With England coming unstuck against Australia in the Twenty20 World Cup (let's call the tournament that, because that's what it is), it's time to rethink the experiment with Matt Prior at the top of the order. I'm not anti-Prior. But he is not going to win any international matches opening the batting. He consistently scores run-a-ball 20-somethings, but he has one 50 in three years of international cricket. That record suggests he would be very useful down the order - and also that he is not classy enough to best international opening bowlers.
Meanwhile, Freddie Flintoff seems lost at No6 in 50-over cricket (being a biffer and not a nurdler) and is too low down the Twenty20 pecking order. So why not open the batting with him? The last time England were a good one day-side we had a world class all-rounder opening (Ian Botham in the 1992 World Cup). Flintoff will win us some games. Of course, he will fail sometimes, but that is what happens to openers. And as Mike Selvey recently said, Freddie's body would last longer if he ditched Test matches and concentrated on the one-day stuff.
The rest of the batting order is similarly upside down. Luke Wright can clearly hit the ball well, but it is asking an awful lot of his talents to throw them in against international class bowlers early. He may produce a match-winning 40 in 20 balls in this tournament, but he is not Adam Gilchrist.
The answer, surely, is that Pietersen and Collingwood should both bat above Wright and Prior. It's not rocket science. Twenty20 cricket is short and intense. You need your best players to be given the opportunity to bat for as long as possible, and - unlike in longer forms of cricket - a batsman will be facing the new ball, wherever he bats. Pietersen and Collingwood are England's best players, they should bat three and four.
I'm not saying this is the wrong England team for the tournament. But it is in the wrong order.
