StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
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.
Last edited: