions were odd to say the least they only urged the oppossing batsmen the claim the runs they needed. even the bowlers seemed at a loss as how to position the fielders.
come on england show more pride and learn to scrap for results.last comment how can the captain claim to be proud of the team. learn to stand up and tell it as it is.

[pete pud]

why wasnt napier given a chance?shah not explosive enough,nor collinwood.to many dot balls building pressure.wright just a slogger,got found out.over reliant on pietersen.bowlers not smart enough or consistent enough.

[Tom, Goole]

I think you're a bit harsh on Wright and Shah as, with Flintoff ruled out, our options were reduced. That said, this obsession with specialists is flawed. I too don't like Ian Bell all that much, but he's a better bet than most. And look who is leading the Twenty20 domestic run-scorers chart. Alastair Cook. Enough said.