England lost the third T20 against New Zealand overnight. It was very much a 5/10 performance – by which I mean that a miserable collapse of five wickets for just ten paltry runs cost us the game. Doh!
It was a bit like watching the Test team in pyjamas. England were cruising at 139-2 off 14.4 overs and only needed 42 off 32 balls with two established batsmen in Vince and Morgan at the crease. But eighteen deliveries later we were 149-7 with all the recognised batsmen back in the hutch.
Unlike when the test team collapses, however, this capitulation came as a bit of a shock. Eoin Morgan’s teams are usually made of sterner stuff, and although one could argue that 6 and 7 in the order is one place too high for the likes of Sam Curran and Lewis Gregory, there was still more than enough batting to get the job done.
As often happens in this kind of scenario the debacle kicked off with a careless shot. This was compounded by a comedy run out (although Sam Billings certainly wasn’t laughing), a couple more poorly executed shorts, and some good bowling by the absolutely rapid Lockie Ferguson. It was all over before you could say “choke”.
However, it’s important to keep this game in perspective. This is really just a development tour, with England’s new management team bedding in and the selectors looking at some fresh faces. Furthermore, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that England were very competitive for most of this game and only threw it away at the death.
So who caught the eye and who might want the Men In Black to arrive at Ed Smith Manor and erase this game from his memory? First let’s discuss the winners.
Although he only bowled a couple of overs, I was really impressed with Matt Parkinson. He didn’t turn the ball much – I imagine he was more concerned with landing the ball in the right areas on debut – but he showed good composure, a feisty temperament, and a great deal of promise.
I particularly like the way that Parkinson gives the ball air and resists the temptation to push it through quickly. He’s actually pretty slow for an international leggie. But then so is Adil Rashid. I don’t see this as a massive problem until its proved otherwise.
It was also exciting to watch Tom Banton’s international debut. Although his innings was very much a cameo, he showed enough in his time at the crease to suggest that England might have unearthed a gem. It’s an unpolished gem at this stage but his potential is intriguing.
Although most observers will point to his first boundary, which was a classical drive through extra cover and very much one of the shots of the day, it was his second boundary that made my eyes pop out of my head like Wile E Coyote. Banton picked up a length ball from Ferguson and deposited it several rows back over cow corner.
Being a purist I’m not easily impressed by slogs but this one was special. The sound it made off young Tom’s bat was mouthwatering and the speed of his hands remarkable. This lad has some style. What’s more, the speedometer showed that the delivery was 147kph (well over 90mph). This must mean that he’s blessed with rare hand-eye coordination.
The only real individual loser from the game was probably Saqib Mahmood. He’s struggled thus far on tour and hasn’t shown either the pace, accuracy, or the variation required at this level. I’ve seen him bowl a lot better (and faster) for Lancs so I’m not sure what’s up.
Finally we come to those who will have mixed feelings on the day’s proceedings – Vince and Dawid Malan. On the surface it looks like both guys enjoyed pretty productive days. Malan made a typically languid yet destructive 55 off 34 balls, and Vince made 49 off 39. However, both of them will be disappointed that they didn’t turn these excellent starts into match-defining innings.
The problem for Malan and Vince is that there’s so much competition for their places. They really need to do something special to win a place in the T20 World Cup squad with the likes of Root, Stokes, and Buttler (who has sometimes opened in this format) set to return.
I feel particularly sorry for Malan. Dawid has an absolutely superb T20 record for England. He’s now made five half-centuries in just eight appearances and has an average of 44 with a strike rate of 147. That’s world class.
Unfortunately, however, Malan always seems to be the first player dropped for someone with a bigger reputation irrespective of how he performs. What’s more, the emergence of Tom Banton now provides even more competition.
It’s interesting that Malan has just left Middlesex to sign a contract with Yorkshire. I bet he wishes he could move national teams too.
James Morgan
Subscribe to receive new article notifications via email
So assuming that the top 6 contains Roy, Bairstow, Moeen, Morgan, Stokes and Buttler in some order, does that mean the vacancy for back-up batsman in the T20 WC squad is between Root, Banton, Malan, Vince and Billings? A few batsman look likely to be very disappointed…
I would’ve thought that Root is ahead of Moeen in the pecking order. Moeen might be competing for an all rounder spot. But yes I completely agree with your broader point. Hard to see how there’s any space for either Vince, Malan, and maybe Billings too. Banton is also an outsider at this point too although a lot might change before November next year. Perhaps we shouldn’t forget Alex Hales either.
Moeen’s surely just a better T20 batsman than Root? SR of 171 in the Blast and 165 in IPL this year. And if he doesn’t bat around the top 3/4 he ends up having to bat at the death which is not quite his game. However, it’s possible that the management may go with Root anyway I guess…amazingly Stokes looks as though he could end up playing the slightly grittier role in the team just by virtue of not being quite as destructive as everyone else!
It’s an interesting one this. Moeen has certainly done well in the domestic competitions but his T20 record for England is very modest – an average of just 15 and a strike rate of 119. I know he doesn’t always get the same opportunity to get his eye in as the top order players, but that strike rate is a bit below par wherever he bats.
Root’s T20 international record is good – an average of 36 and a strike rate of 126. However, I’ve often argued that England don’t really need Joe in T20 and I’d prefer him to rest up for Tests and ODIs i.e. keep him fresh for the forms of the game that matter more.
I tend to agree with you that Root will probably play anyway. It would just seem like a massive call to leave someone of Root’s quality and reputation out.
I don’t see the point at all of International T20s when there are umpteen Tournaments around the World throughout the year featuring dozens of International players. Surely it’s just unnecessary overkill? Result forgotten in 5 minutes? Wouldn’t it have been far more exciting to play the Kiwis in a 3 March 50 over after the heroics of the WC?
But I’m not a fan….
Mahmood had a wonderful season In the 50 over, but was very up and down in the others. If you have seen him bowl well for Lancs the chances are it was 50 over. Clearly the World Cup Selection was the right one but if he had been selected for that it would have been difficult to criticise
Parkinson on the other hand is a really good T20 bowler and I am not in the slightest surprised to see him do well there. But he barely played for Lancs in anything else last year so if he does well in the remaining games I will be delighted
I’m amazed that Parkinson isn’t selected more for other formats–his f-c record is pretty good. Particularly since Lancs played two-thirds of their Championship games with no specialist spinner and quite often only selected three specialist bowlers.
If I was him, I’d seriously consider asking for a red-ball loan or a change of county if Chapple keeps this business up!
S. Mahmood (Lancs) is beginning to give me deja vu! Talked up by half the world as the best thing since sliced bread, averages 31.5 for Lancs and doesn’t quite look the part for England. I know it’s very early days and I’m being somewhat tongue in cheek here, but….remind you of anyone?!
I guess this is where’s the coaching staff earn their corn.
There’s this idea that 20-20 is a young man’s game. I would say the evidence is to the contrary, that the more experienced pros are more reliable at the limited over formats generally, as there is precious little room for error, you taking more risks, so you need to be comfortable with your game to make better decisions.
Youngsters will always be more inconsistent, as they tend to be reactors, which has been a problem we’ve addressed with some success in recent years, at least in the white ball game. It’s no coincidence the likes of Collingwood and Morgan have been in charge of setting the standards here.