England side to play NZ in the T20 on Friday

This is the kind of side I'd like to see England putting out to play New Zealand on Friday. I'm not saying it's the finished article, I'm saying I think this 'type' of side has the best chance of being successful.

Having watched some of the IPL, we can learn a lot from the way those sides have played. The most successful sides in T20 bat all the way down. This is critical, because quite often it's left to the last 3 or 4 batsmen to scramble those last few runs you need for victory and that's why you must have experienced players able to 'step up to the plate' at the end of the innings.

The absolute key to success in T20 is having players right through the side who can 'think on their feet' and adapt their gameplan according to what's needed in the current game situation. This applies to batting as well as bowling.

It's pointless packing the side full of Test quality line and length bowlers - because they'll get carted all over the place in T20 if they bowl line and length. We've seen that happen time and time again. Bowlers must be able to think on their feet and mix and match their bowling with variation balls, slower balls, yorkers, bouncers, cutters etc and they must be accurate. They must also be able to contribute with the bat.

Rob Key must be brought into that side at the top of the order in my opinion. He's vastly experienced in County T20, he captained Kent to the title last year and has a pretty decent average in that format. I also saw him batting today and he really seems to have got his T20 game sorted out - he's also very good at thinking on his feet and adapting his game. Luke Wright can partner him and with those pair I think England have the best chance of getting off to a good start - setting or chasing a total.

A middle order of Bell, Pietersen and Bopara speaks for itself - all experienced at international level and all perfectly able to think on their feet, adapt their game and move the game on in the middle period.

A lower middle order of Collingwood, Ambrose and Mascarenhas also speaks for itself. All internationals and all capable of finishing a game off. My only reservation is Ambrose, personally I'd swop in Solanki for him, I simply do not see the advantage or 'added value' of playing a specialist keeper in T20, when all they have to do is keep wicket for 20 overs.

A tail of Broad, Swann and Sidebottom also speaks for itself, all experienced International Cricketers who can contribute with bat and ball.

The bowling resources, and let's not forget here that all we want is 24 balls from 5 bowlers, bowled accurately and mixed up. Sidebottom, Broad, Mascarenhas, Collingwood, Bopara, Swann and Wright can all bowl a tidy 4 overs.

Somehow I doubt very much whether the side that plays will have any resemblance at all to the one I've selected. I expect to see the same old tired faces from the Test side, the same old specialist line and length bowlers like Anderson, who'll get carted all over the place like he usually does, the same old specialist wicket keeper who isn't a T20 specialist and the same old tired batsmen only batting half the way down.

New Zealand will win because of their batting depth - see if I'm not proved right.

1 Key
2 Wright
3 Bell
4 Pietersen
5 Bopara
6 Collingwood
7 Ambrose
8 Mascarenhas
9 Broad
10 Swann
11 Sidebottom

Surely Mustard should get the gloves. I'm not sure where he should bat (whether as pinch hitter or down the order), but he can clearly do a job in either role.... and his glovework should be at a premium (especially if you expect Bopara and Collingwood to bowl: someone better than Ambrose is called for).

On the batting... the choices seem to me to all be much of a muchness: I'd rather see Shah and Joyce than Denly and Key... but I wouldn't be surprised if Prior gets in ahead of all four.

On the bowlers... shouldn't Udal be in contention? Possibly in addition to Swann?

As I said, it's not definitive and Mustard would probably be a better choice than Ambrose, particularly if played down the order rather than at the top of it. But Ambrose hasn't been tried in the shorter format and I think it's only fair he's given a go.

I'm surprised you think that because I purposefully mixed up the batting, so it wasn't samey. There's a fairly good mix of players who can play agressively (Key, Wright, Pietersen, Bopara and Collingwood) and a fair mix who can bat more conservatively according to the circumstances (Key, Bell, Collingwood, Ambrose, Broad). It's no mistake that Key and Collingwood are in both camps because they have the ability to read, access and bat accordingly. The key to success in T20 is that in my opinion - flexiblity and thinking on your feet.

The person I'd drop, to replace with another batsman - Shah or Joyce, would be Wright. But in my opinion, Wright offers more with his death bowling and his aggressive big hitting batting, than both of those two. But I think they're good picks and thought about both of them when I made up my II, I wouldn't have a problem with playing either of them in place of injuries to others.

Denly in my opinion is an excellent future prospect, but from what I've seen of him and read and heard about him - he isn't ready yet. Key however is, and has made an excellent case for himself in County T20 to be included and now is the time in my opinion to bring him in. He has a lot of T20 experience.

Well, in my opinion, Prior needs to play as a Keeper/batsman or not at all. It's silly playing him as a batsman only.

One spinner in that side in my opinion is more than enough, particularly when you have bowlers like Collingwood, Bopara and Mascarenhas who can take the pace off the ball, just like a spinner can when it's required. Pure spin bowling is rarely ever effective in T20, mostly because the pitches they play on are never worn and therefore don't spin. Taking the pace off and slow bowling tactics - yes, but spin on its own is rarely effective.

In any case, what you need in T20 is variation, variation and more variation. Ideally every single ball bowled in 20 overs should be different and set a different set of problems than any that have gone before or follow it. In that sense I don't see the point of playing two off spinners, Yardy and Swann perhaps, or even Tredwell coming in for Swann.

Well, This looks to be the England squad for the T20 on Friday -

Collingwood (capt)
Ambrose (Wkt)
Anderson
Bell
Bopara
Broad
Cook
Mascarenhas
Pietersen
Sidebottom
Shah
Swann
Tremlett
Wright

In my opinion, Anderson and Cook should not be in it.

I'm trusting that Wright and Tremlett will be two of those to miss out... with the big question mark being over who (if anyone) makes way for Anderson

Cook
Bell
Shah
Pietersen
Bopara
Collingwood (capt)
Ambrose (Wkt)
Broad
Mascarenhas
Swann
Sidebottom

I'd probably wait on conditions before deciding on the Anderson issue...

No doubt he'll play on the back of his successes in the last Test, but it's a big mistake in my mind.

Why why why is Cook there? He is NOT a short format batsman, he has limited scoring shots and he cannot or struggles to adapt his game according to the conditions.

Someone please explain to me the logic of playing Cook in a T20 side.

I'm not even convinced he should be in the 50 over side let alone the T20!!! And on present form his Test place is far from safe.

I'm more concerned with Cook's Test limitations (ability to play the ball late and leave outside off stump and technique when defending against high quality spin) than I am about his abilities as a ODI player. I still rate him as one of the best openers in Test cricket... but he's got developing to do... whereas he seems to be getting there in pyjamas!

Langer started life as the < 3 runs per over "Test" batsman... but developed into a free-scoring player. Cook's perhaps very different, but he's shown over the last few months that he's also developed. Sure, he's unlikely to ever be the master of opening the face of the bat that (say) Shah can be... but he can play orthodox shots square of the wicket as well as playing straight... and so long as he develops his running between the wickets and catching (both praised a lot this season) I see no reason why he shouldn't thrive.

Notts, I would tend to agree with you.

I have far less problem with him in the ODI side than the T20, but I'm still not convinced he's the right person in ODI. There is a place for a batsman scoring runs by 'conventional' scoring strokes and acting as anchor for the rest of the team to play around. Cooks 'apparent' batting technical fault combined with his 'relatively' slow scoring rate suggest that he's perhaps not the right person to be opening the batting in the powerplay overs, where England must maximise their scoring if they're ever to be successful in ODI.

It's not so much his 'form' in Test Cricket that concerns me as his propensity to get 'out' in very similar repeating scenarios, this rather says there's something wrong with his decision making process that needs to be sorted out. I have no doubts and I don't think many people have any doubts that Cook has the ability, technique, temperament and mental ability to be very successful in Test Cricket, but he's young and still inexperienced and had a great start in Test Cricket. But now bowlers around he world have spotted a 'chink' in his armoury and they're exploiting it - this happens, Flintoff did the same thing to Gilchrist.

I can only assume the England camp are working on it with him and hope they can solve it without having to drop him, but I think he needs to go back to County Cricket for a while.

This is the one Cricinfo reckons -

1 Luke Wright
2 Ravi Bopara
3 Kevin Pietersen
4 Paul Collingwood (capt)
5 Owais Shah
6 Tim Ambrose (wk)
7 Dimitri Mascarenhas
8 Stuart Broad,
9 Graeme Swann
10 Ryan Sidebottom
11 James Anderson.