Twenty20 selection betrays where England’s priorities lie
The omission of Andrew Strauss from the Twenty20 World Cup squad would barely have warranted a mention 6 months ago but now it is a much discussed and contentious decision. This is testament to the amount the stock of the England captain has risen in recent months but also to the confusion informing England’s selection policy. The squad is something of a mish-mash of big names, honest triers, unknowns and guys who thought their international careers had gone the way of the dodo.
England’s belief in the theory that the best players are the best players regardless of the format is about as consistent as Steve Harmison’s line and length, predictable only in its unpredictability. Newcomers such as Joe Denly, Chris Woakes, Eoin Morgan and Graham Napier rub shoulders with guys who have been tried, discarded and given another shot including Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, Chris Tremlett and James Foster, and some who must have thought their days had gone, such as Rob Key and Shaun Udal.
All in all it reads like a who’s who of anyone the selectors may have considered in any form in the last 2 years, most of whom were deemed not good enough. While we wish all the players the best of luck, one can read 2 things into the selections. Firstly, there is still no clear idea of how to approach this form of the game. Other teams have a few specialists augmenting their more established names on the basis that the best players are the best but that there are some exceptional Twenty20 players. But broadly their team is not dissimilar to the 50 over side. England chop and change between players who are largely much of a muchness but lack the improvisation and skill of players from other countries. Originality has long been eyed with suspicion by coaches in England and it will take a while before we produce players with the 360 degree range of shots that we see from opponents. The regularity with which England have been bowled out inside 20 overs speaks volumes for the muddled thoughts going through the minds of the players.
The other thing we can infer is that the Twenty20 World Cup is a distant second on the priority list to the Ashes. The exclusion of Strauss in favour of similar but less classy players is strong evidence of that. Until a coherent strategy is devised and a unit is established and allowed to develop, England cannot hope to compete with the mulit-faceted buffers and improvisers from the subcontinent and the power-players from South Africa and Australia. If the selectors have decided that this tournament is too early for England given where they are at present then they are absolutely correct.
But there is a balance to the squad, however much it may seem as though the players have been drawn out of a hat. The core of the team – Pietersen, Flintoff, Collingwood (the key man), Prior, Broad and Anderson – are all there. There are some youngsters who may develop into something big but they are augmented with men who have played plenty of Twenty20 cricket. The problem with the established England players is that they really have not played much of the format as they are on international duty during the domestic tournament. The likes of Key, Udal, Foster and Napier have played plenty of the short form and can bring those skills to bear.
The World Twenty20 promises to be hugely entertaining but I do not expect England to be big factors at the business end or one of the major entertainers. But this summer they have bigger fish to fry.
