BBC BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

England World Twenty20 player ratings

Post categories:

Oliver Brett | 21:46 UK time, Monday, 15 June 2009

England crashed out of the ICC World Twenty20 against West Indies after a dramatic night at the Oval. Having beaten India on Sunday, this time they left their bowlers with a bit too much to do.

It was a decent enough showing overall from the hosts, despite two poor performances against the Dutch and South Africa - and these are my ratings out of 10 for the players. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Paul Collingwood (captain) 6

Squeezed every last drop out of his players in the wins against Pakistan and India, and seemed to rotate the bowlers intelligently. With the bat, he didn't quite hit the high notes, particularly on the night England went out.

Ravi Bopara 7

Showed that you can hit regular boundaries in Twenty20 while still playing proper shots and scored notable runs in three out of five innings, which is a decent success rate in this format. England relied on him more than they should have.

Luke Wright 6

Batted with success in England's first two matches, but went missing when the quality went up a notch at the Super Eight phase. Preferred as a spare seamer to Collingwood and Bopara, and did not disgrace in that department. Fielded very well.

Kevin Pietersen 8

England's "gun" player wound up with a total of 154 in four innings and at a strike rate of 152 (which means England would have scored more than 180 every innings if everyone else had matched his rate). KP had an impressive tournament.

Owais Shah 5

Hit four sixes in the tournament, but only scored at just over a run a ball overall which suggests he played out too many dot balls (as he indeed did). In short, Shah produced a series of "nearly" innings - which pretty much summed up England's tournament.

Dimitri Mascarenhas 6

Was overlooked for the final match, perhaps on the basis that he had struggled to provide impetus when promoted to number four against India on Sunday. Was also surprisingly underused as a bowler, despite having the best economy rate.

James Foster 7

The glovework was out of the top drawer, particularly for the stumpings of Yuvraj Singh and Dwayne Bravo - ones that many keepers would not have been quick enough to get. Did not disgrace himself with the bat, either.

Graeme Swann 7

The mad decision to leave him out against the Netherlands was shown up as Swann emerged with five, often crucial wickets from the games he did play - and he was tidy too. He really is a key player across all formats now for England.

Stuart Broad 8

England's leading wicket-taker was also one of the most economical, and he gave many of the best batsmen grief with his accurate bouncers. Also scored 22 runs off just 11 balls faced across his three brief innings. He must be promoted up the order.

Adil Rashid 7

Not expected to play such a major role when coming in as a late replacement for Andrew Flintoff, Rashid bowled particularly well against Pakistan and with more luck on his side would have ended up with more wickets to his name. A bit of a find.

Ryan Sidebottom 7

The injury woes that ruined his winter, and the early part of the summer, were forgotten as Sidebottom bowled with heart and plenty of pace. After being overlooked for a couple of games, really rattled India's top order with a memorable spell.

James Anderson 6

While England's bowlers were in the main impressive, Anderson was perhaps not quite at his very best. He remains a key part of this unit, however, and - like others - would have learnt a great deal from this tournament.

Eoin Morgan, Rob Key, Graham Napier

In a policy move that many observers queried, Napier was overlooked for the entire campaign. Morgan and Key were dropped after both failed against the Netherlands and cannot really be rated on that performance alone.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Harsh on Shah, but overall a fair assessment.

  • Comment number 2.

    I think colly is lucky to get a 6, on battign alone he was a passenger all tournament, he didnt play any shots at all that looked quality.

    He has one shot, a slog sweep - get him out the side sharpish.

    Anderson aswell, great test bowler but isnt a 20/20 player, the quick bowlers should be broad, sidebottom and flintoff when fit

    Im unsure about foster, a great keeper but I cant help thinking that prior or even Mustard could have cleared the rope a few times

  • Comment number 3.

    I listened to the match on the radio and there is no doubt that the crowd was very excited (albeit for only a relatively few minutes during the W Indies innings). Their excitement (England fans) was almost tangible. Suddenly it dawned on them that a couple of boundaries had put victory in doubt. The thrill was over. It had been a premature ejaculation of celebration and the rest was an anti-climax. I was left with a slightly disgusted sense of my own involvement, as I sat hunched over my digital receiver.

    Is this the way forward for cricket? Like everything else in life quality is being replaced,(not even by quantity in this case), but by the gaudy cheap thrill. Surely what is lost in T20 is the essence of the game. It's cricket's Match of the Day, when an entire match is whittled down by a skilled editor to 4 minutes of action that bears no comparison to the original experience.

    So farewell (sooner or later) Test Cricket. It seems almost fatuous to pass any judgement on your individual players' ratings, Oliver. It's like awarding ratings to footballers on the basis of their performance in a penalty shoot-out.

  • Comment number 4.

    Sorry, but much as I like Colly, his captaincy and batting was not good enough. Sure he is an exceptional fielder, but he offers little else at T20 level. I'd give him a 5 at best. I'd also give 2 to the England selectors for not even trying Napier, sure he might not be international class, but he can't be any worse than Wright, who seems to continually fail - and he's a better bowler too.

  • Comment number 5.

    I am glad you also spotted that Anderson was under par. He is classy as a classical swing bowler but not as adaptable and experimental as Broad in this form of the game. You are generous to Colly. The majority of his captaincy was not inspirational enough, and he did not lead by example with his batting.

  • Comment number 6.

    I wasn't too impressed with Broad's bowling, especially today. I thought it was distinctly average.

  • Comment number 7.

    I totally disagree with anyone who says Test Cricket will die out because of T20. The latest county cricket crowds for the T20 show that it's popularity is already lessening in the domestic game, and soon there will be massive overkill with the EPL.

    Test cricket will always be the highest and best form of the game

    James Foster and Bopara both deserve 8/10 for the tournament too.

  • Comment number 8.

    i think maybe,(very unlikely) KP should open the batting, he kinda was, with rav and wrighty getting out so early, and move wright down the order. Collingwood with the bat was poor, shuffling around, not really doin much, and he was lucky the bowlers kept bailing him out with good performances. is it me or does anyone think for once bowlers are running the show in t20?

  • Comment number 9.

    I think the ratings are very generous for some players.

    Luke right seemed really happy with his performances but against real quality bowling looked like a decent county player, nothing more. 4

    Collingwood has been one of my favorite players in recent time because of his determination and honesty. Captaincy doesn't suit him though and he seems to have been brainwashed with the 'I think we generally performed well, maybe could have put a few more runs on the board but generally we think its a good total to defend' England Mentality. He used the bowlers well but should have stood up and at least tried to set an example with the bat and I think probably should have exerted pressure on the Selectors to sort themselves out. I would give him 4.

    I have grown tired of Owais Shah now, and I think the selectors should look past him. He has been England's nearly man for far too long now, its time to give someone else a go, 20/20 is all about backing your own ability and he just cant do it. he gets a 4 also.

    Foster was excellent with the gloves, but if you are going to play a specialist keeper you need to surround him with confident, in form batsman. There is no way he is a 20/20 no.6 ok, he was good for run a ball stuff, but thats no good in that part of the over. Not his fault though and his keeping deserves an 8.

    Generally I think that the bowlers will be thinking they were let down. I thought they worked really well, and I liked the look of Sidebottoms aggression. definitely could be a big asset for the ashes.

  • Comment number 10.

    I am not exactly a cricketer but i have watched near on every match of this tournament (due to revision being boring XD) however i think that Bopara deserves an 8. He may not have gotten a fantastic strike rate but when everybody else around you is getting out frequently you need somebody to stay in. I thought his innings today was quality. He only got out because he was stuck with Collingwood and a lower order whose strike rate is less than Ireland's. Without Peiterson hitting over 50 we will always struggle to hit more than around 150 due to getting so many dotts and ones.

    I don't understand how Collingwood has done anything to deserve his place. Coming in as #4/5/6 you would have thought he would be a big hitter but his strike rate is pitiful. I would rather (whether anyone would agree is a different matter) see him whack 20 off 8 balls than get 14 off 13 or 10 off 9. In all reality what does that gain you in Twenty Twenty?

    Although today was still interesting with our massive bowling line up in comparison to the windies massive batting line up.

    My two picks from after the first match was the windies and sri lanka but now they have to play eachother :(.

  • Comment number 11.

    I think 6 for Colly is very generous. He got 63 runs in 5 innings without ever looking like doing any damage, and his captaincy was, in my opinion, as terrible as always. He is the perfect example of a great team man not set out for being the leader (if you look at his captaincy record England have only won 17 of the 37 completed games he has captained, added to the incident against New Zealand.) I disagree with the comment that Foster "didn't embarrass himself with the bat" also, I think he showed that being able to clear the ropes against some county seamer at Chelmsford does not mean you're good enough to bat 6 for England, as he did today, regardless of the form of the game. His keeping was exceptional though. Lastly, I don't agree with the criticism of Shah that's flying around at the moment. I think he, Pietersen and Bopara are the only English batsman who have a plan at Twenty20, Shah is not frightened to give himself a few balls at the start in the knowledge that he can step it up later (see the India match), and his SR was only 4 lower than Bopara's. This is in contrast to Luke Wright who unfortunately tries to smack every ball, and as correctly noted got caught out by the increase in class.

  • Comment number 12.

    Agree with most of it to be fair, i said before the tournament that i didn't think Collingwood even deserved a place in th team never mind be captain and i think i was proved right. Great fielder but offered absolutely nothing else. I wud have loved to have seen the ECB go out on a limb and given key the chance to captain, great experience albeit at county level and probaly has more twenty twenty experience than the rest of them put together.
    I would have liked to have seen Key open and give the innings the stability it sadly lacked on numerous occasions, allowing the person at the other end to smack at around i.e. bopora and pietersen. Wright did ok against the lesser teams but frankly wasn't good enough against the big teams.
    I thought all the bowlers played their part and your ratings are very fair - i thought andersons second over where he got smacked for successive boundaries was what turned the tide in the final game against the Windies.
    A much better showing than last time round and as the team is relatively young can only bode well for the future :)

  • Comment number 13.

    Foster was excellent. I am a big fan of Prior but doubt that he would have been as good behind the stumps as Foster. Is there a case for picking our best keeper for the Ashes - I think that there may be. And that would be Foster...

  • Comment number 14.

    I've lost count how many times over the past few years I've heard commentators say that Collingwood is dreadfully out of form. If anything, he is dreadfully out of form 80% of the time. T20 is a game for players in form as one player with a poor strike rate can lose a match for a team (as seen in the India game).

    I like Luke Wright, but am really unsure about whether he has the ability to handle top-class attacks. After Bopara and KP, England had nothing with the bat.

    It is a shame that Napier didn't get a single match. Given that Anderson was clearly below par I thought Napier could have been given his spot. Even if he went for two runs more an over with the ball, which is unlikely, his hard hitting with the bat could have made a huge difference. On a day like today, where is was clear that rain would affect the game, Napier's potential impact could have been even greater.

  • Comment number 15.

    for a team that won only 2 games out of 5, those are generous scores for some of the players, dont lets fall for any spin that England played well in this tournament by bouncing India out. Colly still hasnt cracked the captaincy + playing well lark, or picking when to chase and when to set a target, and a number of times had to be reminded to move fielders who were standing in the wrong places.

    the only plus points were Foster excellent behind the stumps, Sidebottoms return to form (though how long will that last) and Bopara showing you can play a decent innings without always slogging it.

    the rest were as expected, sometimes great, sometimes bad, always infuriating.

    Eoin Morgan should at least get a score for being the best substitute fielder who mysteriously kept appearing on the field in the final overs of the games.

  • Comment number 16.

    The dynamics of the team were all wrong - you could tell a mile off that the players that were selected were not for for 20/20 and to actually win the tournament - you have got to be having a laugh -

    This England team wouldnt even be able to top the associate nations groups - as the Dutch proved by beating them so why all the hype -

    In twenty over cricket - partnerships, as in any form of cricket are crucial but so is the ability to hit boundaries and 6's - after all - each batsman only need to be able to bat 2 overs.
    Big hitters down the order need to come in abundance - we had none as the game against the Windies proved -

    Therefore i give the team the following marks -

    England Selectors = 3
    Having Collingwood as skipper penalised the team - he had to be an automatic choice when someone inspirational -for example KP would have have galvanised the team. Ravi Bopara, albeit inexperienced should have been considered aswell as this wouldve have looked to the future.
    It was a poorly selected squad with limited options -

    Collingwood - 2
    A very bad captain - though not his fault, did the best he could!
    Picked the wrong bowlers for the dutch game at the crucial stages/ very regimented in his decision making and fielding positions when 20/20 is all about innovation.
    Batting was woeful - needed a big hitter in his place but became an automatic pick because of his captaincy.
    55 runs in 5 innings is disappointing to say the least. He had no big scoring shits and was limited in his strokeplay. Could not even 'nurdle' the ball around to get a half decent score.

    Luke Wright - 6
    Did well in his opening role i thought - gave it a smack or got out early which got KP to the crease.
    His physique isnt the biggest and his shot making ability against the better is a bit suspect but i think definitely players in his mould must make it above the likes of Collingwood.
    His bowling was very handy -arguably performed better with the ball.

    Ravi Bopara 7
    Ive given him 8 because he performed well and got some good starts.
    You cant succeed everytime but had a great range of strokes and showed why he did well in the IPL.
    Wasn't back to bowl when i think having options in this form of the game is vital to eek out an over or two.

    KP 8
    Agreed - the 'gun' player - the more he plays the better he will become -
    shouldve have been the skipper and shouldve bowled a few more overs- anyhow- nothing really to be said about KP - we know how reliant England are on him and

    Shah - 4
    Didnt really get going - had a few good starts but didnt kick on in the manner i thought he would.
    Scoring rate didnt pick up and i agree he did have a lot of dot balls.
    His fielding is very poor as was his running between the wickets is woeful.

    James Foster- 6
    Excellent with the gloves.
    Batting wise - how did England select him Prior or Mustard above him >???just did not make sense especially Mustard who is renowned for hitting a long ball.

    Dimi Maschrenhas - 6
    Economical with the ball and kept things under control for England.
    Batting wise - alot was expected of him -too much batting wise i think - but for the last couple of overs or so - he is the type of players who can hit a long ball.

    Graeme Swann - 6
    Did well with the ball - every team in 20/20 needs two spinners(at least one specliast) and filled in very well.
    Also can bat pretty well apparently but didnt look like he could smack it big

    Adil Rashid - 6
    Good experience for him coming through the ranks - has a lot of variety and control - one for the future. Apparently a good batsman too - though doubt if he could hit it long for this format in the game.

    Sidebottom - 6
    Did pretty well when selected. Even gott the ball up at 90m

    Broad - 7
    Did ok with the ball - needs to learn from Parnell, Gul and co that bowling at the stumps will get you wickets!!!
    Batting looked ok - needs to develop more shots and we could have a top all rounder developing for all forms of the game.
    Fielding needs to improve (last over against the dutch)

    Anderson - 6
    Didnt hit the heights like I thought he would. But did ok for England considering.

    Key /Morgan - 4
    Both didnt grab limited opportunities and looking at other teams and what we were lacking - both werent what we needed.

    Napier -
    One great inning against some country side was too much emphasis on our 'saviour' who was unproven -

    however a middle late order of Napier, Wright, Maschrenhas, Mustard has more firepower for 20/20 than Collingwood, Foster, Swann,Broad...its easy to say now but teams with the ability to have players who can score 20+ overs really can turn a game.






  • Comment number 17.

    I thought Collys post match interview was shocking, and summed it up for me. He sounded like he'd just lost some village match, when in fact his team had just been dumped out of the World Cup for crying out loud. No passion, no anguish just the usual take the positives and prepare for the Ashes....It's just not good enough...the Ashes is just a Derby match, and means nothing to the rest of the World, and nothing to Englands standing in World cricket. When will these players and the ECB realise that the Ashes mindset must be downplayed and the focus put on the fact that when an England shirt is pulled on then they play with ruthless and determined professionalism and 100% commitment to winning, in every form of the game?...oh...and find some batters that can hit the ball.....nurdling doesn't win T20 World Cups!!!

  • Comment number 18.

    I really don't understand why Napier wasn't given a single match!

    Napier is a 20/20 player, his a hard hitter and also a good bowler.

    Imbeciles............

  • Comment number 19.

    Five simple questions - please someone, help me answer them:


    1) Why do we have Test players with slow scoring rates in a 20/20 side?

    2) Why do we, the home fans, have to boo lousy players like Shah at Trent Bridge, as he blocks ball after ball like the oaf he is, to try wake them up?

    3) Why did Collingwood say on Sunday that Indian fans booing the team made them play well - did representing their country not act as enough incentive?

    4) Why does Stuart Broad think he's so wonderful? What has he ever achieved exactly? All I see is an over-rated bowler who cracks under pressure.

    5) Why not open with Pietersen? Surely he should face as many overs as possible?! Oh, wait, we have Luke Wright. We do open with Pietersen.

  • Comment number 20.

    Anyone who says there were no positives there for England are blind. You've got a side with a coach who's been in the top job for less than six months. It took Fletcher a long time to find the players who could do a job for him and to get us up to the performances levels we saw in 2005. We had a side captained by a guy who didn't really want to do it but took the job on when asked.

    In Bopara, we have someone who can open in one-day cricket. We have a seam attack which is possibly only behind South Africa right now in terms of pace and ability (and yes, I do think our seam attack is currently stronger than that of Australia). Our spin options haven't been this strong for years. We have a keeper batsman in Prior who scores runs, a capable deputy in Ambrose, and Foster was absolutely superb in the T20, thoroughly vindicating the decision to pick him. It's been a long time since a wicketkeeper has motivated a crowd and given them something to shout about but Foster did this, especially with his stumping of Yuvraj.

    The inconsistencies are there. Against the Netherlands, the team looked fearful and that was repeated against South Africa. The performance against India was superb. Get that sort of performance going 9 times out of 10 and we will be a very good side. Right now I think we're close to finding a team that works. Maybe three to four positions are unsure or we have people in the wrong slot. For instance, I still don't rate Luke Wright opening the innings. He looked unsure in the past and, despite some runs here, he still doesn't convince.

    All in, more positives than negatives. I'd rather be English than Australian after this tournament. After all, the Aussies have half their batsmen out of form, still have no first choice spinner, and their seam attack was made to look very ordinary.

  • Comment number 21.

    I am very optimistic about test cricket. One thing I enjoyed about this tournament was that it was more of an even contest between bat and ball. I found this surprising really. Parnell, Umar Gul, Malinga, Mendis, Murali have come out on top. Even England bowled well overall. The only batsmen to really shine..possibly Gayle, Kallis..I expected a slog fest with 200+ being hit but it has not happened.
    As for test cricket-well it should be a swift kick up the backside for test cricket. Test cricket should if anything become more special. There will be less tests (bye bye Bangladesh) but more quality. The financial burden placed on test cricket will lesson meaning more result pitches and the longer form will be a refreshing break from T20.
    I wish test cricket was dying-then maybe tickets for the Ashes would not be touted at 300 pounds!

  • Comment number 22.

    Can't pretend I understand some of the ratings given in this article.

    The only England players who deserved more than 4 were Pietersen (who is South African) Shah (who is Pakistani) and the wicket keeper.

    In other words, there does not seem to exist a single English batsman who actually understands what 20/20 is. They all think they're playing a bleedin test match! Leave one, nurdle one, block two, leave one, & grab a daring single to switch the strike. They seem either genetically or culturally incapable of displaying any sort of boldness or flair.

    If this really is the best they can do, they should make way for some of the up-&-coming cricketing nations, and decline (gracefully) ever further into the dying sunset of Empire.

  • Comment number 23.

    I think Bopara deserves to be rated at 8, rather than 7. He and Pietersen were the only ones capable of consistently scoring runs.

    On the other hand, rating Collingwood's performance at 6 is rather generous. Apart from his fielding, what does he really add to the squad? His captaincy has been mediocre at best and his performance with the bat has been worse!

    England's big problem in this whole competition has been a lack of big hitters in the middle order. The team runs out of steam after Bopara and Pietersen are dismissed. Perhaps the selectors should consider looking to the counties for a couple of batsmen who can hit the boundaries at will.

  • Comment number 24.

    #20 AndyPlowright- spot on. A great post.

  • Comment number 25.

    i think that wright was brilliant against pakistan and so what if he got cheaply out in our last 2 games, he's there to attack the ball and that what he did.
    His bowling was decent as well i thought and that wide that got given against him against pakistan when the batsman ducked and it just went over his head.... yeah nice umpiring...

    i was pleaseantly suprised by our performances and think we could be a lot worse but we are just not as good as the Windies or SA.

    Adil Rashid looks like a brilliant find as well, would like to see him play a part during the ashes instead of Panesar.

    And James Foster should be our number one keeper, he is way more tidy with the gloves than prior and given a chance with the bat could prove to be test match class i think.

  • Comment number 26.

    Like many of the above posters I feel that your ratings are very generous. England were lucky to even record two wins in this tournament. The first against a poor Pakistan team playing their first match who have since improved greatly and will be a real threat in the semi's and the second won due to the ludicrous decision by India to promote an inexperienced batsman ahead of Dhoni, Yuvraj, Pathan etc, who would surely have scored quickly enough to see them home.

    For the most part I thought the bowlers did a good job, especially Swann (and to a lesser extent Rashid who looks like he could be a good find once he gains more experience) but were undermined by Englands sluggish batting - Pietersen aside (I shudder to think what we would have been like had he not played due to his achilles problem as feared before the tournament). Foster did a fantastic job behind the stumps as mentioned and it's not his fault the selectors decided to bat him at six. I agree he should be in the team but he should, like Ramdin, be batting down the order at 8, tops, with more all-rounders and less specialist bowlers.

    This was the problem against the West Indies. Just compare the batting lineups! The Windies had decent batsmen all the way down to 9 or 10 and England had Collingwood 5 and Foster 6 with 5 specialist bowlers.

    And like most of the above commenters I agree that Collingwood did nothing to show he deserved to be captain or bat at 5. He is always listed as an 'all rounder' but didn't bowl and his captaincy left much to be desired (especially the crazy decision to bat first against the Windies with rain in the air because it's much better to be batting second when D/L comes into effect). The problem of course is who else is there to captain the side? Pietersen is the only other player in the T20 squad who is even a viable candidate but is clearly out of favour since the Moores debacle.

    England then, need a big shake up. But I doubt they'll get it! Expect more under-par and underwhelming ODI and T20 performances featuring Wright, Shah, Anderson et al and led by Collingwood in the near future while players like Napier with proven domestic T20 records and IPL experience watch on...

  • Comment number 27.

    I would like to see some scores for the selector(s) - presumably Flower and Collingwood - who, despite some good calls, overall got the balance of the side badly wrong. At no time in the tournament did England look like they could score enough runs to go all the way, and it was only some great performances in the field which kept them hanging in there.

    Generally, agree with Oliver on the bowling scores, thought Swann was great and Foster's stumpings phenomenal but the top 5 batsmen (4 if you accept Collingwood made little contribution) were under too much pressure because there was nothing to come lower down the order. Except Broad who was bizarely played below Foster. For me, some performances of promise, but selectors get a 4.

  • Comment number 28.

    Such high scores for a losing team? A team that went 8 overs without a boundary.

  • Comment number 29.

    People want to know why Napier wasn't picked?

    He's been described by people as a big hitting batsman, but he is in fact a bowler. In domestic T20, he has not managed another 50 other than the famous 152. His average of 17 comes down to about 12 with it taken away.

    This year, he averages 2.5 with the bat. So with that form, he's been struggling to make a boundary let alone hit 20 off an over!


    I agree with most of the rankings, though I'm yet to look at the team averages. 6 for Collingwood is generous, and 5 for Shah is harsh though.

  • Comment number 30.

    Assuming 5 is average which must be the case surely, how come the individual components of a team that won 2 out of 5 games and lost to the Dutch for Heavens sake are all (bar one) rated as having performed averagely or better ?

    The problem with these articles giving players ratings is that the author never uses the full range of numbers available, hence in reality the marking system is between 4 and 10.


  • Comment number 31.

    Collingwood was excrement , drop him from the captaincy immediately . Every part of his game was poor , off with his head !

  • Comment number 32.

    The ratings are too high for a losing team. It might have been interesting to have played the Windies over 20 overs - why not with floodlights and all night to play - as a win would have put us in the semis. Would all the scores suddenly have been notched up even further?

    T20 cricket is a complete lottery and destroys the art of cricket. We might as well play baseball instead.

  • Comment number 33.

    20-Excellent post. Certainly big positives to be taken from this tournament. It wasn't perfect, but did anyone really expect us to challenge for the trophy given our T20 reputation? There are encouraging signs and enough to learn from for the future.

    17-I heartily disagree with your statements about the Ashes. It's not just a derby match, and it matters a great deal to England's standing in world cricket. The Ashes is the most popular and important test series in the world. It is far more important than any hastily knocked up cricketing world cup will ever be. However I do agree that the players need to perform whenever they put on an England shirt.

    With that in mind, I would like to see a different T20 captain. Collingwood doesn't deserve a place in the team, especially when Matt Prior and Ali Cook (who has been excellent this season) are made to sit out. Collingwood hasn't been in actual good form for ages. He keeps approaching good form, but always seems to drop short. Even recent centuries have started out as scratchy, unassured affairs.

  • Comment number 34.

    Bopara worthy of an 8, a very consistent tournament for him really. 5 seems a touch harsh on Shah, and although his captaincy was good I don't think Collingwood deserves a 6. Because he was the captain he was clearly seen as undroppable, but he just can't find the boundary enough at this level meaning he scratches around for at best a run-a-ball innings, and consequently it is no surprise that England's problem in the tournament was losing momentum after Bopara, Wright and Pietersen are out. This was particularly evident against Netherlands and the West Indies, given that Netherlands was the first game, it seems criminal that Napier wasn't even given an outing.

    I agree with the praise for Swann and Broad, they're both really starting to look good at all forms of the game for England, and they both have the ability to become genuine all rounders - with those two and a fully-fit Flintoff, England will start to look like a very good, and well balanced side.

  • Comment number 35.

    How did Key 'fail' - typical media bias.

    He was made to bat out of position (he is an opener not a finisher) and scored 10 runs from 8 balls, which given that many of the England batsmen often failed to score more than a run a ball was above par.

    Key should have opened - the opening partnerships against the test playing nations were 9, 4, 3 and 8 - giving an average partnership of just 6 runs - just the start England needed!!!

    Key should also have been captain - Collingwood's captaincy was appalling - highlighted by his decision to bat first and play an extra spinner (who bowled just one over) when rain was clearly forecast.

    The reason Collingwood took the captaincy (after resigning just 9 months ago) was to protect the England 'regulars' - you know the ones who complained that they didn't want Key as captain. Why - because Key is an outsider and would pick the best team and not the bunch of Collingwood's cronies who appeared in most/all of the games - note that the players who were most often omitted (Key, Napier, Morgan) are players who have not been part of the England set up very much recently, if at all.

    I believe that Key would have played Napier and would have dropped Collywobble - so he was protecting himself as much as anyone else.

    The England side is just like a village cricket team - if the captain is your mate you get a game, if not you just keep your fingers crossed that someone gets injured.

    The problem is that the selectors gave into player pressure not to appoint Key as captain - and England suffered the consequences.

    The other problem is that the media are often ex England regulars (and often ex captains as well such as Hussein and Atherton) and they do not highlight this point as they were likely to be equally guilty when they were playing.

  • Comment number 36.

    Just can't agree about Collingwood, really. Seemed to rotate the bowling well when things were going well, but lacked a spark when we needed some innovation.
    I've read some of the counter-arguments about Napier but the fact remains that he, Morgan and Key, were all thought of as T20 specialists... so why just give them one game? As an Essex fan I'll readily admit that Napier can be maddeningly inconsistent but if not given a go how the heck is he supposed to prove himself?
    Also, given that they used to try and hide him on the field and then take him off it when given the chance, did Shah bring to the team that, say, Key or Morgan, or even Napier couldn't have? His indecisive running is atrocious and he doesn't set a tempo with the bat.
    The underused members of the squad, two of whom were thought of as power hitters, could have brought something different to the game yesterday and more of the other games but no, England went with the 'tried and trusted' pros who've barely played any of the domestic T20 as they've been playing for England. How long before we actually realise that having played this format of the game is crucial? Save for the outstanding natural talents of Bopara, Pietersen, Broad and Anderson (whose outfielding is brilliant, not to mention his excellent bowling) and the (terribly missed) Flintoff, we didn't make the best of the remaining players we had.
    Perhaps also employing an innovative T20 coach might be of use.
    We've shown ourselves to be a long way behind some of the other teams and it disappoints me. Not only should Broad move up the order, we should start basing the team around spinal players:
    Bopara, Pietersen, Flintoff (if fit), Foster (OUTSTANDING glovework), Broad, Anderson.
    Start filling in the gaps by blooding players with a good pedigree in the domestic T20, not just who've played ODIs for England, and we might start to get somewhere. Until then, it'll be just like the England football team: quarter-finals at best...

  • Comment number 37.

    Apart from KP & Bopara, there is no one in the team that seems to time the ball, they seem to swing them selves off there feet, & the ball still falls short of the boundary usually into someones hands,Collingwood is only in the team for his fielding.............Bri

  • Comment number 38.

    Teffers - I'd agree with most of your 'spine' but not Flintoff - he is rubbish at T20 - you might think the game was made for him but it isn't.

    Take a look at his stats (even for domestic T20) they aren't great - and he was given a severe battering when he bowled in the IPL - and that assumes he can stay fit for enough hours to play a game.

    He bowls length - has no change of pace, and bowls nicely in the slot for the batsmen to hit - he might be OK for test cricket - but not for T20.

    As for his batting - the bowlers have really stepped up in the last few years, and they are much better at deceivng big hitting batsmen - as Flintoff has found out.

  • Comment number 39.

    Have i been watching the same competition. Whilst looking at averages and strike rates you can make an arguement for most of the players that the had a decent tournament but this is not even half the picture. Bopara is steady away and its fine for him to play an "anchor" innings if other batsmen are going to score quickly but they dont. Other than KP we have no batsmen who looks to accelerate the run rate during the middle part of the innings. In nearly every match we've started well/reasonably only to slow down in the middle overs (6-16) when we should be gradually picking up the run rate. T20 isnt about buliding innings. You need two or three batsmen to come in, hit 20/30 off 10/15 balls then get out. Nudging 1's and 2's is not what the game is about. We have scored too few runs in nearly every innings putting too much pressure on out bowlers who in the main have been ok. Without having looked up the stats I would imagine that, baring the associate sides, we must be way down on the 4's + 6's list. That, in essence, is what the game is about.

    Rant over!

  • Comment number 40.

    Quarkian (post #35): You are Rob Key and I claim my five pounds!

  • Comment number 41.

    #30 chipleader - spot on regarding the average score for a mediocre performance.

    My thoughts:
    Wright: Shouldn't have opened. Pietersen instead? Perhaps, afterall look at the success Kallis has had for SA and he isn't regarded as an opener.
    Broad: Amazing potential but needs more support. Should be batting one or two places higher. Bowling good, you feel something can happen when he has the ball, just needs to mature a bit.
    Foster: great behind the stumps, needs to bat lower.
    The rest: a bit forgettable really. One good catch, or a great ball or a big hit aren't enough to take you further in a tournament. You've got to do it consistently.

    A good team will be greater than the sum of its parts, and I don't think that England is. As for the English (seam) attack being second behind SA (#20) that is debatable but as an attack it is still missing someone like Gul or Steyn or Parnell or Malinga who can decimate a batting line up, even if occasionally they get spanked all over the park.

    If you were putting together a dream team out of the Super 8 nations Pietersen is the only England player who would be in with a shout. At each other position there is someone better in one of the other teams.

  • Comment number 42.

    Actually, Quarkian, as I started to type it I realised the last time I heard Flintoff's name in conjunction with T20 (apart from getting injured and being expensive in the IPL auction) was about 4 years ago, so he's hardly torn the place up since...

    Is Broad up to the task that would be expected of Flintoff? And if not him, then who?

  • Comment number 43.

    A captain should lead from the front. Collingwood averaged just 12.6 with the bat and took one wicket. How does he get a 6 when Shah averaging 21.2 only gets a 5??

  • Comment number 44.

    Bopara was our best player by a long way. Foster was very impressive. There is no way that you can say that KP was our best player-he is our most talented batsman but the way he got out yesterday was very diappointing with yet another lapse in judgement that most of the press will (wrongly in my book) blame on his massive self confidence.

    I think that it must be very tough for Colly to be captain as he hasn't been told this is your job for the next 5 years but this is your job for this particular tournament. How are you supposed to build a side or come up with plans when the selectors are just making it really clear to you that you are only a temporary incumbent? To the point about him not scoring enough runs well his S/R was over 100 and he is supposed to be the Chanderpaul kind of player in our line up that supports the blasters with very good running between the stumps picking up singles and rotating the strike.

    For some reason somewhere in the England hierarchy there is a belief that because we are England we do not have to try and play the game the same way as every other team do...see yesterday as perfect example of this....no Mascherenas....Broad batting at what was it 8????...playing 2 spinners when KP has reasonable figures in T20. If we can get a captain in long term then he can sort out technical problems like the one that Wright has and start working with the players to innovate like the South Africans do.

    We didn't really have a chance to get through in this tournament as at the moment we are not taking T20 seriously enough in England although how we did in this tournament was very entertaining to watch.

    Please also note that Broad should not get more than 5 out of 10 imo as he lost us the Holland game singlehandedly with his stupid overthrow when he could have held the ball and his penultimate over against WI yesterday was truly rubbish.

    The best thing I have seen is the return of Sidey and hope he is fit enough for the Ashes.

  • Comment number 45.

    When Chelsea played Barcelona at Stamford Bridge (on Sky Sports), Didier Drogba's tantrum was all over the Ten O'Clock News and there were two sports reporters (Olly Foster and James Pearce) stationed outside the ground.

    And, last week, James Munro and Pearce were at Wembley paying homage to the Andorran football team.

    Of course, it seems to be too much trouble for any BBC sports reporter to do the same for Twenty20 cricket, or to even mention it on the evening news.

    As for Radio Five Live, did the listeners really want the Under-21 match rather than the cricket? Did I miss the phone vote?

  • Comment number 46.

    Football will always take priority, even it's a completely meaningless fixture to everyone except a few thousand people.

    It's awful, I know. To think in America they have four main sports, and we only have one...

  • Comment number 47.

    We were too inconsistent, and I thought bar the India match, Collingwoods captaincy was average. Team selection was ridiculous for the majourity of the games as well.

  • Comment number 48.

    Having now reflected on yesterday's fiasco, surely it is obvious that either the D(L) method was wrongly applied or is not suitable for 20/20 cricket.
    When used in other limited over matches, the side batting second only has a variable total to get depending on how many overs they bat for. Each time they lose a wicket, their objective total increases. In yesterday's game WIndies should have started with the objective of scoring 162 to win, (regardless of number of wickets lost). Their objective after 8 overs, would have depended on the number of wickets lost. Each time they lost a wicket their objective should have increased. Thus after 8 overs, having lost 5 wickets at that stage, (as compare with England's 5 in total), their objective would probably have risen to circa 90-100 runs. If it was still fit to play the overs should have continued until it was no longer fit to play, so that after, say 10 overs, their objective would have been say 100-5. If another wicket fell during this period the run objective would have risen.
    It will be interesting to hear the views of the TMS commentators on this.
    If the D(L) method can't be used in this way, a new measurement system should be applied.

  • Comment number 49.

    Had no interest at all in the under 21 tournament. During the rain delays yesterday I was watching the far more entertaining federations cup match between USA and Italy. Will jump on the under 21 band wagon when we get to the final but looking forward to the semi finals in the T20 first. Hopefully Sri Lanka against one of the other 3 teams in the final. Will be the last chance for a couple of their players to get a trophy.

  • Comment number 50.

    Collingwood a 6! I've seen it all. He was hopeless in every aspect except fielding!

  • Comment number 51.

    Can't argue too much with those ratings personally. We were unfortunate yesterday with the weather, but that's how things go sometimes.

  • Comment number 52.

    Utter rubbish in my view. Nowhere near harsh enough.


    Whenever KP, Bopara, Wright and Shah got themselves out, our batting was miserable for this form of the game. Totally atrocious some might say. And let's face it, Shah and Wright often got themselves out playing ridiculous shots, from balls that my grandmother could have lofted into the main stand for six(in fairness, she is a decent striker of the ball).

    Barely a run a ball with little to no boundaries.

    The Selection then, was utterly hopeless. The panel who came up with that list should be culpable and I'd like to see them apologise. Surely there are better players out there than Rashid? I thought, in general, he was one of the poorest players in the tournament.

    Where are our big guns? Is it fair to rely on KP so heavily?

    I'd give all a six, bar Rashid, who'd get a four, Kp who'd get an eight, Broad who'd get a seven and Collingwood, who's inept batting display in later overs richly deserves a four.

  • Comment number 53.

    the only thing I did not hear from the E squad was the tried and tested we are a young side I did hear them say that other boring well worn phrase we have all learnt something from this. Please not again the ratings are amusing Bopara was by far our best player KP was well below parr and am I the only person who is fed up with KP moaning and groaning about his injury and that he has to have an injection to be able to play a large percentage of proffesional sports people play with strains and are not fully fit so KP shut up please get back to playing cricket you are playing well below the level that you can stop posing start playing proper cricket again thats what we like the best from you

  • Comment number 54.

    My personal scores:

    Bopara 8 - Did what was asked of him so far as I could see

    Wright 6 - A good start but lost his way.his aggression is always good to watch

    KP 8 - he did put in some fine performances, but he needs to realise that he is relied on heavily, and so his shot selection needs to be better planned sometimes as he gives his wicket away needlessly nearly always.yesterday was a prime example.

    Shah 7 - why such a harsh rating of 5? Doesn't score quite as quickly as maybe we'd like, but ws pretty consistent with the bat.

    Collingwood 5 - Terrible with the bat, dodgey squad selection and batting line-ups. his use of bowlers and his own fielding redeems him a touch. Probably a generous 5!

    Dimi 5 - Am I right in thinking Dimi is in there as a big hitter - a guy who in the space of a few overs is meant to take the game away from the opposition a la yuvraj/morkel etc? he didn't do that at all.

    Foster 7 - great with the gloves, but batting is not quite there

    Swann 7 - solid bowling, is he really an all-rounder though in this format?

    Broad 7 - Bowling on the whole was pretty good, but 8 is too generous for a guy who lost the plot against the Netherlands (why didn't he just hold onto the ball!!!!). Should def bat above Swann, (although the stat of 22 runs in 11 balls does not tell the story considering before last night it was 12 off 9)

    Rashid 6 - having seen this guy playing so well for Yorks the last few seasons, i reckon he could have done better, and his batting is definately better than he showed in this tournament

    Sidebottom 6 - i don't think he did too much really, and as a death bowler he's not as good as some of the other guys out there (Amir/Purnell/Malinga etc etc). You will always get at least one ball in a sidebottom over that can be tonked!

    Anderson 5 - really don't think he did particularly well, and is perhaps not actually that good a T20 player.

    England don't seem to appreciate just how much of a specialist game T20 is, and reckon Napier and Morgan should have featured much more. They're also damn good fielders which is very very important. I reckon when Flintoff comes back in he can only be considered as a bowler because his batting has really really suffered over the last few month's injuries.


  • Comment number 55.

    I'm very confused as to how Shah who was our third best batsman by a street during the tournament, built a couple of good innings and at least looked like he could score runs quickly, gets the lowest mark of the lot. In fact the criticism of Shah and the lauding of Bopara (who if you exclude the Netherlands didn't do better overall, and scored at little over a run a ball despite hitting plenty of boundaries which is what Shah is being criticised for) is weird enough, but to rate Shah below Collingwood and Wright is surely a joke.

    Apart from that the ratings are ok, although to be frank I'd mark Shah up to 6, and everyone bar Pietersen, Sidebottom, Swann and Bopara down a notch, with Collingwodd a 4.

    England are out because apart from their top 4 no one could score boundaries consistently.

    wright was always going to be hit and miss at this level and england in my view rightfully took that gamble. They would have hoped/expected him to come off once during the super 8s but it wasn't to be. His bowling was solit and his fielding very good.

    Bopara had a good but should have been excellent tournament. Against both India and the West Indies he should have kicked on. He also struggled to find the boundary after the end of the powerplays and very much anchored the innings. Which was fine as long as he was batting with Pietersen. Fielded well also.

    Pietersen continues to get criticised for getting out. Well all players do. He's England's best player by such a distance it's not even funny.

    Shah I've talked about above. Decent tournament but ultimately fustrating as he failed to kick on. Should carry on in the shorter form of the game as has the ability to score boundaries all around the wicket. england's only real alternative at 4 is Prior, who is less versatile. Must continue to improve his fielding which stood out and not in a good way.

    Collingwood was poor. Never looked like getting runs quickly enough at this level, captaincy was ok (decision to bat will have been made by management as well). England must now look to Morgan at number 5 (who is exactly what you need as he is very adaptable) and give the captaincy to Pietersen or maybe even Bopara (in 20-20)

    Mascarenas: Not a good enough batsman to bat at 6 at this level. Can't build an innings (see india or South Africa) so is only useful when coming in during the last 4 overs and giving it a whack. A number 7 at best. Usefull bowler though.

    Foster: Keeping was excellent as expected (it is interesting that the two best keepers in the tournament were him and O'Brien who both play in England). Batting was ok for a number 7/8 which is really his place in internationnal 20-20.

    Broad: pretty good overall, bowled well, fielded very well and batted well when given the chance. Should have been batting higher than swann and arguably Foster. Getting better all the time.

    Swann: England's best bowler in this form and showed it once again. Will rarely is ever go around the park. Decent fielder and can bat, but shouldn't have been above Broad in the order.

    Sidebottom: did well for himself with limitted opportunities. unfortunately a bit one-dimensionnal (fielding and batting nothing to write home about)

    Rashid: decent tournament but struggled against Holland (had swann been playing I'm pretty sure england would have won) and his batting and fielding weren't as good as billed to be. Didn't really get enough wickets either for a leg-spinner and I'd be tempted to leave him out in favour of a 6th batsman for the time being. One for the future though and showed good variation.

    Anderson: disapointing overall. Decent figures but expected better and very much england's 3rd best seamer. Fielded brilliantly as usual but batting won't do anything in 20-20.

    Morgan and Key we can't judge, Morgan very harshly dealt with I thought.

    The team for the future in 20-20

    Wright (if he goes early Pietersen's in soon which isn't a bad thing)
    Bopara
    Pietersen
    Shah
    Morgan
    Flintoff (if fit)/ another agressive batsman (Prior?)
    Foster
    Broad (interchange with Foster if necessary)
    Swann
    Sidebottom
    Anderson

    Even without Fintoff, england have Pietersen, Wright, Bopara and even Shah who can get through a few overs. If wright really isn't up to scratch give Napier a go at the top of the innings.

  • Comment number 56.

    Overall Fair enough, i dont think any of the team covered themselves in glory, KP included. KP Broad Rashid and Siders for me done (usual suspects). With broad and Rashid we have 2 great players for the future. Bopara... 50/50 for me, done what was expected but once he got himself in didnt really offer any problems for the fielders in the crowd.

    Im disapointed with the other batsmen, think they could have offered a big more.

  • Comment number 57.

    What does kevin Pietersen have to so. I swear he could score a hundred everytime he bats and never get and people would not be happy.

    KP is our best player by miles.

    People seem to think because the rest of the team are second rate that Kp must compensate for them. Thats garbage.

    The problems lie else where not with KP.

  • Comment number 58.

    I'm slightly confused as to why the West Indies' target total was 80 regardless of how many wicket they had lost. A D/L par score usually depends on the number of wickets the team has lost? Can anyone clarify for me??

    Cheers

    Jim

  • Comment number 59.

    I agree with Jim - how was 80 off 9 overs the same as hitting 162 off 20 overs? I think if West Indies had had 20 overs and were 82/0 off 11 they would be big favourites - I think the D/L method may need some tweaking in 20/20 cricket because wickets mean a lot less. England were never going to bowl West Indies out for 80, but could well have bowled them out for 162.

  • Comment number 60.

    Wright
    Bopara
    Pietersen
    Napier
    Shah
    Morgan
    Broad
    Foster
    Flintoff (has not shown anything with the bat for months/possibly years to merit a higher batting position. Would hope this would change after some practise...)
    Swann
    Sidebottom

    Far stronger batting line up, with bowling options from Sidebottom, Flintoff, Swann, Broad, Napier, Wright, Bopara, and Pietersen.

    Yep - I would drop Colley for the mo, until he sorts his batting out. Others to consider would be Dimi, Anderson, Rashid, Dalrymple, Prior, Trego

  • Comment number 61.

    To respond to some of the previous posts questioning Swann's batting ability in T20s, in his last appearance for Notts in the format, he batted at 3, and hit 90 from 47 balls, with 13 4s and 2 6s. This was chasing 158, and Notts got home with 4.5 overs to spare.

    This may only be at county level, but he did have some form with the bat coming into the tournament.

  • Comment number 62.

    It was a par performance by the English team.
    We might query a couple of selections, but ultimately have we really got the talent to be competing to win this tournament? How many of our team would be playing for South Africa, say?
    Other teams are playing close to their test sides; so why can they adapt to 20/20 so much better than England?

  • Comment number 63.

    Collingwood-6 ok captain but poor batsman
    Wright-5 allways blowing hot then cold
    Bopara-6 consistent
    Pitersen-8 best player in the team
    Shah-5 played ok but didn't get enough runs
    Mascarenhas-5
    Foster-7 very good keeping
    Swann-7
    Broad-7
    Sidebottom-7
    Anderson-7
    Rashid-6 didn't get much chance to prove himself
    Key and Napier should have been given chances. It could have saved England and got them to the semis.

  • Comment number 64.

    Mr Neutron - I'm afraid I am not Rob Key - not slim enough and he is currently fielding against Essex.

    Mike Selig - Shah was rubbish - he may have averaged just over 21 (hardly fantastic) but the main problem was his run rate - 108 runs/100 balls - over a whole match that equates to a score of less than 130 over 20 overs - he is too slow - and that goes for his fielding as well.

    All the teams mentioned above - but who would be the captain?

  • Comment number 65.

    Pietersen should be the captain just for the 20/20's

  • Comment number 66.


    Rashid and Collingwood struggled. Bring in Napier and Lumb as direct replacements.
    Kev looked quality yesterday, real class.

  • Comment number 67.

    I am a great couch cricket fan but I sense a bit of a divison in the English team. They don't seem to have that special 'fire' or that 'in-bred' competiveness that I see in the other teams...am I missing someting?

  • Comment number 68.

    It is interesting that England apparently decided to go with so-called specialists, which is why Napier didn't get a game. Specialist bowler James Anderson averaged 26.20 with the ball, going for 7.55 per over. In comparison "all-rounder" Mascharenas averaged 22.50 with the ball, going at 6.42 runs per over. Dimi also averaged 42 with the bat, at a strike rate of 100. OK Dimi didn't do the damage expected of him with the bat, but just a comparison of the two shows he was more valuable to the team (even accounting for Anderson's excellent fielding).

    If we say a par score in international T20 is 150, a strike rate of 125 is what every player should be aiming for at the very least. This was achieved by Rob Key, KP, Broad and Luke Wright. In comparison, Collingwood batted 5 times. He scored 55 runs at an average of 12.6, with a strike rate of 114.54. In the 5 innings he hit a grand total of 6 fours!

    With Collingwood clearly out of form I wasn't exactly surprised to see that he isn't playing for Durham today. Even when they were playing to win the county championship he didn't bother turning up. For me he will be a liability going into the Ashes with so little form.

    England played Rashid because they wanted to give him some England experience before the Ashes. Pretty typical to be honest. He could have played in some of the meaningless games of recent months against the West Indies, but instead we decide the best time is in a major tournament on home soil.

    Anyone on the county circuit should be practicing their big shots ready for the resumption of county T20. Now is the time to show the selectors that you are the answer to England's batting shortfalls and if you are lucky earn yourself a good payday in the IPL next year.

  • Comment number 69.

    Future England 20/20

    Bopara
    Mustard
    Pitersen
    Shah/Morgan
    OPEN (Batsman who can hit it big)
    Flintoff
    Mascrenhas
    Napier
    Broad
    Swann
    Rashid

  • Comment number 70.

    You'd think that from reading the ratings (lots of 7 and 8s) that we performed quite well during this tournament. Looking back over the 5 games, i don't think that was the case.

    We were disgraceful against Holland and apart from Pakistan, batted poorly in every game. As a bowling/fielding unit we showed up quite well but the batting simply wasn't up to it.

    Watching England struggle to find the boundary in the second half of the innings (often against part time bowlers) was as embarrasing as it was frustrating.

    To rely so heavily on one player isn't healthy - the fact that this one player is a born and bred South African makes it even worse!

  • Comment number 71.

    Much as I admire Paul Collingwood, he is a Test player who has never adapted to the 1-day or 20/20 game (and, btw, I don't have a problem with that!).
    Alas, he should not have been in the side: if England genuinely wanted to win this competition, in their own country, they should have swallowed their pride, and appointed Pietersen as skip (forget any "injury": he'd have played every match!).

    Collingwood is a decent skipper, but he made some glaring errors yesterday, not least in putting himself, Foster and Swann above Broad in the batting line-up, when it was obvious that we needed boundaries.
    And then he entrusted the penultimate over to Broad, who does not have a great track record of handling pressure in these situations, instead of giving the ball to Sidebottom to try one last attempt to put the Windies under pressure for the last over, which he could have given to Swann.

    Leaving Mascharenas out of the side was not a great idea, either. And this ain't glorious "20/20" hindsight (small joke, there?!!!), as I was screaming these comments at the TV most of the evening, much to the annoyance of the other viewers!!!!

  • Comment number 72.

    muzzy121 - dropping arguably the biggest England plus of the tournament in Foster when his 'keeping arguably won us the game against India and could have helped us win the game last night in favour of Mustard who's not cut it (pardon the pun) at ODI level?

    Also, Foster's Essex T20 record bears scrutiny against his rivals. Think someone else is needed at the top of the order but if we're that bothered, how about copying Sussex's example and playing Prior as a batsman with Foster keeping wicket?

    Anderson's outfielding means his place should be safe (saving fours and getting a good, accurate throw back is the fielding equivalent of scoring them), but I'm not convinced Napier can bat higher than, say, 6 at international level, so that still doesn't solve that problem. How about then:

    Bopara
    Prior (batsman, not keeper)
    Pietersen
    Morgan
    Mascarenhas
    Napier
    Foster (w/k)
    Broad
    Swann
    Rashid
    Anderson

    Rashid's reckoned to be more a batsman than bowler, so I'm told, you've plenty of other bowling options in there (see below), I was put in my place earlier about Freddie and he's just too unreliable in terms of injuries anwyay.

    Bowling-wise you've got plenty of options and variety:

    Anderson, Broad, Swann, Rashid, Napier, Mascarenhas, Bopara, even KP.

    In the batting you've got hitters/creative/agricultural batsmen in:

    KP, Morgan, Napier, Mascarenhas, Prior, even Broad and Swann.

    A strokeplayer:

    Bopara

    A nurdler who keeps it ticking over:

    Foster

    and from what I can see, only one unknown quantity (Rashid) and one rabbit (Anderson).

    In the field you've got a top-class 'keeper:

    Foster (even Prior can back-up if the former's injured)

    Good outfielders:

    Anderson, Morgan, Broad.

    Bopara dropped one dolly but his fielding is infinitely better than Shah's, KP's got a decent pair of hands, can't think of any fielding catastrophes involving the rest (though I admit I haven't checked that closely and don't know enough about Rashid but he seems worth persevering with). What we seem to be lacking is a world-class close fielder like Colly has been but even he was off the boil in this tournament, I think.

  • Comment number 73.

    I agree with the last post- England were disgraceful in this tournament!
    You cannot be soft and mince your words - if we are to learn then the right lessons need to be learnt.
    You didnt need to be einstein to work out what you need for a 20/20 team - when you look back on this England team in years to come it will be a disgraceful team to have selected considering what you need to be successful in this format.



    The team selection stinks of 'old school' when especially in 20/20 cricket its all about being innovative, dynamic and moving with the times - especially hard to take because we do have the players in county cricket but they are never given an opportunity because the selectors dont rate anyone unless your over 28 and have played on the county circuit for at least 10 years.

    We need to be bold and blood younger players in the team - look at Parnell for SA, Pakistan have a history of doing this and India with the likes of Sharma who has played for the past two years.

    England as always have been light years behind the others and thats why we always struggle.

  • Comment number 74.

    As ever, thanks for all the comments. I should say I found these ratings particularly difficult to do, because I genuinely don't think any players disgraced themselves, it was just that some - particularly the middle-order batsmen, were just not quite up to the mark. Those tiny percentages add up and in this format cost you games.

    No question that we do need one or two new specialist, big-hitting batsmen, NOT all-rounders. There just don't seem to be many options around.

    Somebody asked why the WI target was not adjusted when they started losing wickets. Wickets only come into play for D/L purposes when a chase is prematurely ended by rain. Then the par score is judged according to the wickets you have lost at that stage.

  • Comment number 75.

    Can't judge England on that last game. The recalculation of runs is inappropriate.

    Instead of the Duckworth Louis Method, may I recomment the Cuthbertson Calculation (named for my estimable gran?). In 2020, Side B's runs per over would be directly proportional to Side A's innings for the side batting first,but you'd only have one wicket per two overs; minimum 6 overs, 3 wickets.

    Side A may not use all 1o wickets; but equally, Side B can choose which batsmen to use, so it's fair, and I bet you'd get a better game. And easy to calculate.

  • Comment number 76.

    I disagree completely with The_Third_Ronaldo. Stuart Broad does not think he is wonderful and anyway, he is a fantastic cricketer, one of our best bowlers, especially in T20 and a good and improving batsmen. Had he not scored those two boundaries yesterday, the Windies┬┤ D/L par score could have been considerably lower, and he bowled a very low economy and took two catches. It is not his fault Colly cannot captain a side.

  • Comment number 77.

    Matt Prior has been a class batsman for England. The selctors should have identified those who are out of their depth batting wise (Morgan) and those who can hit the ball cleanly against the best bowlers. Therefore Prior should have at least been a specialist batsman. England sorely missed a spinning all rounder (Patel, Yardy, Blackwell) but someone who could have hot the ball as well.

    My team for next: Bopara, Pietersen (c), Prior, Shah, Patel, Wright, Flintoff, Broad, Foster (Wk), Swann, Anderson.
    Others: Trott, Rashid, Mascerenhas, Sidebottom.

  • Comment number 78.

    I completely agree with the comments about the unsuitability of the D/L method in T20 cricket.

    I didn't give England a hope of winning, even before the West Indies had started their innings, because taking 10 wickets in nine overs is a stiff task but one which England more or less had to achieve in order to win. Some will argue that it was up to England to restrict the scoring rate of the West Indies, but for me that was a virtual impossibility when the West Indies knew that they could afford to lose at least a wicket per over.

    England would have paced their innings entirely differently had they known in advance (as the West Indies subsequently did) that it was only a nine over contest.

    I appreciate that there needs to be a system when the rain intervenes, but I cannot see that D/L works.

    There needs to be some recognition of wickets taken by Side A during the second innings, otherwise Side B is at a huge advantage by being able to pretty much slog at will safe in the knowledge that they have several wickets in hand over a limited number of overs. Perhaps a penalty of four/five runs for each wicket lost?

  • Comment number 79.

    Re 78. Why not simply set the winning target as would happen if WI had the full 20, but had to go off after 9 overs? So for instance they might need 80 if they had lost 0 wickets, 95 if they had lost 5 etc.

  • Comment number 80.

    Fair point Teffers- I see you still dont have Flintoff in your team - overlooked or just dont rate him ?

    Bopara
    Pietersen
    Prior
    Foster (wkt)
    Flintoff
    Mascarenhas
    Napier
    Broad
    Swann
    Rashid
    Anderson

    Would that team just be too light batting wise? I'd-

    Dont forget we just need one partership where two batsman bat for 6-8 overs- i.e Piertsen and Bopara to bat properly in the first 6 hours and with the fielding restrictions we should be off to a good start. Then you have Prior to come in - foster next to nurdle the strike over to the big hitters who just keep coming really hard at the opposition.
    Lots of bowling options and lots of good fielders

    What do you think

  • Comment number 81.

    excuse grammatical errors - grrr

  • Comment number 82.

    Actually the bottom low order still doesnt pack enough punch - id take out one of the bowlers from Anderson, Rashid and Swann (probably Anderson at this juncture) and put in someone who can hit the ball far- probably a batsman - someone like treschothick - in that mould.

    Can anyone name county players with reputations to hit a the ball far.
    Du Plesis for Lancashire perhaps?

  • Comment number 83.

    So farewell (sooner or later) Test Cricket. It seems almost fatuous to pass any judgement on your individual players' ratings, Oliver. It's like awarding ratings to footballers on the basis of their performance in a penalty shoot-out.

    ---------

    Can we please forgo the stupid comparisons. Test cricket is perfectly health, there is as much of it played as ever, it is the one day game that is under threat (and rightly so) from T20.

  • Comment number 84.

    muzzy121 - I'd been persuaded Flintoff's not all that in T20 given his recent record and also, you can't rely on him due to injuries.

    Don't think Fossie's up to batting 4 in international cricket, think Morgan's been written off too quickly after just one appearance in which no-one covered themselves in glory. Also, with the exceptions of, off top of head, Swann and Mascarenhas, all of my team is under 30 and can thus spend a few years developing together (and Swann's only just 30 anyway, I think, while Mascarenhas is about 32).

    Dunno what Rob Key seems to have done to upset people but again he's about 30 so maybe not the best bet for future (point I was making is that Collingwood is already 32ish so unlikely to progress, but same could be said about Mascarenhas).

  • Comment number 85.

    A lot of teams posted on here IMHO have exactly the same problem which England had, namely not enough batsmen. the problem for England was that due to Collingwood's poor form and confused selection policy we were playing effectively 3 batsmen during the tournament (Bopara, Pieterson, Shah) which unless every innings sees two of them get to 40 is simply not enough. Morgan at 5 with another batsman (not a hitter, a batsman who can hit which is a big difference) is I believe the way to go. Pietersen would captain. Trego's name was mentioned, but is he good enough to play at no 6 for England?

  • Comment number 86.

    I think we have seen two bright starts who should feature in the England team for the next decade : Wright and Broad

    Broad has all we could ask of a player, don't need to say anymore!

    Wright scored quickly and highly in the first two games, the third (everyone messes up, Kallis...KP...) and the fourth match was an AMAZING ball that would have got anyone out (Kallis...KP...)

  • Comment number 87.

    How i see it...

    Collingwood - He's a great fielder, can bowl and is useful with the ball in his hands. So on paper he should be a fine 20-20 player, but on the green stuff he didn't exactly cover himself with glory - especially with the bat. His captaincy style was a touch to reactionary, but how much of that was down to selection issues? Anyway - 5 out of 10.
    Bopara - Class batsman in all formats of the game. 8 out of 10.
    Wright - Needs to add a bit of guile to his game, but other than that looks to score runs and to score them quickly. 7 out of 10.
    Pietersen - I'd love to see KP stay at the crease for longer but in the time he's there i'm willing to bet he has the opposition somewhat worried.
    England should be gratefull he chose them over his native South Africa. He'd be the star batsman in any team, and with all the off field issues i think he's done well not to loose focus to badly. 8 out of 10.
    Shah - I'm willing to bet Owais would be a pain in the backside to sit next to on a long coach trip - does he ever sit still? Anyway, he is without doubt a quality and unorthodox batsman, but he's been more miss than hit for my liking. 6 out of 10.
    Mascarenhas - Good lines and lengths bowled and always a lower order batting threat. Agree he was under used, as was Napier - missed a trick or two there me thinks. 6 out of 10.
    Foster - Great keeper, fantastic hand speed, but i could do better with the bat. If 20-20 is all about runs on the board then maybe a keeper who can keep but who can't score is a bit of a luxury? 6 out of 10.
    Swann - Can bat a bit and is a very effective thinking bowler. Glad to have him on board. 7 out of 10.
    Broad - I wonder why he wasn't higher up the batting order? After all anyone who's watched him bat knows he can. Other than a few brainless moments, won't mention the missed run outs...ops, just did, he bolwed really well and took his catches well. Has the capacity to learn and learn quickly. 7 out of 10.
    Rashid - Great tallent but is a 20-20 competiotion really the best place to blood an unproven player? Who knows. Saying that, he did impress me and providing the ECB invest in him he'll be a good addition to any England team. 6 out of 10.
    Sidebottom - Loads of hair and plenty of attitude. At last he looks like getting back to full fitness. All in all i'd say he was England's most impressive quick bowler. 7 out of 10.
    Anderson - Dynamic fielder, pony with the bat and a great swing bowler. Only problem is there wasn't much swing on offer for him. Maybe 20-20 cricket isn't his strongest suit? 5 out of 10.

    For me, England didn't go into the competition with a settled side and ended up mixing and matching. Obviously Flintoff being injured didn't much help, but some of the selections made me question why they bothered to take Napier, especially if we had no intention of playing him and why on earth did England lug Key along for the ride?
    Personally i think England lost any chance of winning when they played only Luke Wright and Kevin Pietersen as there only bigger hitters.

    Matt..

  • Comment number 88.

    Some very harsh opinions on here. Rashid is only a young leg spinner and did well. Took wickets and not once did he look out of his depth.
    KP & Bopara did well-but needed one more batsman to shine.
    Foster-two world class stumpings and must be in contention now for the Ashes.
    Swann-an excellent bowler. Could be a key performer this summer. Sidebottom-looks fitter and again should be a contender for the Ashes.
    Those criticising Flintoff-I seem to remember the last one day game he played for England he took a hat trick to win the series against the West Indies. He was missed.
    And as for Colly being out of form-I am pretty sure he averages nearly 50 with the bat over the last year in test cricket and his winning 80 odd v Australia to win the one day series in 2007 is the best one day knock I have seen by a English batsman. That said maybe he is not suited to 20:20.

  • Comment number 89.

    1 Bopara
    2 Pietersen
    3 Patel
    4 Key
    5 Prior
    6 Mascarenhas (c)
    7 Broad
    8 Napier
    9 Foster (wk)
    10 Swann
    11 Sidebottom

    Others debatably excluded: Shah, Morgan, Anderson, Wright, Rashid, Collingwood.

    The top 6 batsmen are all real batsmen, capable of playing proper strokes for runs, and all capable of good scores. With some batting ability down to 10. Includes big hitters like Broad, Mascarenhas, Napier and Pietersen.
    6 good bowlers, it's all good :)

  • Comment number 90.

    cant agree with low score for Anderson. 5 wickets, economy 7.6.
    Siders 3 wickets economy 7.5, Swann 5 wickets economy 7.5, Rashid ecomomy 7.3, 3 wickets.
    Seems Jim is harshly scored again and is only marginally more expensive and took more wickets than Rshid. Not his best for of the game agreed but I dont think he's a 6. Surely deserves a 7 with Rashid and Swann?

  • Comment number 91.

    I think the middle order batsmen were hamstrung by the men coming after them. Once KP had gone, it seemed to me that everyone was scared of getting out, and as such that the likes of Colly and Shah were batting with one eye over their shoulder. This is the fault of the selectors. Rashid played his part with the ball, but Mascheranas should have been in there instead as a better bat, and having Broad higher (perhaps 5?) as a spanker would have given the others a bit more freedom. That would have given us 7 batsmen before Foster and then the true tail.

  • Comment number 92.

    There is a lot of criticism for Colly, but England were in a pickle finding a captain. KP was a not an option, nor was Strauss - who else could do the job? Key? (he's out of form) Dimi? (he's out of form). I suspect Colly knew he wasn't that good at it, but did the job for the team. Who will captain England in their next 20:20 match?

  • Comment number 93.

    Woah - i know Flintoff has done poorly with the bat but surely he has got to be in the team through his bowling - his ferocious batting if it ever comes off has to get him into the team - even have him down at 9 or 10 in the order - surely he gets in over Anderson, Sidebottom who cant hold a bat.
    Just saw someone mention Samit Patel - needs to be more athletic in the field/ basically look like an international as oppsed to Ramesh Powars brother but i'd have him in the team...

    England 20/20 Champions for 2010

    Bopara (capt)
    Prior
    Pietersen
    Shah/Du Plesis
    Patel
    Flintoff
    Napier
    Mascrenas
    Broad
    Foster (wkt)
    Swann

  • Comment number 94.

    89. At 4:22pm on 16 Jun 2009, lotsofsocks5 wrote:

    1 Bopara
    2 Pietersen
    3 Patel
    4 Key
    5 Prior
    6 Mascarenhas (c)
    7 Broad
    8 Napier
    9 Foster (wk)
    10 Swann
    11 Sidebottom

    Others debatably excluded: Shah, Morgan, Anderson, Wright, Rashid, Collingwood.

    The top 6 batsmen are all real batsmen, capable of playing proper strokes for runs, and all capable of good scores. With some batting ability down to 10. Includes big hitters like Broad, Mascarenhas, Napier and Pietersen.
    6 good bowlers, it's all good :)

    **********************************************************************************************************************

    Ok, here goes...


    Robert Key is a traditional opening batsman - not a No.4. How many times did you watch England hit a mid innings brick wall? To often for my liking.

    At times like these you want be upping the run rate not slowing it down. Yes Key can play "proper" shots, but at No.4 you need a more dynamic batsman ie. Napier, or Wright.

    Also, how can you start Broad on above Napier? A batsman like Napier needs more, rather than less, time at the crease.

    1 - Bopara
    2 - Wright
    3 - Pietersen (c)
    4 - Prior (wk)
    5 - Napier
    6 - Mascarenhas
    7 - Broad
    8 - Swann
    9 - Bresnan
    10 - Sidebottom
    11 - Rashid

    The top 6 are power hitting batsmen, three of which are either bowling or batting all rounders. 7 to 11 also have Bresnan, who is an all rounder and a good limited over death bowler, and Broad who, along with Wide...sorry, Sidebottom would make up the opening seam bowling attack. Swann and Rashid would take the pace off and the remaining bowling could be shared out amoungst the rest.

    Matt..

  • Comment number 95.

    Made me laugh... Maybe Napier is proving a point in today's game for Essex against Kent (day 1 of 4). The last time I checked he was 62 not out off 64 balls (an innings that includes 2 sixes). He is also top scorer in the innings.

    In comparison England boys Alistair Cook and James Foster scored 8 (off 28 balls) and 36 (off 86 balls) respectively.

  • Comment number 96.

    Ian Blackwell anyone? Six hitter-can bowl a bit of spin too.Looks like getting another hundred today-as does Steve Davies. Not sure what he did wrong in his one outing for England.

  • Comment number 97.

    It certainly is time for the 'CollyFlower' partnership to be nipped in the bud. The Badger (39) had some good points especially about the run a ball nurdling. No side is going to beat decent opposition with a typically wobbling Colly performance with the bat. Rather get out for zero attempting some decent runs than waste a precious 12 balls and get the same in runs.
    England probably would have won it over the full 20 overs but knowing there was rain they threw it away with those piddling middle order performances.
    Foster is a Wiz with the gloves, but lacking big hits - agree that he is not a number 6 or 7. I'd bet a crate of 4X that Matty Prior wouldn't have stumped those two.
    Shah is okay, but if he were overthrown, wouldn't miss his cautious play.
    Mr Anderson has yet to reach his full potential at 20/20 and another all rounder needs to be found. he is the one at test level.
    As for Luke's presence on the field, it cannot be felt. Neither does he wield his willow with the necessary force hence regularly skying the ball and being a pavilion walker.
    KP's solo efforts have hans down saved the day for England.
    We've had our dessert - bring on the main course: Ashes Test cricket!

  • Comment number 98.

    "You can't mince words", said someone earlier, by which I assume he meant, " hurl the most accusatory things you can and never mind a sense of proportion". And words like Disgraceful, Terrible, Apologise and Old Boy Network (oh give it a rest!) don't describe England's performance in this competition. The phrases that do are ones like "a par performance, but should have been better", "better than they were, but still not good enough" and "ok, but some big weaknesses let them down". Ok, not snappy or self-righteous enough for some, but I'm afraid accurate.

    In the end, there have been over 75 posts on this blog since no 20 by Andy Plowright and less than 2% of them have had anything to say that's even 50% as intelligent. So thanks Andy, good to see that someone responded to what happened on the pitch rather than just reiterating their own prejudices.

  • Comment number 99.

    I reckon there's a slight anomaly with applying the D/L principles. I understand its all about the 'resources available'so quite rightly the asking rate is reduced less than the overs required. However, the numbers of batters is not reduced whilst the overs allowed each bowler is so.

    In order to maintain a better balance I'd like to se the D/L rules for twenty20 ammended to include a slight reduction in the length of the batting line-up, and a reduction in the numbers of bowlers required.

    The resources available overall should be kept the same, but a batsman should still have to worry about losing his wicket, and the captain should still be able to use his best attack.

  • Comment number 100.

    and what about a score for anyone involved in team selection?? FLOWER - 3. Surely that also brings Colly down to a 4 or 5. Foster is the best keeper in the world but not a no.6 bat in ANY format at ANY level. Strauss should have stayed for continuity as skipper (was he not the best bat in recent one-dayers), Prior at 3 or 4, Napier at 6 & Fozzy at 8 or 9. No need for 3 quicks, 2 spinners as well as Pieterson, Bopara, Wright & Colly in bowling. Did someone forget it is 20 and not 50 overs so 4 bowlers and a few to squeeze 4 from is enough??

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.