The sad thing is, the selectors seem totally unaware that selection is an irrelevant factor in twenty20 matches. Random chance is the chief determinant of the outcome, so doesn’t matter who you pick.
The format is so devoid of skill, that England could have picked an entirely different side, and it still wouldn’t have made a difference. These “specialists” would swing the bat, as anyone would, and their success is subject to the same laws of probability. All we can hope for is a favourable statistical blip.
I stuck up for the format; it is not Test cricket, no, but is a vibrant format of the game that can swing irrevocably in the space of a few balls. This does not mean it is skill-less; rather it is played on a tightrope under extremely intensive pressure (like the death overs of a ODI). But, like any format of cricket, those with the highest skill levels - bowlers with variety and nerve; and batsmen with a range of shots, the ability to score off every ball and a temperament that prevents them getting carried away will consistently fare the best. And it has reinvogorated the county game, though there is certainly an argument that it should not be played internationally.
If this format is so devoid of skill then why have the best batsman (Mark Ramprakash) and best bowler (Mushtaq Ashtaq) done so well in Twenty20 over the five seasons of domestic Twenty20?
So, is Twenty20 a true test of skill or is it too much of a cricketing lottery for your liking?