A mission without vision?
Harry Brook is 26. When asked whether Joe Root, England’s most complete batter across all formats and conditions, was even considered for a late entry into the T20 World Cup squad, the England captain barely paused.
“Probably not, no,” Brook told The Telegraph.
Root, despite being “phenomenal” during the ODI series against Sri Lanka and having “done it everywhere”, was simply not part of the plan. That single answer explains modern selection thinking better than any official statement. England do not select on sentiment or influence. They select on relevance.
Joe Root averages 53.57 in T20s in India. He has never played a T20 in Sri Lanka, yet his record in the country borders on the absurd: an average of 65.5 in Tests and 76 in ODIs. He plays spin late, manipulates the field, absorbs pressure and accelerates when required. These are precisely the skills demanded by slow, abrasive Asian conditions.
And still, Root was left out of the World Cup squad. Not because he is finished. Not because he lacks quality. But because England have decided to move forward without him. That distinction matters.
Now turn to Sri Lanka Cricket, where ‘experience’ is not a factor but a doctrine. A shield. Often an excuse.
Dasun Shanaka, 34, continues as T20 captain with a career strike rate of 125. In Men’s T20 World Cups since 2016, his numbers are sobering. Across 18 innings, Shanaka has scored 221 runs at an average of 17 and a strike rate of 109.95. No fifties. No centuries. For a batting all-rounder in the modern game, those numbers are not leadership credentials. They do not even warrant a place in a side that seriously intends to compete on the world stage.
Yet Shanaka remains central, and insists on the inclusion of Kusal Janith Perera, the same age as Joe Root. Kusal Perera was once a match-winner. That is beyond dispute. But World Cups measure what you are, not what you were.
In T20 World Cups between 2014 and 2021, Perera scored 248 runs in 14 innings at an average of 19.07. His strike rate of 134.78 looks respectable in isolation, until weighed against his inconsistency and long absence from sustained international impact. Selectors, according to sources, were hesitant. The captain and coach were not. Past deeds and big-match reputation carried the argument. Sri Lanka, once again, appear to be selecting careers rather than cricketers.
“We know that experienced players are very valuable in a World Cup,” Shanaka said ahead of the England series.
“If you take strike rates, Kusal Janith can be used anywhere in the top six.”
The problem is that Sri Lanka’s World Cup numbers do not support that confidence. Charith Asalanka, often spoken of as a middle-order pillar, actually owns the strongest World Cup record among the current group. Since 2021, he has scored 433 runs in World Cups at an average of 33.30 and a strike rate of 134.89. Those are numbers that justify responsibility. Yet Asalanka lost the captaincy and continues to drift through roles without clarity. His form has deserted him badly of late.
Kusal Mendis, in contrast, has delivered volume without dominance. In T20 World Cups since 2022, he averages 29.80 with a strike rate of 133.63. Useful, but not transformative. Pathum Nissanka’s record is satisfactory. Eighteen World Cup innings have produced 485 runs, but at a paltry strike rate of just 114.92.
Dhananjaya de Silva, reintroduced after a two-year absence, has 232 World Cup runs at a strike rate of 122.75. Competent. Not defining.
This is Sri Lanka’s top and middle order at World Cups: collectively experienced, yet collectively operating well below the tempo demanded at elite level. Compare that with India, where strike rates of 140 and above are the norm rather than the exception. The difference is not tactical. It is philosophical.
And yet, the response remains unchanged. Rotate the same names. Talk up experience. Hope intent arrives on its own. It does not. And after Friday’s defeat, what happens now? Possibly Dhananjaya de Silva will be left out for the remainder of the series, Kusal Janith brought back, or Pavan Rathnayake thrown into deep waters to bail out a pathetic unit that boasts nothing but mediocrity.
When asked about Kamindu Mendis, Shanaka deflected responsibility. “That’s a question you should ask the selectors. We take decisions as a group.” Groups, in this setup, seem very good at ensuring no one owns the outcome.
Kamindu’s T20 numbers are modest. An average under 20 last year. But so are many of those already entrenched. The difference is that Kamindu represents development. Others represent comfort. The selectors, however, made a bold call at the eleventh hour, just minutes before the deadline to submit the official list to the International Cricket Council (ICC), axing de Silva and bringing in Kamindu Mendis. Sanity has prevailed at last. Not that Kamindu will win matches overnight, but at least he represents the future.
The inclusion of Pavan Rathnayake after his maiden ODI century against England reinforces the sense of reactive selection. At 23, he is clearly one for the future, and his composure against spin marks him out as a cricketer of promise. But was he part of the World Cup plan before that hundred? If so, why was he overlooked for the Pakistan series? These are questions that demand answers.
His domestic T20 record, meanwhile, is unambiguous. An average of 12 and a strike rate of 100 from 35 matches is not World Cup readiness. It is potential. And potential, at this level, should be nurtured, not rushed.
The bowling selections only deepen the confusion. Nuwan Thushara, a proven T20 specialist with franchise pedigree, including a title-winning season with RCB, was overlooked. Pramod Madushan was preferred, only to now face the prospect of missing the World Cup altogether. Selection first. Clarity later.
Traveen Mathew’s omission fits neatly into this pattern. Identified as a possible X-factor, he was dropped once discomfort set in and the captain requested Maheesh Theekshana, a player who has struggled for form for some time. Risk was briefly entertained, then swiftly abandoned. If Mathew was good enough to be considered, he was good enough to be trusted earlier. Instead, he remains another unfinished idea.
Off the field, the noise grows louder. Players sent back from Kandy at the eleventh hour. Attitude issues discussed selectively. Camps and loyalties whispered about more than match-ups or game plans. Selection appears reactive, not strategic. What Sri Lanka Cricket lack is not talent alone. It is clarity.
England leave out Joe Root because they know exactly what they want. Sri Lanka keep picking and unpicking the same names because they are unsure what they are trying to become.
Experience has become a comfort blanket. Youth is treated as risk. Numbers are quoted selectively. Intent is spoken about far more than it is shown.
Until Sri Lanka Cricket learn to separate past achievement from present relevance, this cycle will continue. And no amount of so-called experience will hide the truth that the modern game is moving forward while Sri Lanka remain stubbornly, and comfortably, looking back.