Englands Twenty 20 Team Problems

After Englands crushing 9 wicket defeat yesterday newly appointed captain Stuart Broad has a lot to think about. Theres a few clear team problems I think Broad and the England management are making with the team.

Why no Bell?

Why they left out Bell is beyond me,Englands best batter in the side and they leave him out,madness. The "Bopara adds a bowling option" excuse is rubbish he's in there for his batting and just isn't delivering. England have 5 bowlers and Luke Wright so why would they need another option? England need to play there star players and not just players who could come good.

Lack of Experienced players

Jade Dernbach on debut bowled pretty well taking Englands only wicket but the man bowling with him Chris Woakes who i'm focusing on, bowled appalling giving away to many wides and going at over 10 just isn't acceptable. This for me shows international inexperience and while playing for England before seemed very nervous and bowled the total wrong line and length at the Sri Lankans. Pitching it up clearly wasn't working for him and didn't seem to have a plan B,he just continued to get hit for boundaries. Should he be dropped? I'm not entirely sure but the signs in this match were that he's still quite a bit away from developing into a world-class bowler. With more county games now a days he'll continue to get better but for now I'm unsure if he should be in the side or not,he has a chance in the ODI's to prove me wrong though. What I would suggest is bringing in one or two test bowlers. Chris Tremlett,maybe? Another player who is in superb form right now and would keep Englands bowling together not go for many runs and take a few wickets.

How many more opportunities for Luke?

Luke Wright continues to fail for England once again, when are England going to learn? He's ment to the be the so called finisher of the innings but hasn't done so for how long? It's time England look to someone else,possibly Jos Buttler down at Somerset? Or Maybe play a extra top-order batter. A couple more months playing country cricket would do Luke well.

My T20 side:

1) Michael Lumb
2) Craig Kieswetter (WK)
3) Kevin Pietersen
4) Ian Bell
5) Eoin Morgan
6) Samit Patel
7) Jos Buttler
8) Stuart Broad (C)
9) Graeme Swann
10) Chris Tremlett
11) Jade Dernbach/ Chris Woakes

After seeing last nights performance what would be your side and do you agree with my points?

What is your view on this current T20 side?

Good article, was thinking of writing a similar one myself but you have mentioned the main problems. Another problem seems to be the lack of clear thought and direction shown by the selectors, who seem to change idea every series apart from their strange attraction to Wright which continues unabated.

Liam - what do you think of Lumb? He's rather escaped my radar. Cheers, Guildford

guildfordbat wrote:Liam - what do you think of Lumb? He's rather escaped my radar. Cheers, Guildford

I seen him play for Hampshire a few weeks back in a Twenty-20 think it was against Somerset and he played brilliant. He's also just came back from a long injurys so deserves a opportunity or two. He's not in the one-day side so has a chance to go back to Hampshire and prove his place in Englands side but for now I would say his place is secure. The likes of Alex Hales aren't too far behind him though.

Liam
mate how about

Hales
Kieswetter
KP
Morgan
Stokes
Buttler
Patel
Bresnan/Rashid
Broad
Swann
Dernbach

Bell in for Lumb.
Buttler, Taylor, Hales or A.N.(Y) Other for Wright. If he's not going to bowl, why's he there?

Pick specialist t/20 bowlers (and, indeed, batsmen), rather than using the format to 'blood' new talent. (Neither Dernbach or Woakes have particularly good domestic t20 records).

Hoggy - I believe Dernbach will pick up wickets in t20 and ODIs. Over the last year he has particularly developed and much improved a very well disguised slower ball ....

Liam - thanks for the update on Lumb. I'll keep an eye out. He wouldn't have been my first choice but that might just have been ignorance on my part!

Buttler hasn't been in good form this year guys, very inconsistent

I think another problem Liam is that the side in all forms is going in different directions. It can't be healthy that the 3 sides have 3 different captains. I think that. It was a massive mistake not having Bell in as it is about getting runs and he is a great in shorter forms of the game. I think the ambition for the Test needs to reflect on all forms.

legendkillar wrote:It can't be healthy that the 3 sides have 3 different captains.

This I agree with. I find the appointment of Stuart Broad as captain a bit strange. Talented cricketer as he is the fact remains that Broad has no experience of leadership since becoming a professional cricketer. Time will tell if Broad will become a successful International 20/20 captain but I thinks the selectors have a made a risky choice. Or is everyone happy with the inexperienced Broad ? I dont post much on the Cricket forum so apologies if this has been much discussed already.

One interesting point made by the commentary team pointed out that due to the lack of county cricket for the centrally contracted players they don't have opportunities to hone their captaincy skills. Indeed the selectors are very much making a stab in the dark when appointing a new captain, as they don't have any track record to go by. Hence I think they are trying to create a form of captaincy conveyor belt to help them choose the next test captain when Strauss finshes.

I was against appointing Broad as an England captain - certainly at this stage in his career. I didn't think that he has shown sufficient maturity for the job.

Now that he has been appointed he should be given a reasonable chance to show what he can do.

I can't say I was for the appointment of Stuart Broad. I think while you have cricketers such as Morgan or Swann or even Bell in the side who can contribute match winning performances, I find it strange. There is so much made about his 'cricketing' brain, and in his bowling it is difficult to see an evidence of that.

He can prove me wrong and I hope he does. There isn't a lot of T20's that England play, so it will be difficult for him to show his 'influence' based on performances.

I don't mind Kieswetter and Lumb being our T20 openers, at least for now, they have a decent pedigree in the format and even though I like Davies, his form has been on and off this season so far. Hales would probably be the next opener I would try. Pietersen and Morgan at 3 and 4 is very good but Bopara and Wright need to go for me. I'd probably put Bell at 5, he can bat quickly but also steady things if necessary. I'm happy with Patel at 6 or 7 depending on the situation with the other place occupied by a 'big hitter'. At the moment I'm not sure who this could be, Stokes is a possibility in the future, Buttler isn't ready yet.

Bowling wise I think Dernbach has a lot to offer, alongside Broad and Swann. Anderson wouldn't be the worst choice to go with them.

Whats happened to Mal Loye? He had an awesome sweep off the quicks

Loye is not far short of age 39 and his form for Northants this season is indifferent at best. I think he's more or less lost his place in the first team - or is crocked - not sure which....

Broad as Captain was an odd one. Hes not exactly set the world on fire in any format through his career., although his, bowling was excellent in the T20 world cup it does seem odd that England are treating him as undropable for m any squad and looking to him for leadership when he clearly hasnt sorted his own game out yet.
Id have him in the side certainly, but Captain? Hmm.

England desperatly lack a strike bowler. They are still relying on trying to frustrate and contain teams rather than balance this with wicket taking, someone like a Tait or Malinga would be nice ....sadly they dont exist.

Wright is definatly an issue. He is only used sparingly for bowling and fails 9 time out of 10 with the bat. Too many faliures, which is frustrating because England consistnetly fail to find a player who can deliver in this position. Can we borrow Pollard?
Boparaas another odd one who seems only to be in the side because of the proper batsmen hes the best bowler. Unfortunatly his T20 record is pretty poor to mediocre, and again that bowling is rarely used aside from they go with 4 proper bowlers. Can someone fix Collingwood and make him like he was 5 years ago?

I also agree that trying to shoehorn in young players just to give them a taste of internatioonal cricket is the wrong appraoch. The side should be based around the test players, who in theory have the best technique ability and get the best use of the England facilities through the whole season. This should then be bolstered by specialists with a proven track record in T20, not players like Rashid whos success has been in the 4 day game not limited overs.

Bresnan being injured probably doesnt help matters either but hes hardly a global superstar.

the team's problem is that lumb and kieswtter think they can do what they did in the carriben which was to hit through the line of the ball, you cant do that in england against the seaming ball, you have to be more watchful

I don't think that's the problem, cricketfan, they both have pretty decent records in England, they play their cricket here and have done well here. I think they were just a bit too eager to impress the other day and didn't given themselves a little time to play themselves in. Players like this will come off at times and not at others, that's the way it is.

Bell cant be in the middle order. he bats way too slowly to come in at 4. wouldn't mind if he opened though and Kiesweeter came in at 5.

Bell can score at a perfectly acceptable t20 rate...did you happen to miss his 60ish off 40 odd balls in the Sri Lanka test?

If the top 4 fire then he won't need to score super quickly, if they fail then he is there to rebuild and do the job that needs doing. He is perfectly capable of scoring quickly enough these days.

Carrotdude wrote:I don't think that's the problem, cricketfan, they both have pretty decent records in England, they play their cricket here and have done well here. I think they were just a bit too eager to impress the other day and didn't given themselves a little time to play themselves in. Players like this will come off at times and not at others, that's the way it is.

Trouble is Lumbs not coming off anywhere near often enough in Internationals, well frankly at all.
In 8 innings Lumbs managed a high score of 33, more than half his scores have been below 15. Thats almsot Luke Wright territory.
Kieswetter (thats how its spelt by the way folks!) has managed one good innings of 63 as well as a 39 and 41 in 12 attempts. Trouble is hes backed that up with half his scores being below 20. Nowhere near as bad but hardly setting the world on fire.

With these two batting together either one is going to have to go against their natural game and reign it in or youd expect more often than not both to be out quickly and cheaply. Thats then huge pressure on the middle order. Once in a blue moon they will come off and England will have a score thats tough to beat, but more often they will be limiting the rest of the team and putting England in trouble.
It would be nice to balance one happy slapper with a proper technical strokeplayer at the top, then save the other to go mental down the order in place of Wright. When Keiswetter did make his big score it was mostly batting alongside Pietersen, Lumb got out quickly.

I was reading an article/quote by Mike Atherton today where he was saying that he doesn't expect either Stuart Broad or Cook to be in charge of the limited overs sides in 2 years. He seemed particularly unimpressed with the decisions to appoint Cook and he suspected that Eoin Morgan would take over both captaincies in the not too distant future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2008374/Eoin-Morgan-England-captain-urges-Mike-Atherton.html

On the talk of T20 cricket, I don't think Bell is a t20 player. I can put him in my ODI side, just about, but I don't like him as a t20 player. Let him concentrate on remaining a superb test batman. Lumb and Kieswetter deserve their chances at the top of the order after they did so well in the Caribbean.

Luke Wright isn't international standard at all and he never will be, he is dead wood. But saying that Jos Buttler isn't ready yet either. He has been far too inconsistent this year, like somebody already mentioned, so needs more time.

I like Dernbach. He had some good slower balls and nice variations. I think he could definitely do a job in the limited over forms. I don't particularly rate Woakes at the moment. I don't think his batting or bowling is good enough to get him selected, especially in t20's. He just needs an extra yard of pace for the t20's or some cleverer variation but he definitely has potential although perhaps more so in ODI's and tests.

My side:

Lumb
Kieswetter
Pietersen
Hales
Morgan
Patel
Trego*
Bresnan
Broad
Swann
Dernbach

*I am sure there is someone better than Pirate Pete for the number 7, rope clearing batsman role but I can think of anyone right now!

I think Lumb deserves a few more chances yet. Lumb and Kieswetter performed superbly in the world cup

I would turf Wright and bring in Rashid. He was leading wicket-taker in last year's T20 wasn't he? He was also a big player for South Australia in winning the Big Bash at the beginning of the year. Opened the bowling for them if I am correct.

Lumb
Kieswetter
KP
Bell/Bopara/Morgan
Morgan/Bopara
Patel
Rashid
Woakes
Bresnan
Swann
Broad

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Carrotdude wrote:I don't think that's the problem, cricketfan, they both have pretty decent records in England, they play their cricket here and have done well here. I think they were just a bit too eager to impress the other day and didn't given themselves a little time to play themselves in. Players like this will come off at times and not at others, that's the way it is.

Trouble is Lumbs not coming off anywhere near often enough in Internationals, well frankly at all.
In 8 innings Lumbs managed a high score of 33, more than half his scores have been below 15. Thats almsot Luke Wright territory.
Kieswetter (thats how its spelt by the way folks!) has managed one good innings of 63 as well as a 39 and 41 in 12 attempts. Trouble is hes backed that up with half his scores being below 20. Nowhere near as bad but hardly setting the world on fire.

With these two batting together either one is going to have to go against their natural game and reign it in or youd expect more often than not both to be out quickly and cheaply. Thats then huge pressure on the middle order. Once in a blue moon they will come off and England will have a score thats tough to beat, but more often they will be limiting the rest of the team and putting England in trouble.
It would be nice to balance one happy slapper with a proper technical strokeplayer at the top, then save the other to go mental down the order in place of Wright. When Keiswetter did make his big score it was mostly batting alongside Pietersen, Lumb got out quickly.

Anyone else notice the irony of the bold parts I have highlighted?

Sorry Pete, couldn't resist

Trouble is we're not playing another T20 for a while so it's difficult to get any kind of form going. I don't think Lumb is the answer to open in this form for us but we don't have that many better options, like I said before Hales could be a more long term solution. I would say that right now Kieswetter deserves another go now after coming back from being dropped the first time, hopefully he has learnt from that experience.

either way it comes down to u have to play in a more measured apporach against the new ball in england then u have to do in the carribean

Very true. I genuinely think they were just too eager to impress on Saturday, it was the only T20 game and so the only chance to make an impression for the next match which will be a long way away (doesn't look like we're playing one against India which is strange).

Either way this problem doesn't bother me half as much as our struggles in ODI's, I hope we find the right formula in this coming series.

only a one off t20 at the end of the day

cricketfan90 wrote:only a one off t20 at the end of the day

There should be at least 3 T20, in each tour.

Why all the Wright hate? As a Sussex fan I might be biased but his game is so much better than a few years ago. Why England insist on playing him at 7 is beyond me, plus he's a good backup fast bowler.

And CF90, why are you so anti-t20 atm?

Gregers wrote:Why all the Wright hate? As a Sussex fan I might be biased but his game is so much better than a few years ago. Why England insist on playing him at 7 is beyond me, plus he's a good backup fast bowler.

And CF90, why are you so anti-t20 atm?

At county level his game may seemed to have improved but not for England. It's chance after another for Luke Englands patience surely starting to run out now.

He is a good county player, on his day he is a fantastic one day opener and good lower order 4 day batsman. However, he does not have the technique required to face the new ball at international level and isn't the right player to come in lower down at the end of an innings when the field is back, he's not the 6 hitter that they want him to be down there.

i also think the critcism of luke wright is too harsh.

cricketfan90 wrote:i also think the critcism of luke wright is too harsh.

When you are acrrying a player and your team is losing its fairly inevitable that that player will be critisized.
His T20 record is comparable to Maharoofs test record, except the Sri Lankans dropped him. Wrights ODI record is no better really.
England refussed to pick Ramprakash for years because they felt he didnt handle test cricket despite reguallry averaging in the 90's across a season in the CC. Yet Luke Wright gets a free pass.
Any batsman who has the majority of his innings ending in single figures (only one of those not out) is nothing short of a passenger. The excuse he scores qquickly doesnt wash either, he doesnt. His average of 15 is skewed up by his only good score against the might of the Netherlands.

The real frustartion with his selection though is the pointeleness of it. In limited overs he is far more succesful with the ball than he is with the bat, yet he is rarely used as a bowler. Its ridiculous. If hes going to be in the side then it has to be as a bowling all rounder, not as a batsman. When the side had Yardy in as well this was getting absurd though, because you had two players who were suppossed batsmen by trade but were often operating as frontline bowlers and failing with the bat. So again Wright copped flak as part of a gruesome dibbly dobbler dominated side ( also see paul collingwood)

Wright has bowled one over in his last 12 T20 internationals.

So why is he being selected? The criticism should be at the selectors as much as the player. In a time of austerity we cant afford luxuries, especialy not cheap knock off goods. One batsman who is relied on to pretend he can bowl once in a while is enough for any side, unless you have genuine all round talents. England clearly dont.

This isnt the reaction to one defeat, its the pent up frustration of those who have watched him play and fail time and again over a period of years in two formats. The ill will has gradualy built over time, Im far from one of those who hated him before he was picked, but the last year has firmly convinced me hes not fit for purpose at this level.

No I dont think dropping Wright will automaticaly fix the team, and yes the question remains "Ok who thgen?) but I find his inclussion in the side impossible to justify. Especially when theres an unemployed batsman sitting around looking boredoff the back of the 12 months of incredible form. Get a proper stroke player up front and let Kieswetter take over the happy slapper role down the order.