England

[StinkyBoHoon]

Well guess who has the best T20I record since the last world Cup? It's England... Sure they've only played 4 games, but they won 3. (Pakistan played 6 and won 5, but 3 were against Bangladesh, Canada and Zimbabwe - so they don't count in my book).

This is why saying 'this country is great at T20' or 'this country sucks' is just stupid IMHO. For starters the games are so short, it's easy to have upsets (see Zimbabwe beating Australia at the last World Cup). One bad/good over could win you the game. Secondly, the countries have hardly played any games to judge their quality. Australia and New Zealand have played the most T20s since the last World Cup - a whopping 10 And then people say Australia don't have the experience at T20 to win the WC As though those extra 15 IPL games the Indians or South Africans have instead will give their players some super encyclopedic-like knowledge of T20 tactics. It's just rubbish...



And Adil Rashid in for Flintoff?? I'm surprised, anyone else surprised?

you make some good points but england have only actually beaten new zealand in that time. Not that new zealand are pushovers by any stretch but you can't judge form against only playing one team. Also, it wasn't an official match but the stanford 20/20 thing was basically the england team and they were demolished in that. an article I just read on cricinfo points out that barring NZ and the windies they've yet to beat any of the top teams ever in twenty20

also, I see what you're saying about australia, it's a valid point, but I still feel that playing twenty20 for two months, nothing else, pure focus on that format, and not having to relearn anything will be a big advantage. Also, not one aussie has featured in every one of those 10 games. so no one actually has that 10 game experience.

 

[sifter132]

^ Good counter points.

But I think it just reinforces the fact that there is hardly any history to go on and that predictions seem futile for this tournament. It's so short that anything could happen, and I think almost anyone could win. I mean in theory, India could collapse against Ireland, make only 100 and they are virtually out of the tournament after 20 overs - it's that easy. Unlikely to happen, but still it wouldn't take much to change the tournament completely.

Sidebottom actually has a very good T20 record. 26 wickets at 17, going at just over 6 an over, but I would rather play Broad ahead of him, because of what Broad offers with the bat and in the field, and the extra pace that Broad offers. He bowled quite a few deliveries that read 93mph in the ODi series just gone, he's one of the quickest OD bowlers in the world atm.

Yes Sidebottom has a really good T20 record. Jimmy Anderson on the other, not so good. But I imagine Anderson will play ahead of Sidebottom right?

And Broad, while he CAN bat I'm not sure if that will really be required. If Napier, Mascarenhas and Swann all play say at 6-9 (Foster in there too) - you don't really need a guy at 10 who can bat. Even at 9 it's debatable whether you really need too much batting ability. But yeah I think Broad probably should play anyway. Apart from one certain over in his career, his figures look pretty good and he'll only improve.

England are still my dark horse pick for this - along with Australia. That's even without Flintoff.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

one thing I do think is a bit odd about englands team.

ok flintoff's injured, he would have been in the team was he fit. but adil rashid as replacement. understandable was it not for the fact that samit patel, fit or not, (And we are talking twenty20 fit, a short format in which guys pushing 40 have exceled) is carving up the domestic tournaments.

he took 6!! against ireland two weeks ago, he's taking wickets every game and scoring heavily. so he's fat? he's good, I feel the initial snub could be justified as his desire might be questioned seeing as he has not forfilled certain goals. but as a back up, must be first choice.