End of the T20 road...

On Sunday evening, the sporting world witnessed one of the great comebacks it has ever seen. The grit and determination shown by the European golfers in Chicago was enough to stir the emotions of even the disinterested sport fans among us.

Approximately 9,000 miles away, in the remote setting of Pallekele in the Hill Country of Kandy, Sri Lanka, the England T20 team watched on, inspired, I'm sure, by the feat of these fellow sportsman. Yorkshire youngster Jonny Bairstow tweeted: "Great win for the Ryder Cup lads! Hopefully we will carry it on this evening". England beating the hosts to progress to the semi-finals was nothing in comparison to the heroics produced by Poulter and co.,but it made one believe. Unfortunately, all this fuelled us with was unfounded optimism.

If England fans let their head rule their heart, they would come to the conclusion that not only Sri Lanka are a more superior team, but also that it would have been almost embarrassing if England had somehow made it into the last four. As expected, the unerring precision of Mahela Jayawardene with the bat and Lasith Malinga with the ball was more than enough to facilitate England's undoing, whose naivety left them wanting not for the first time in this competition.

It still boggles me why England change their team so much for the T20 format. Why do they go for youth and inexperience? Surely, like any other format, you need a mixture of both experience and youth? Let's look at some of the other nations batsmen at the T20 World Cup, starting with South Africa. They include Kallis, Amla, De Villers, Duminy. India; Gambhir, Sehwag, Dhoni, Kohli. New Zealand; Guptill, McCullum, Taylor. Australia; Watson, Warner, Hussey. West Indies; Gayle, Samuels, Bravo.

Then you look at England; Kieswetter, Hales, Wright, Bairstow, Buttler. These names don't match up to any of the above. I'm not suggesting to pick Cook and Trott, there needs to be some aggression in the short format. But I can't help but think that Ian Bell and Matt Prior have been sat at home for the last fortnight, watching their country produce mediocre performance after mediocre performance, thinking "why on earth aren't I playing?" Matt Prior has Test and ODI strike-rates of 64.82 and 76.76 respectively, and Ian Bell returning 51.26 and 74.54 to boot, which clearly suggests they 'get on with it'.

So why are they left out of the short format? Any cricket watcher knows that the way both of these men bat would be extremely effective in T20 cricket, not to mention the added experience and balance it would bring to the England side.

Of course, there is the small matter of the best T20 batsman in the world being omitted for understandable reasons, but when he's back in the mix, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later, England all of a sudden look like a threat. A top six consisting of Bell, Pietersen and Prior is surely a must for England, in any format.

I'm a firm believer that good players are good players, in any form of the game. They will adapt to suit. Based on the batting line-ups of the rest of the nations in the tournament, they believe this, too. 

For what it's worth, my ideal T20 XI for England would be: Bell, Pietersen, Wright, Morgan, Prior, Bairstow, Patel, Broad, Swann, Finn, Dernbach.

Flower's selection decisions will have to wait though, because England are out and have a small matter of a Test Series in India to prepare for. A mouth-watering clash. Will Kevin Pietersen be on that plane?